Supreme Court Strikes Down Heart of Voting Rights Act, Endangers Many Voters’ Rights

The Supreme Court is currently considering a number of issues that could make a major difference in what the future of America looks like, from affirmative action to same-sex marriage. Today they made a ruling that seems more fitting for the past than the future — they struck down a key component of the Voting Rights Act, specifically the portion which requires states to get federal permission before they can make changes to their voting laws.

The Voting Rights Act dates back to 1965, and was created in response to the fact that discriminatory and racist voting laws, like the practice of requiring that citizens pass a “literacy test” (when black citizens’ access to education was severely restricted), disenfranchised many black and African-American voters across the nation. The VRA instituted federal oversight of voting practices, requiring that states with a history of voter disenfranchisement get clearance from the Department of Justice before making any changes to their voting laws. The VRA has been renewed four times; the most recent renewal would have kept the Act in place until 2031. But after the most recent election, Shelby County of Alabama brought a case arguing that since they had basically equal voter turnout from black and white voters, the VRA was unfair to them and no longer needed.

Today, the Supreme Court agreed with them, by a vote of 5-4, declaring the provision which requires federal clearance for certain states to be unconstitutional. The part in question, Section 4, designates which states are to be singled out for federal clearance, was still using data from 1975. Shelby County’s claim, which the court has supported, says that data is no longer reflective of reality; essentially, that we have moved on from the kind of racial discrimination that was commonly practiced in 1975 and no longer need laws to protect citizens from it. The decision was written by Justice Roberts, who said that:

“In 1965, the states could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics… Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were.”

Whether or not Justice Roberts thinks that the nation is still ‘divided,’ the country has seen its fair share of controversy over voter laws in the past few years that, for many, call into question whether voter discrimination is truly a thing of the past. Literacy tests are no longer a common practice, but a law in Pennsylvania that would have required very specific photo identification for voting was halted just before the election in November 2012. Much like literacy tests, these laws don’t include any language that specifically discriminates against people of color; purportedly, they exist to protect against voter fraud, although no legislative body has ever been able to prove that voter fraud is attempted often enough to be a legitimate concern to anyone. But a 2012 study found that voter ID laws would in fact “disproportionately demobilize” young voters of color, who were much less likely than other groups to have the photo ID that voting required. The study found that “overall turnout… by young people of color ages 18-29 could fall by somewhere between 538,000 to 696,000 in states with photo ID laws. …Nine percent of whites don’t have such ID, compared with 25 percent of blacks and 16 percent of Hispanics, the Brennan study said.”

Additionally, in 2012 the Williams Institute found that voter ID laws “may create substantial barriers to voting and possible disenfranchisement for over 25,000 transgender voters this November.” 41% of transgender citizens surveyed said they didn’t have an updated driver’s license, 74% did not have an updated passport, and 27% had no documents that listed their true gender.

For context, these are laws that are already perfectly legal and enforceable even with the Voting Rights Act in place. Without the VRA, states would have freedom to go much further than this without any pushback from the federal government. Laws like Arizona’s SB 1070 are a reminder that many states are perfectly willing to pass laws that openly discriminate against people of color, and there appear to be very few, if any, consequences for them.

Justice Roberts acknowledges that the fact that many states have racially balanced voter turnout is probably a result of the Voting Rights Act, but doesn’t explain in his decision how or why the benefits of the VRA would continue without the VRA in place. Analysts across the board have argued for some time now that one of the GOP’s major challenges is winning the Latin@ vote; without the VRA, there’s no need to work to create a platform that will appeal to Latin@ voters when they can just create laws that will make it difficult or impossible for Latin@s to vote at all. They won’t even have to wait to do so — the Supreme Court’s decision is taking effect immediately, and a voter ID law in Texas is already moving into place.

Congress remains “free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk,” but Roberts’ decision requires that they do so using “current data.” In addition to collecting and analyzing new data, Congress would also have to come to an agreement about which states require federal oversight, which is very unlikely given how politically divided and contentious the current Congress is. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsburg wrote that:

“The great man who led the march from Selma to Montgomery and there called for the passage of the Voting Rights Act foresaw progress, even in Alabama… “’The arc of the moral universe is long,’ he said, but ‘it bends toward justice,’ if there is a steadfast commitment to see the task through to completion.” That commitment has been disserved by today’s decision.”

President Obama has expressed “deep disappointment” with the decision. He makes that comment not only as the President, or as the nation’s first black President, but as someone who’s often co-opted as proof that America has moved beyond racism, when in fact his entire life is testament to the contrary. Frustratingly, his election provides many with the means to reassure themselves with the thought that the institutional racism the Voting Rights Acts works against is over, when in fact it’s unlikely Obama could ever have been elected without the VRA’s protections (it’s no coincidence that the spectre of “voter fraud” and voter ID laws which coincidentally target voters of color reached new heights of popularity during his re-election campaign). But Obama’s campaigns, especially his first, were marked by intense organizing effort for voter education, voter registration, and activism for voters’ rights. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, the nation will have to once again rely on these tactics and more if it wants its marginalized citizens to be actively represented in its government.

Also.Also.Also: Anti-Gay Workplace Discrimination Is Still Happening and Other Stories We Missed This Week

Here’s the news we missed while I was listening to Yeezus.

The SCOTUS on Gay Marriage: “Nope, Nothin’ Yet”

When it comes to two critical gay rights cases being decided upon soon in the Supreme Court, I’m gonna get my Rafiki on and dramatically say it is time.

Except oh, oops, no, nevermind. Not today. It’s not time yet. What the fuck is taking so long? Is it the gears grinding in Anthony Kennedy’s head? Is it the Ghost of Lack of Gay Friends Past? Is it getting the files in order? Are the robes being dry-cleaned? CAN A SISTA GET A RULING ON HER FUTURE OVER HERE?

Maybe on Thursday.

Total Dick Move

This shit is the worst.

+ Poland’s first openly gay lawmaker was attacked Saturday in Warsaw following the Gay Pride parade.

+ According to Focus on the Family, trans* people don’t exist.

+ Should anyone really be protecting “gay marriage critics?”

+ Grace University expelled a student for being gay – and then demanded she pay back her scholarship.

Hey, This Is A Cool Thing

I wouldn’t lie to you. We’ve been over this before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NlCSfM4kKUw

Ending Discrimination in the Workplace Apparently Not A Universal Goal for Us as Humans

Obama wants to end discrimination against LGBT folks in the workplace… OR DOES HE? We may never know. That’s politics.

What we do know is this: Marco Rubio does not support gays in the workplace. But he’s totally not a shitty human being or anything.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who is touted as a top GOP presidential prospect in 2016, thinks it should be legal to fire someone for their sexual orientation.
ThinkProgress spoke with the Florida Senator at the opening luncheon of the annual Faith and Freedom Forum on Thursday and asked him about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill to make discrimination against LGBT individuals illegal across the country.
Though Rubio bristles at the notion of being called a “bigot,” he showed no willingness to help protect LGBT workers from discrimination. “I’m not for any special protections based on orientation,” Rubio told ThinkProgress.

You Should Give

Be Here Now is “a comedy web show about two sexually progressive NY gals who ditch their down-and-out lives for LA in search of a spiritual awakening.” Fund that shit.

Movin’ On Up

Obama named three more gay ambassadors this week (spoiler alert: they’re gay men) and the Supreme Court Thursday confirmed the first openly gay Latina to serve on the federal bench. Also, THE NEXT DALAI LAMA COULD BE A WOMAN JUST SAYING.

This is good news considering we could use some more women in government so that people can stop stereotyping women in government differently than women as a whole. Or at all. Whichever works.

Three Words: “Starring Ellen Page”

Ellen Page is in a new film called Touchy Feely. I hear it’s chart-toppingly Indie or something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zu6qd1QngqQ

Pro-Gay AND Pro-Immigration? You’re Stuck Between A Rock And A Hard Place

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee began considering amendments to that sweeping immigration reform bill the Gang of Eight have been working on for months behind closed doors. As it stands now, the bill, which is called the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” and is 844 pages long, aims to provide a pathway to citizenship for current undocumented immigrants, to tighten border security and employment verification, and to revamp the existing visa system. It was drafted by a bipartisan powerhouse — four Democratic and four Republican senators, led by Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and including conservative up-and-comer Mario Rubio (R-Fla.), who have vowed to push it through no matter what, and with good reason — America hasn’t passed an immigration bill since 1986, when the country was a very different place. Approximately zero Americans oppose immigration reform, even if it’s tough to find consensus on what, exactly, that reform should look like.

But now is when the “what” part of “no matter what” comes in, and things get trickier. Judiciary Committee senators have filed over 300 amendments, which the committee as a whole will look over in the next two weeks. These amendments range from small tweaks (like requiring candidates for legal status to prove they’ve paid back taxes) to huge impossible performance-art-type statements (like Ted Cruz’s (R-Tex.) bid to basically deport everyone). Two of them, both introduced by Senator (and Judiciary Committee Chair) Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), would specifically use the Act to extend the rights of binational same-sex couples and their families. Although this is already the norm in more civilized countries like Canada and Great Britain, it’s proving to be a controversial position in today’s America, where the Republican House somehow gains strength from strangling everything good.

Under current American law, as long as one member of a married heterosexual couple is a US citizen, his or her foreign-born spouse can petition for a green card. But because this is a federal right, and because the Defense of Marriage Act prevents the federal government from recognizing gay marriages, binational gay couples — even legally married ones — aren’t invited to the green card party. An estimated 40,000 couples are affected by this inequality. Amendment Leahy-6, which is basically the “Uniting American Families Act” Leahy has been championing for several months, would fix it by extending the same green card petitioning rights to commited same-sex couples, even unmarried ones, by creating a “permanent partners” category. Eligibility for this category would be determined by a set of criteria presented in the bill — couples must “intend a lifelong commitment” and be “financially interdependent,” among other things. (This itself presents potential problems when you consider that couples are probably less likely to dive into either of those things when one of them could be deported at any moment, but I digress.)

Amendment Leahy-7 is a little tricker — it would make it so that a person is considered married under the Immigration Act as long as the marriage “is valid in the state [or country] in which it was entered into.” Basically, in order to be eligible for immigration rights, you just have to go to the nearest state on this map and get hitched, and then, immigration-wise, you’re hitched wherever. If this amendment passes, it will provide the first ever workaround for DOMA (and it would invalidate Amendment Leahy-6 in the process). Lawyers and gay rights activists have described it as “brilliant” and “a strategic masterstroke,” as it will make it difficult for anyone to argue logically against it  — as Human Rights Campaign vice president Fred Sainz puts it, “it’s hard to object to marriage if they’re already married.”

Predictably, though, a lot of people are all set to object anyway. Religious groups, including the Southern Baptist Church, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops,  have made it clear that they’ll pull their support from the bill if the gay marriage gets “tangled up” in it, because it is the “wrong place at the wrong time” to deal with this “divisive distraction” (their words, if you didn’t guess). Mario Rubio has said multiple times that he does not personally support the amendment, and thinks it will make his Republican colleagues reluctant to pass the bill. Some of these colleagues, including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), are all too happy to prove his point (McCain: “Which is more important, LGBT or border security? I’ll tell you what my priorities are.“). Compounding the problem, some think, is the fact that Obama supports the provision (in his own level-headed-to-a-fault way) — in our current weirdo political climate, the best way to get Republicans to vote against something is to give it the Obama stamp of approval.

And so LGBT-friendly senators (and those of us who vote them in, toss them money, and cold-call their interns) are faced with a classic dilemma. Do we consider this amendment a make-or-break part of immigration reform? Do we hold fast to the conviction that the “comprehensive” bill everyone keeps talking about must include all citizens, including gay ones, in order to live up to the word? In doing so, do we risk another legislative gridlock like the one that recently made the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act such a depressing experience?

Or do we, as columnist Gabriel Arana argues we should, “take one for the team” and sacrifice the rights of gay couples in order to ensure that the broader legislation goes through? After all, if DOMA is repealed, as it might be this term, the whole issue quickly becomes moot (“Ultimately, recognition for LGBT couples is part of the marriage fight, not the immigration fight,” Arana argues. “[That] broader fight is well underway, and we’re winning.”). Meanwhile, there are about 267,000 undocumented queer immigrants waiting for this bill to go through so they can come out of what amounts to a terrifying and dangerous legal closet. Would this count as setting a horrible precedent and buying into the anti-intersectionalist idea, expressed by some, that gay people are somehow a “less valuable” constituency? Would we be voting ourselves into second-class status? Or just being politically savvy? Is it a copout to spend my energy, instead, planning for a future where those two are never related at all?

Obama Administration Joins the Club, Files Amicus Brief Against Prop 8 in Supreme Court Case

So yesterday the big thing that everyone wanted to see come out of the hearings on Prop 8 finally happened: the federal Justice Department filed a friend-of-the-court brief yesterday in support of marriage equality in California and against Prop 8, as the Supreme Court gets ready to hear the case on the controversial amendment. This brief essentially amounts to an endorsement of the anti-Prop-8 case from President Obama and his administration.

The previous discussions, as the NBC News article discusses, “signaled [the administration] might stay on the sidelines.” When Obama initially announced his support for marriage equality last May, he made it clear that he thought it wasn’t a federal issue. But now that the campaign is over, this brief shows he might be willing to take a stronger stance in favor of equality, believing it should be the law of the entire land.

Or at least, it might seem like a stronger stance… if he wasn’t beaten to the punch by a fairly unlikely group of people. As we previously reported, on Tuesday a group of 75 Republicans, led by openly-gay former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, filed their own brief in favor of marriage equality in the same case. The list included some big names – not only usual supporters of equality like the Log Cabin Republicans, but many former staffers in the Bush administration and the last three GOP presidential campaigns, noted Republican celebrities (like Clint Eastwood) and former governors, like Jon Huntsman (R-UT) and Christine Todd Whitman (R-NJ). It even included some reversals by previous marriage-equality opponents, like former CA gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, and David Frum. All this was a huge deal for marriage-equality supporters on both sides of the political aisle, to have so many people in a party that explicitly opposes equality in its platform standing up for us. And led to even more wondering why Obama hadn’t entered the ring yet.

It certainly is significant to see how many Republicans are standing up for the rights of LGBT Americans. But when looking at the specific names, it may not be as historic as it looks at first glance. A lot of these Republicans, such as the many big names from the Bush administration on the list, are people whose political careers are essentially over – they can afford to take chances. Or they’re from socially-liberal states, where a pro-marriage-equality stance will probably help them rather than hurt them (e.g., Meg Whitman). We aren’t seeing people who are current big names in the House or Senate who have a lot to lose if they go against their party on the issue. The Republican Party platform is still opposed to same-sex marriage, as are its most prominent, influential faces right now.

Even as a second-term president, Obama may feel he has a lot to lose in terms of budget negotiations with the House and Senate if he explicitly goes against House Republicans’ attempts to defend marriage inequality in the courts. (Some internal issues like that could be why the administration waited up until the deadline to file the brief.) But Obama has made it clear during the 2012 campaign that he supports marriage equality and has previously refused to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act, so it can’t be that big of a jump in the likes of Boehner’s eyes.In fact, maybe it was the fact that the previous group of Republicans decided to wade into the fight that actually urged Obama to do it in the first place. Not wanting to seem like Republicans are ahead of him, he felt it was inevitable that his administration would have to file one, too. Obama’s goodwill on gay rights issues has largely been predicated on being just one step ahead of the more liberal Republicans on the issue (and, of course, miles ahead of those deciding the overall GOP platform on this), so it’s essential to stay in the good graces of the HRC and friends to keep this up.

All speculation aside, let’s see what Obama himself says about all this. The president held a press conference today clarifying his decision on the case:

The specific question presented before the Court right now is whether Prop 8 and the California law is unconstitutional and what we’ve done is we’ve put forward a basic principle which applies to all equal protection cases. Whenever a particular group is being discriminated against, the court asks the question, what is the rational [sic] for this. And it better be a good reason. And if you don’t have a good reason, we’re going to strike it down.

Obama also seems to be going a little further than some of the Republicans involved, making it clear that he hopes that the Supreme Court’s decision on Prop 8 strikes down state gay marriage bans across the land. On the idea that the court “may rule that all bans fail Constitutional muster and allow gay and lesbian couples to marry anywhere in the country,” Obama added, “If I were on the Court, that would probably be the view that I’d put forward.” Whatever Obama said before about marriage equality not being a “federal issue” is clearly repudiated by such a statement. He has, indeed, “evolved” even further on this issue than he had in May.

So one could see this as “too little, too late,” or one could see it as encouraging: no matter what side of the political divide you’re on, support for marriage equality is increasingly a thing that wins, not loses, you votes. And we’re finally getting to see some leadership that doesn’t just take issue with specific state bans, but the idea that states should be allowed to have their own say on a basic equal rights issue at all.

State of the Union Recap: Here’s What Hope & Change Look Like in Obama’s Second Term

The State of the Union at the beginning of Obama’s second term as President was, as he put it, in order to report on its status, and also to give the American people a sense of how exactly he plans on changing its status. Unlike his inaugural speech, which was a fairly celebratory occasion, the State of the Union is time to Get Down To Business. It’s not exactly a blueprint for the year – it’s expected that a certain level of advanced oratory acrobatics will take precedence over hard facts – but does give us an idea of what to expect.

So what should we expect? Well, as has been a hallmark of Obama’s career so far, he emphasized bipartisanship and implied his hope that it could actually become an element of the legislative process in his second term. And it wasn’t just words — Obama chose to adopt at least some conservative rhetoric and language throughout, promising that his plans didn’t actually mean a “bigger” government, just a “smarter” one; emphasizing that none of his proposed changes should add “a single dime” to the deficit; and tying energy research and climate change to the idea of economic growth instead of environmentalism. (Also, an honorable mention to the campaign to encourage “fatherhood” and “intact families” because “what makes you a man isn’t the ability to conceive a child, it’s having the courage to raise one.”)

Whether or not these efforts at reaching across the aisle will be effective is hard to predict; if Speaker of the House John Boehner’s reactions – which included a constant expression of thinly veiled disgust, fairly perceptible eye-rolling, and a very conspicuous lack of applause – are any indication, this venture may not be 100% successful. Which is too bad, because much of what Obama outlined is pretty ambitious; it will be hard to accomplish without bipartisan support.

Cash Rules Everything Around Obama

If you were paying attention during Obama’s presidential campaign, his thoughts on budgeting will sound pretty familiar. We’ve cut more than half of the deficit we had aimed to cut ($4 trillion), and while some would like to address the remaining $1.5 trillion via even more spending cuts than we’ve already made, Obama would instead like to focus on closing tax loopholes that benefit the very wealthy, and protect Medicare and Social Security. He proposed further reforms to Medicare that go farther than Simpson-Bowles and would involve “taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies and ask more from the wealthiest seniors. In an attempt to smooth over some of the rage that this idea presumably ignited in the Republican legislators present, Obama added:

I realize that tax reform and entitlement reform will not be easy. The politics will be hard for both sides. None of us will get 100 percent of what we want. But the alternative will cost us jobs, hurt our economy, visit hardship on millions of hardworking Americans. So let’s set party interests aside and work to pass a budget that replaces reckless cuts with smart savings and wise investments in our future.

9 to 5, What A Way To Make A Living

Although every politician everywhere at this point is under a great deal of pressure to create jobs, Obama talked very specifically about attracting jobs back to America from overseas. He shouted out Caterpillar and Ford for relocating jobs back to America, and in the statement that launched a thousand tech tweets, noted that “this year, Apple will start making Macs in America again.” He also explained the “manufacturing innovation institute,” which is apparently a defunct warehouse that’s been transformed into a 3D printing facility. He’s launching three more and asking Congress to create fifteen more. In other news, I still don’t really understand what 3D printing is.

While we’re relocating jobs back to America, though, we’ll also be working on a “Trans-Pacific Partnership” which will encourage trade and investment with the European Union. In other global concerns, the US will work with other allies to eradicate extreme poverty on a global scale. The work includes but is not limited to empowering women, empowering bright young people, and defeating AIDS. I hope that made Reagan spin in his grave.

In super big news, Obama announced that he wants to raise the minimum wage to $9/hour, because “no one who works full time should have to live in poverty.” This was also framed fairly conservatively, with Obama helpfully pointing out that someone making more money will be less likely to need to rely on government support, and can choose between “groceries and the food bank.” Part of this initiative will also be to incentivize companies to hire more, and to hire specifically people who “have been out of work so long that no one will give them a chance anymore.”

She Blinded Me With Science and Also Climate Change

Obama reminded us of the government-funded work on the human genome project and the work being done to map the human brain in an effort to combat Alzheimer’s. Interestingly, he also reminded us of the monetary value of that research, pointing out that “every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140 to our economy” and framing these research efforts as job creators.  This may have be a setup for his transition into talking about energy and climate change, wherein he shouted out renewable energy and lower carbon emissions and then dropped this truth bomb:

We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science and act before it’s too late.

Before anyone could get too mad, though, Obama slipped in that “we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth.”  He also pointed out that other countries have historically outdone us on clean energy, and suggested a sort of space race but for clean energy. I’m interested in whether this framing is going to continue in his administration’s language from here on out, or whether this was a one-time thing.

Perhaps more interesting, though, is that Obama introduced an Energy Security Trust that’s tasked with figuring out how to get our cars to run without oil at all. He also challenged American citizens as a whole to cut our home energy consumption in half, and offered federal support to states which try to create jobs and lower energy usage.

Now It’s Time To Prove That You’ve Come Back Here To Rebuild

Noting that businesses are more likely to be attracted to places that have working roads, Obama introduced the “Fix-It-First” program, which is a job creation program that will get people working on urgent repairs across the country and was also, if I remember correctly, a key plot point of Wreck-It Ralph. “Fix-It-First” is related to the “Partnership to Rebuild America,” which is supposed to help funnel private capital into the rebuilding projects so that it’s not all taxpayer money being used. Also on the list of things we need to fix is the housing market, so Obama is introducing a new law in that would give “responsible homeowners” the chance to refinance at today’s rates.

Schoolhouse Rock

In exciting news, Obama’s newest plan in education is to make high quality preschool education available to every child in America, which sounds totally awesome. I’d like to look at some of the research he talked about in support of his point — like the fact that preschool is correlated with lower teen pregnancy and violent crime rates — because I’m not clear on whether those things are actually causal or are just both associated with higher-income areas, but nonetheless, this sounds like a good plan. He also applauded systems in place like that of P-TECH school in Brooklyn, where students graduate with both a high school diploma and the equivalent of an associate’s degree in computers or engineering. Many twentysomethings would perhaps point out that the barrier to jobs right now isn’t necessarily a lack of qualification, but it certainly sounds like an interesting option to have.

Which brings us, actually, to Obama’s next point, which was that college should be more affordable and less likely to leave people in crippling debt. Rather than providing more federal subsidies, he wants to put more pressure on colleges to “keep costs down” by updating the Higher Education Act to take into account how good a “value” colleges are when deciding whether they should receive certain types of federal aid. As someone who has both attended a very pricey private college and now works at a low-tier state university, I have mixed feelings on this; certainly there are some colleges that could stand to shave a few thousand dollars off their tuitions, but plenty of universities (especially public ones) are already spread pretty thin, and it’s unclear what Congress is going to judge as being a “good value” — for instance, will things like arts and humanities seem important enough to make the cut? Hope so! We’ll find out via the government’s new “scorecard” which families can use at home to determine different colleges’ “bang for their buck.”

Next: Immigration reform, women, terrorism, and more!

Obama Wants Same-Sex Immigration Reform, Congress Prefers to Just Argue About It Forever

Yesterday, President Obama made the commonsense yet somehow still controversial announcement that when it comes to immigration, it’s important that “the United States treat same-sex couples the same as other families, meaning that people would be able to use their relationship as a basis to obtain a visa.” As a Canadian, I find it ridiculous that binational American same-sex couples still don’t have the same immigration rights as heterosexual ones. Under the Family Class of the Canadian Immigration System, a person has been able to sponsor a spouse, common-law, or conjugal partner for immigration without regard to the gender of his or her partner since 2002. Even in the UK, where same-sex marriage is still not legal, the border agency states that “the requirements and process for applying as an unmarried or same-sex partner are the same as those for a [heterosexual] partner but the documents you must provide will be different.” Australia became one of the first countries to consider a same-sex relationship as a valid reason for migration all the way back in 1985. You’d think Congress would be embarrassed to be lagging behind on this human rights issue, and would therefore want to utilize basic kindergarden skills such as cooperation and teamwork to get Obama’s same-sex couple immigration reforms made into law as soon as possible. Unfortunately, working together is not one of the strong-suits of the bipartisan government, and Congress, as usual, is divided.

Trying to understand why it’ll be such a struggle for Obama to pass immigration reform is confusing when right now, here in Canada, it’s hard to keep up with the speed at which the government is turning bills into laws. It seems every morning I wake up to an “exciting,” brand-new legal change to the country: No health care for refugees! No Navigable Waters Protection Act! Goodbye Native American treaty rights! Meanwhile in the U.S., Obama’s bills crawl slowly through the House and the Senate, dreaming of and praying for the day when they’ll be able to be real, grown-up laws! While Harper manufactures dozens of bills into laws at once, effectively ruining Canada with the efficiency of a top-rate assembly line, Obama’s ideas to improve America are endlessly debated, critiqued, poked and prodded. I’m not saying this is a bad thing. Canada could certainly benefit from stepping back and slowing down; but it does make me wonder how long Americans separated from their same-sex foreign spouses will have to wait before they get some pretty basic human rights met.

Why is it so difficult to get a bill passed that would allow families to stay together and allow the US to retain residents who can contribute valuable things to the country? Well, although Democrats hold the Senate, the Senate immigration group, which is made of Republicans and Democrats has proposed immigration reform that, unlike Obama’s proposal, does not recognize the immigration rights of same-sex partners. However, some individual Democrat lawmakers are in favour of those rights and are telling American gay rights groups that binational same-sex couples will be included in a final draft of the immigration bill.

Unfortunately, good-old Republican John McCain, also a part of the Senate immigration group, is saying that this whole business of some Democrats wanting to give gay couples rights is a “red flag” and means bad things for the country. Most politicians in the Senate immigration group believe that before there is immigration reform, there needs to be additional border security and improved tracking of illegal immigrants. It wants to require immigrants who may be in the country illegally “to register with the government, pass criminal and national security background checks, pay fees and penalties as well as back taxes, and wait until existing immigration backlogs are cleared before getting in line for green cards.” Meanwhile in the White House, Obama wonders how long doing all of that is going to take. He doesn’t want to wait for the so-called perfect conditions set by the Senate immigration group before passing immigration reform. He said that the Senate’s pathway to immigration is too long, complicated, and out of reach for many people: “We all agree that these men and women have to earn their way to citizenship. But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must make clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship.” If congress keeps on arguing over immigration, Obama has declared he will just write his own bill and insist that it’s voted on right away. Of course, with a government so divided, there’s no guarantee that it’ll pass.

And even if it is passed, it’s unclear how it will interact with the DOMA. As Olga explains in “Immigration Reform is a Queer & Trans* Human Rights Issue,” DOMA prevents cisgender, same-sex partners from sponsoring one-another for marriage-based immigration. Also,

“…domestic partnerships and civil unions are also not recognized. Perversely, the ban also excludes the spouses of queer refugees who have been resettled to the U.S. as a direct result of fleeing persecution based on sexual orientation.”

DOMA is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court and by the proposed Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would allow same-sex couples to side-step DOMA. Strangely, even though Obama has spoken out for same-sex immigration rights, it doesn’t seem like he’s including the UAFA, or anything similar, in his immigration reform plan. Is this because he doesn’t need to? If passed, will his immigration reform plan render DOMA obsolete? If America has two laws which contradict one another, which one gets to win?

The concept that same-sex couples shouldn’t have to go through something as life-altering as deportation when their straight counterparts are exempt from it seems like a no-brainer, especially when the President and the Department of Justice have acknowledged that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. But equal rights for gay couples and immigration reform have proven to be two of the issues that Republicans are most unwilling to compromise on, and progress on the combination of the two issues has proven truly Sisyphean in terms of how incremental and unsatisfying it feels to those impacted by it. There’s no way to be sure that this will be the time it works; that Congress will be able to agree on something, that the politicians who have promised to have Americans’ backs in later drafts will come through, or in the event that those things don’t occur, that Obama’s solution will be preferable or even able to pass. But it’s a comforting step forward that this issue has reached the level of national conversation, and with the momentum granted by a second-term president who doesn’t have to secure votes for a future election, we can at least think about hoping that this might be a moment of real change.

Yet Another News Outlet Fails Queer History 101 by Erasing Trans* People from Stonewall

Last week, Obama became the first president to ever mention gay rights in an inaugural address when — in between invocations of the Founding Fathers and Dr. King — he namechecked a few civil rights milestones:

“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.”

That line, combined with a later one about not giving up until “our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law,” got a lot of Earthly souls speculating about a lot of potential implications. Was the President hinting at future policy plans, or trying to secure a legacy? Is he giving the Supreme Court a not-so-subtle hint? Was it fair of him to lump such different movements together? Is alliteration absurdly annoying? Meanwhile, some, though excited by what Obama put into his speech, are equally concerned by who he left out — namely, trans* people, whom media coverage and the historical record have chronically left out as well. This is a terrible and self-perpetuating trend, and we’re in the middle of a great chance to reverse it. In her response to the inauguration, Melissa Harris-Perry talked about how “recognition is intrinsically valuable in a democracy, [as] mutual affirming recognition is the practice that allows citizens to operate as equals.” When the media fails to recognize the role trans* people have played in LGBT history, it fails to recognize and advance that equality.

Obama’s speech put Stonewall back into the public consciousness in a big way. According to Google Trends, the Internet has never talked about it this much, even on the Riots’ 40th anniversary in 2009. This means said Internet talkers — along with other journalists, historians, and informed conversationalists — are being given the chance to tell this very important story to an audience that is, however temporarily, really listening. Obama set up the alley-oop and now we have to dunk it. It’s a big responsibility.

A bigger and bigger one, because we’re in the information age, when if you want to find out about something quickly, you Google it. This means that increasingly, the agreed-upon story — the one that survives — isn’t necessarily the most correct one, or the one that’s told the best; instead, it’s the one that’s told the most. If you were among the curious millions who searched “Stonewall” in the past week, one of the first results you got was from NPR, and was entitled “Stonewall? Explaining Obama’s Historic Gay Rights Reference.”  In the interest of those who missed the 60s, on whom “Obama’s reference was very likely lost,” NPR gave a quick primer on what happened when “gay men resisted police harassment at the Stonewall Inn gay bar in New York city.” In doing so, starting with that very first sentence, they struck a bunch of main players from the historical record. What about Stormé De Larverie, the “Stonewall Lesbian” who spurred the crowd’s initial surge when she resisted police outside the club? What about Tammy Novak, the trans* woman who threw some of the first punches? And what about David Van Ronk, a straight ally who hit an officer “with an unknown object”? Maybe, as the NPR article says, Stonewall itself “was not filled, as some accounts have it, with drag queens and street hustlers,” but perhaps that’s because, as trans* history blogger Zagria points out, a lot of them “could not afford the entry fee… [and] were often found in the parkette across the street, which turned out to be an ideal place to join in the riot.” In any case, it wasn’t only gay men resisting – not even close. And now everyone who heard Obama’s speech, cared enough to look up the reference, and trusted a generally good-hearted news source to educate them about it has missed out on a huge part of the story, and is still living in the dark about this and (presumably) many other hugely important contributions that trans* people have made to queer history and to America as a whole.

The NPR case is a strange one — their reporters have been specifically praised for trans* stories before, and pieces for their “Stonewall At 40” series a few years ago featured more accurate and inclusive retellings, as well as modern perspectives from trans* kids at the Ali Forney center. The author of this most recent piece, Liz Halloran, talked to historian and activist Martin Duberman, who wrote the first ever history of Stonewall and seemed in this interview to contradict his own previous work. But this case is just the most recent in a long line of similar ones that stretches across decades and media. Cristan at Transadvocate, in a fascinating and well-researched piece, points out that this particular erasure happens time and again, variously due to compounded oversight, as a response to what some apparently see as a false co-opting of gay history by trans* people, or because of plain old ill intent.

As Crista puts it, “this isn’t the first time the Stonewall movement has been retold as being the Ciswall movement.” Erasure started directly after the riots. Some came from outside sources, like New York Times reporters, who didn’t understand or prioritize complexities of identity and just called everyone “men” in articles that are now primary sources. Some came from within the LGBT community, which, dusting itself off and finding that it suddenly was a community, suffered from infighting — RadFems and Lesbian Liberation Movement members fought with trans* women; there were brawls for the mic at pride parades. Later, when the first LGBT historians were compiling what would become the first official narratives, some, like Wayne Dynes, confused a lack of static terminology (there have been many words for “trans*” over the years) for a lack of existence (others did the same with a lack of photographs).

The strangest thing about all this, is Stonewall is so important partly because that’s when we started to realize how in-it-together we were. In one of the older, better NPR Stonewall articles, Michel Martin interviews Danny Garvin, who was also a part of the riots. Garvin says that, before Stonewall, “we never realized how connected we were as a community. That it didn’t make a difference if you were a drag queen, or if you were a leather queen, or if you were just a young kid, or if you were an older person over 30, we were all fighting for a right… to get back into the bar, to be able to dance, not be oppressed.” The way we talk about Stonewall should reflect that, and celebrate it. Why would any of us ever want to do otherwise?

When it comes to trans* rights, Obama has a fairly good track record, or at least one better than any other president’s. At the White Houses’s 40th anniversary Stonewall event, he hosted representatives from the National Center for Transgender Equity and the Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League, and specifically thanked those who work “in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard and care about their communities — and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.” I’m guessing that he knew what he was doing with that particular reference; that, even if he didn’t spell it out (and I wish he had), he actually believes in the freedom of every soul, and knows something about all the different kinds of forebears who were at Stonewall. But not everybody does, and it’s the rest of our responsibility to fix that. As trans* activist Gwendolyn Ann Smith put it, Obama’s speech was “a call to action,” showing how necessary it is for trans* people “to secure our history and work toward our future.” The two go together, and those privileged with telling this history need to stay aware of this.

Also.Also.Also: Obama Stands By Chuck Hagel and Other Stories We Missed This Week

Hello, homo snowflakes! Happy 2013! I spent New Year’s Eve sweating / sleeping off a fever so I could go out at app. 11:30 PM. Can someone please remind me whether you feed a cold, starve a fever or vice versa? Can someone please come make me chicken soup?

Here’s the stories we missed this week while I was boiling another bowl of Ramen.

When Can We Stop Talking About Chuck Hagel

+ On Meet the Press, Obama defended his nominee for Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, against yet another vicious appearance from the Ghosts of Politics Past: that time he was a huge homophobe. Spoiler alert: Obama says it’s pretty much NBD.

+ The Log Cabin Republicans hate Chuck Hagel, but whatever.

The Log Cabin Republicans have taken out an ad in the New York Times, in opposition to a potential Chuck Hagel nomination to Defense Secretary, over anti-gay comments Hagel made 14 years ago. […]

“Chuck Hagel: Wrong on gay rights. Wrong on Iran. Wrong on Israel,” the Log Cabin Republican ad says. “Tell President Obama that Chuck Hagel is wrong for Defense Secretary.”

The ad also reflects criticism that Hagel is not a big enough supporter of Israel, and is not tough enough on Iran.

Just Like Us

Look, a Disney spot specifically focused around a dude who also incidentally has two moms! This is a first for a network with no out gay characters; the video is part of the “Make Your Mark” campaign encouraging kids to “make a difference in the world.”

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZsyyL21Lpk]

If a video about a 14-year-old boy with a guitar isn’t quite the spice of your own life, you might be more interested in the new lesbian plot on UK soap “Coronation Street,” which Riese raved about last time they had a lesbian plot.

Homos In Paris (Or I Guess Just The Continent of Europe)

In the Netherlands, religion is getting even more complicated – because Dutch Catholics are leaving the church in thousands. And all in the name of love! After the Pope’s continued homophobia over the holidays (how rude), a website allowing downloads of the documents needed to leave the church began to reach over 10,0000 visits a day.

In the UK, the Guardian’s Marielle Forstrup considers “heteroflexibility” the new normal:

My two closest gay friends enhance my life in many ways, but can always be relied upon to make me look shabby with their perfectly pressed shirts and suits as tight as sausage skins – and that’s when they pop over for a curry. By comparison, my husband looks like I’ve dragged him out of a skip. I can’t imagine any gay man would sink so low on the grooming stakes, but as a blonde I’ve also learned not to be seduced by stereotypes. Nowadays it seems as if we’re all open to persuasion. Sexual predilections have gained an increasing fluidity, and if that’s a sign of evolution or just further proof that we’re out for whatever we can grasp I’m not sure.

Holding firm beliefs, whether religious, political or sexual, is so last century. Personally, I think ambiguity is better in a lover.

(Hopefully this is a sign that the Parliament Act Loophole Plan to get same-sex marriage legislation on the books there will be met with warm regards.)

In Germany, Peer Streibrueck – rival candidate for chancellor – actually had the audacity to say that being a woman makes things easy for Angela Merkel:

Angela Merkel is popular because she gets a bonus from women. A large proportion of female voters appreciates how she has for a long time asserted herself in her party but also, beyond that, in Europe. That is not a disadvantage for me, but an advantage for her.

Further Proof That Privileged Women Are Lucky Women

Women, you too can find happiness at work – as long as you’ve got thousands of bucks to spend for school first!

Female satisfaction levels hit the top percentile in high-energy professions that require a major investment of education and time: female lawyers, judges, top-level managers and executives. The percentage of women who follow these career paths has shot up since 1963 (all from the single-digits to just over about 40%).

But the very highest-ranked profession in terms of satisfaction for women was found to be that of a medical doctor (physicians, dentists and optometrists), which found 60% of women reporting very high satisfaction levels, not to mention a median salary of $121,000. Close behind were health professionals (including registered nurses, pharmacists and dieticians), non-practicing medical scientists and psychologists.

Aside from the intellectual satisfaction that one of these careers in the health industry provides, Shatkin also hypothesizes that the autonomy involved (“on-the-job decision-making latitude, control over your work schedule or the freedom to elect how and where to work”) also contributed to the overall positivity of women in these positions.

Now That We’re Really Talking About Gun Control: Where We Go From Here

After the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut that killed 20 young children and seven adults, there’s no longer any delaying the national conversation about gun control. While there are other, larger conversations to be had – about how a culture of violence is fostered and how it can be healed, about what role access to mental health care plays in these incidents, about why the vast majority of mass shooters are white males – but the conversation that many people seem to be most ready to have is around how horrifically violent incidents like the Sandy Hook shooting are made possible by America’s current laws around access to firearms. Today, Barack Obama made his most promising statement to date about gun control legislation — which we’ll get to in a minute.

Although originally published this July, Mother Jones’ comprehensive analysis of mass shootings in recent US history is newly relevant. In the incidents they looked at between 1982 and 2012, 79% of the shooters accessed their weapons legally. The shootings occurred all over the country,  making it clear that the factors leading to these incidents can’t be isolated to a particular region or community.

Our Past and Present with Guns

Mother Jones’ coverage has continued, analyzing not only the shootings themselves but drawing conclusions about what they mean in terms of how we can try to make sense of the senseless and make our future look different. One of those conclusions is that in the 62 shootings over the last 30 years, not a single violent shooter was stopped by a civilian with a gun. This includes some states where citizens can be granted lawful concealed carry permits – like in Colorado, where the Aurora shooter bought his weapon legally. Colorado also explicitly allows carrying concealed weapons on college campuses. And while  Colorado’s requirements for a concealed carry permit demand that an applicant be a resident, pass a background check, and not be addicted to controlled substances, plenty of other states are much less stringent. In Virginia, an online test qualifies as firearms safety training. In Missouri, civilians can legally fire a gun when intoxicated if it’s in self-defense. Regardless of the legal ease with which residents of any of these states can exercise access to and use of firearms, the mass shootings in Virginia and Colorado continued without intervention by an armed citizen.

Gun rights enthusiasts might argue that all these avenues of access to guns are well within the rights of an American citizen. But not all guns are created equal, and neither is access to them. The guns most heavily featured in recent mass shootings are semiautomatic handguns and assault weapons, which are generally used for military and law enforcement purposes. Limiting access to these weapons wouldn’t affect those people who use firearms for, say, hunting. Semiautomatic handguns and assault weapons are created for the express purpose of hurting and killing other humans; as has been expressed countless times in the past week, it’s perhaps shocking that our country needs to be pushed so hard before considering why such a high number of average citizens should feel the need to own them – and why our government feels that they should be provided.

It’s shocking that it’s taken this long because aside from the 62 mass shootings that have occurred in the last 30 years, the United States also has a homicide by firearm rate of 3.2 per 100,000 citizens. That may not sound like much, but the rate for Switzerland, which has half as many civilian firearms per 100 citizens (46 to the US’s 89) is only 0.7. Even without looking at mass shootings, a shocking number of people – individual people – in the US are killed by guns. 60% of the US’s homicides are committed with a firearm, which in some ways may create a sense of desensitization. When we grieve over a murder like Trayvon Martin‘s, we sometimes forget that we’re not just grieving over a murder, but specifically a shooting. George Zimmerman isn’t just a man who believed that he could reasonably need to perform “self-defense” against a 13-year-old because he was black and wearing a hoodie. Zimmerman is a man who genuinely believed that, and who legally obtained and carried a semiautomatic weapon – a model popular for concealed carry.

What’s interesting is that while many feel that Zimmerman’s (and, legally, Adam Lanza’s) right to own and operate firearms is inalienable, this wouldn’t be true in most other places and times. First of all, the US’s history of gun control shows that access to firearms was much more restricted for most of our history as a nation. In fact, Congress passed a bill making it illegal to own or transfer most semiautomatic weapons in 1994, but that bill expired in 2004 and hasn’t been resurrected. Since then, access to firearms has only gotten easier. Requirements for training or experience haven’t increased along with greater access – requirements on competency with firearms can be lax depending upon the state and the firearm, and in some sales of firearms – for instance, those sales made by private citizens or at a gun show – don’t legally need a background check, depending on the state.

Although private citizens often have access to a similar grade of weapon as is used by professional law enforcement officers, the difference between what we expect of a law enforcement officer and a private citizen when it comes to a gun is striking. A law enforcement officer uses a gun after intensive training and education about both the use of their gun and when its use is appropriate; every time a law enforcement officer discharges their weapon, the state has a right to hold them accountable for its discharge, and punish them if the weapon’s use wasn’t called for. In contrast, many of the guns owned by private citizens aren’t even registered, and the experience with and respect for firearms that are required to obtain them are often laughable. Why would we expect untrained private citizens to behave more responsibly with firearms than professional law enforcement officers?

---

Other Ways of Doing Guns and Gun Control

Other countries certainly don’t. While the US comprises only about 5% of the world’s population, it makes up 42% of the world’s privately owned firearms. It seems not coincidental that the rate of homicide by firearm is 200-800% higher in the US than in developed countries with stricter gun control laws, like the UK or Japan. Of course, countries like the UK and Japan differ from the US wildly in terms of history, culture, and political construction – America’s relationship with guns is deeply intertwined with our genesis as a country born from armed revolution, with our cultural emphasis on individuality and self-sufficiency, and our complicated national narrative around states’ rights and the extent to which government powers should reach. All of these factors and more should be taken into account when comparing gun control in other countries to that of the US.

But that said, it’s instructive to look at how accessing firearms works in England. Applicants for firearms are required to explain exactly why they want a gun, and are told they need to provide a “good reason;” guns which are designed to be use for a specific purpose require an explanation of why one needs that model in particular. In a drastic contrast to the US’s system, gun applicants are essentially asked to “[prove] to police officers that you are not a danger to society… In short, it has been designed to put as many barriers in the way as possible and to assume the worst, rather than hope for the best.”

The UK’s remarkably strict laws haven’t eliminated all gun violence. The shooting in Cumbria in June of 2010 were perpetrated by Derrick Bird, who had obtained his firearm completely legally, jumping through every hoop that the application process set out for him. But the hoops that Bird had to jump through were in direct and considered response to other tragedies before him: a massacre of 16 people which led to the ban of semiautomatic rifles, and a massacre of 16 schoolchildren which led to the banning of all handguns. The sweeping firearm reforms that took place after the 1996 shooting of schoolchildren in Dunblane also included firearms amnesties, in which thousands of firearms were given up. If anyone is now found possessing illegal firearms, the punishments include up to ten years of prison time.

In contrast to the US, so heavily invested in its gun culture, the public in the UK generally supported and cooperated with the ban, viewing it as necessary and appropriate. Although the rate of gun crimes initially showed little change, crimes involving handguns eventually dropped by 44% between 2002 and 2011. Although firearms amnesties would likely be understood as the storied fear of a federal government coming to “take away our guns,” it might be one of the only effective solutions to the already enormous amount of firearms in circulation in the US. Although stopping their sale from official points of purchase would be a start, there are already about 88 firearms to every 100 Americans, and those guns wouldn’t magically disappear.

At the time of the Cumbria shooting,  the UK was also working on how to combat the “criminal conversion of imitation firearms” – so, locking down illegal access to firearms as well as legal access – and working to create a dynamic interaction between the police force and the healthcare system to keep doctors informed of whether their unstable or potentially suicidal patients have firearms in the home. While the cultural and political differences between the US and the UK may not make all of those changes feasible for the US, at least one major difference is notable: the UK responded directly to each of their mass shootings, while the US has had seven mass shootings in the last year alone, and gun ownership is now easier than ever. Similarly, Japan has banned almost all forms of private gun ownership, and has reduced its firearms homicide rate to as low as two a year. There are dozens of reasons why those differences exist; it’s misleading to hang all our fears and hopes about violence to gun control, and the cultural and political differences between these two countries and the US mean that their methods may or may not be as effective here. But the most notable difference is that they’ve done something. 

What Could Happen Next

It’s beginning to seem like the senseless murder of 20 children in the place where they were supposed to learn about consonants and vowels may be the push which allows the US to change something as well. Even the NRA has made a statement promising that it is “prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again,” although it’s not clear what those contributions will be until their press conference on Friday.

President Obama has already begun offering up his support for a variety of changes. He’s said he would actively support a reinstatement on the ban on assault weapons, and promises that that ban is part of a “wide-ranging effort” which is “taking shape.” The President may also be “willing to consider limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines and closing a loophole allowing individuals to purchase firearms at gun shows without a background check.” Obama has promised to make gun control a “central issue” in his second term, and will be presenting his plan to Congress no later than January.

Obama also plans to address issues of access to mental healthcare, saying, “We are going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to guns.” It’s important to note, also, that the ideas introduced by Obama will be legislative, which means that no matter how much he supports them, Congress has to also. There’s significant doubt about whether the House of Republicans will support reinstating the assault weapons ban, even if Obama and many citizens do. The incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has already said that “We’re going to take a look at what happened there and what can be done to help avoid it in the future, but gun control is not going to be something that I would support.”

What are the possible plans being considered? To the disappointment of some, it’s very unlikely that a sweeping change like the laws in place in Japan or the UK will come about. The Supreme Court has fairly clearly demonstrated that Americans have a constitutional right to own handguns. It seems very likely that any change in US laws on gun ownership will come in terms of specific guns and specific groups of gun owners, rather than a fundamental shift in policy which might lead us to a situation like the UK’s, where any applicant for gun ownership is assumed unqualified until proven otherwise. In NPR’s excellent breakdown of the legislative situation, they explain that the major questions at stake will be “who should be allowed to buy guns, how should they be allowed to buy them and what should they be allowed to buy?”

Some changes can be made without stepping on actual gun control toes; for instance, better updated and more comprehensive mental health records could make it easier to restrict gun sales to the mentally ill. But there’s significant roadblocks even in this area; for instance, last year the House passed a bill that blocks the Department of Veterans from designating a veteran as mentally incompetent for gun ownership, leaving that decision up to a judge instead. The “loopholes” Obama is talking about, which make it possible for up to 40% of gun sales to be made without background checks, are also on the list of priorities, but many other attempts to close them have already failed, and the momentum of Sandy Hook may not be enough to push it forward this time. It’s not clear whether the assault weapons ban will be able to hold water, either, in the face of the House and the powerful gun lobby. Another approach, which would be to limit the clip size available for firearms, could potentially be more palatable, but there are no guarantees.

Pro-gun politicians are suggesting that the post-Newtown focus should be solely on preventing “mentally ill” people from getting guns, but in addition to the obvious stigmatizing of a broad swath of U.S. citizens, it’s incredibly problematic to declare all “mentally ill” persons less qualified to own guns than those without diagnosed mental health issues. In fact, only about 4 percent of violence in the United States can be attributed to people with mental illness. Substance abuse is a far greater predictor of violence. According to Richard. A. Friedman in the New York Times, although “it’s possible that preventing people with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other serious mental illnesses from getting guns might decrease the risk of mass killings,” it’s worth noting “mass killings are very rare events, and because people with mental illness contribute so little to overall violence, these measures would have little impact on everyday firearm-related killings.” Shoddy science has already spread over the internet about Adam Lanza’s possible Aspergers diagnosis playing a role in the killings, but there is absolutely no link whatsoever between Aspergers and violence.

Ultimately, even those experts whom acknowledge the need for drastic change around our country’s relationship with firearms remain somewhat skeptical. Sweeping changes are unlikely to survive the intensely partisan atmosphere of Congress, which as so far been unable to agree on even such seemingly no-brainer pieces of legislation as the Violence Against Women Act. And even if they did, the legislation at hand is somewhat piecemeal.

As Harry L. Wilson, director of the Institute for Policy and Opinion Research at Roanoke College, explains for NPR, many mass shooters (and shooters of individuals) have been able to pass background checks. If a shooter is experienced, they can easily and quickly reload a more traditional weapon and fire many rounds in a short period of time if assault weapons are banned. And while certainly increased background checks on those buying weapons seem like a good idea, there’s a limit to how helpful they might be, and how helpful they’ve been in the past. Adam Lanza was, in fact, turned off by the three-day waiting period and instead just went ahead and used those that belonged to his mother, another legal owner. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold of the Columbine shooting were too young to buy guns at a gun show in 1998, so they returned the next day with an 18-year-old female friend to buy guns for them. Even if individuals are subject to background checks, that may not be effective in changing the larger reality that there are guns everywhere in America, and plenty are available without going through the process of formally purchasing one. If gun enthusiasts react to the threat of new gun control legislation by stockpiling the weapons that are currently available, the problem might actually be exacerbated.

The chances that America is ready to adopt an outlook on guns like Japan, which seems like it might be the only absolute solution to the problem of the constant potential for senseless violence, are slim. Which means that, if we acknowledge that we probably can’t look forward to a nation which doesn’t have close to as many civilian-owned guns as it does citizens, we also need to start looking at how to address the systemic culture of violence and underlying factors that make us not just a nation full of guns, but a nation full of people who want desperately to use them.

NOM Grasps Desperately For Post-Election Relevance

Happy Friday everyone! It’s been three days since we were freaking out and celebrating through the election and by now you’re no doubt aware of all the amazing things that happened for our various communities. Perhaps most notably, gay marriage is now legal in Maryland, Maine, and Washington, and not banned in Minnesota!

There are no bad things that can be said about these results. We’re getting closer to the rainbow light at the end of the tunnel! The Abominable Anti-Gay Marriage Juggernaut is being vanquished! Progress is being made! Everybody knows that, right? Well maybe not everybody. Take NOM President Brian Brown for example:

Obviously we are very disappointed in losing four tough election battles by narrow margins. We knew long ago that we faced a difficult political landscape with the four marriage battles occurring in four of the deepest-blue states in America. As our opponents built a huge financial advantage, the odds became even steeper. We ran strong campaigns and nearly prevailed in a very difficult environment, significantly out-performing the GOP ticket in every state.

Despite the fact that NOM was able to contribute a record amount to the campaigns (over $5.5 million), we were still heavily outspent, by a margin of at least four-to-one. We were fighting the entirety of the political establishment in most of the states, including sitting governors in three of the states who campaigned heavily for gay marriage. Our opponents and some in the media will attempt to portray the election results as a changing point in how Americans view gay marriage, but that is not the case. Americans remain strongly in favor of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The election results reflect the political and funding advantages our opponents enjoyed in these very liberal states.

Though we are disappointed over these losses, we remain faithful to our mission and committed to the cause of preserving marriage as God designed it. Marriage is a true and just cause, and we will never abandon the field of battle just because we experienced a setback. There is much work to do, and we begin that process now.

Wait. Let’s pause for a moment and let his word sink in. Was he watching the same election I was? Brown made similarly ludicrous statements to other news agencies, my favourite being, “At the end of the day, we’re still at 32 victories. Just because two extreme blue states vote for gay marriage doesn’t mean the Supreme Court will create a constitutional right for it out of thin air.” I know Brown must be a bit out of touch with reality to lead NOM to begin with, but let’s approach his statements in post-election hangover mode and fact-check that shit.

First up, those 32 victories look a lot less significant now. NOM has made itself a household name as it threw money, attack ads and poorly made video and radio spots to any state that dared to think about same-sex couples as human beings. Massachusetts? Here’s a billboard comparing your legislator to Benedict Arnold for choosing to switch sides on marriage and denounce discrimination. California? Have $1.8 million in funding to repeal gay marriage! Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Maine and Rhode Island? Ever wonder what a gaythering storm looks like? New York? Let’s give you another video. Rhode Island? Let’s make a radio spot attacking the governor for wasting his time on same sex rights. Minnesota, Maine, Maryland and Washington? Have a video on the definition of bigotry and this handy dandy chart!

Did any of it work? Hardly. Massachusetts never passed. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional, so California’s almost back on our side. New York got all sorts of gay married. Rhode Island won civil unions as a consolation prize. Gay marriage rights were initially banned in Maine, but have triumphantly returned in a clean sweep with the other three ballot measures. NOM, you’re really making a difference.

I’m not sure where NOM believes all of these man-lady-marriage-supporting Americans live. (Probably the red states?) For all of these successful ballot measures, the majority of voters supported same-sex rights! Maybe Brown needs to look up how voting works, because while anti-gay supporters are out there, they’re no longer the majority. For the past few years, acceptance of same-sex couples has been on the up and up. This summer, a CNN/ORC International survey showed that same-sex marriage approval has steadily risen from 44% to 54% since 2008. We’re on your TV, we’re in your senate and we’re c0-existing with you and your fellow heterosexual citizens because hey, we’re people too.

Oh and this not being a watershed moment? Chances are he’s wrong there too: these four rulings aren’t happening in a vacuum. In a few weeks the Supreme Court will reanalyze DOMA and Prop 8 and those judges may use these votes as a barometer of America’s feelings towards same sex marriage. Legislators aren’t as worried to take a stand and neither is the president. Voters reappointed a man that decided he’d rather make his social values known than take the easy way out by staying silent. He took a stand for LGBT Americans, and no one is faulting him for it. That Mr. Brown is huge.

One interesting thing that’s come from all of this is that NOM’s trying to distance themselves from the GOP. In interviews NOM has emphasized that anti-gay marriage laws lost by a narrower margin than Romney. In the beginning NOM wanted to partner up with the GOP and pretend they were the goose that could lay the golden egg for all of presidential hopefuls, so Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingritch and Tim Pawlenty all made pacts. One by one they were thrown into obscurity and since the GOP are out of the white house for at least another four years, NOM is looking around to see who’s left.

It seems like the only thing they can do is side with the religious zealots. In the beginning they pretended that they were just normal citizens doing their due diligence to protect traditional marriage, but now they have to admit that they’re religious nut jobs so they can seek out more of the same. Last year, Focus on the Family—another religious group—admitted they were losing the fight and were relatively silent during this election season, helping set a precedent that even bigoted, religious organizations can’t prevent change but can recognize the change around them. If Rhode Island, Illinois, Hawaii or Minnesota decide to push for gay marriage, we’ll find out if NOM runs television ads with bibles and crosses instead of manipulated children and disgruntled teachers.

The signs are clear that Brown and NOM are standing on the wrong side of progress, but instead of conceding defeat they’re shoving their fingers in their ears and pretending they can’t hear what’s actually being said. NOM should look to their founder Maggie Gallagher to see what the election battle truly was.

The Obama electorate defeated marriage. I’m guessing we lose at least three of tonight’s four races, and maybe four of the four. We were outspent eight-to-one — and no one was willing to speak for marriage, while the whole Democratic establishment and Hollywood campaigned for marriage. Last night really is a big loss, no way to spin it.

Take a cue from your predecessor and another from your former golden boy Mittsy and realize you’ve lost. Make sure to pick up your bible and your contracts on your way out. If you need some more time to edit your press release into a concession speech (or possibly add a storm motif or some confused children), we’ll give you and your video editors a few more hours.

The Lost Pictures: Brandy Howard at Obama’s Victory Party

Hello queermos! I have now reoriented myself to the real world, a world where I’m not an election machine for 17 hours. A world where I can eat food whenever I want to eat food and can actually get up and walk around and where we have the president that supports the LGBT community, four wins for marriage equality at the ballot, a sound defeat for rape-apologist politicians and a lesbian in the Senate. It’s a pretty good world.

I was surprised by how quickly the election was decided. I expected the Ohio count to go on forever and ever and couldn’t believe it when it was over so fast. I had been holding content for later in the night and had trouble getting in touch with Brandy Howard of the esteemed Brandy and Julie in Your Box Office, our straddler attending the Chicago Victory Party. But we promised you pics or it didn’t happen. So here’s all the pictures I had been intending to post of Brandy. Thanks Brandy!

In closing, Autostraddle Reader Alicia sent over this quote from an article on the Awl. She said, “I don’t think this could be anybody BUT Brandy.”

“Stopping to have her picture taken, a girl in red skinny jeans, a blazer, and a bowtie crossed her legs and leaned slightly back to be photographed the way starlets do. I’d never seen anyone do that before in real life.”

Top Seven Great Things That Happened On Election Night

Election Night was exciting, wasn’t it? I followed Ali’s super amazing open thread on my phone while watching MSNBC and taught a toddler how to spell Obama. We elected President Obama for a second term! We won so many things! Marriage equality did awesome this election, winning all the things! Total assholes Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock are hopefully reevaluating their morals after their losses, but Michele Bachmann still emerged victorious in Minnesota, so we’ve got work to do, people.

But seriously, let’s get to the actually important stuff and talk about the lady with the flag in her hair and Donald Trump’s Twitter tantrum. Here’s my top moments of last night (not in order, so don’t get mad).

7. Todd Akin’s concession speech

I didn’t actually listen to a word of this concession speech, but just the fact that it was happening was enough to make me do a victory lap around my living room. Todd Legitimate-Rape Akin became an icon of the completely insane religious right earlier this summer with his remarks about the magical powers of female anatomy and has been hated ever since by anyone with a logical brain. To see him, and Richard Mourdock for that matter, be forced to accept that the American people won’t stand for this kind of misogyny was delightful. Is it just me or is there something about concession speeches that makes me like a candidate a little bit more than when they were running? They take off their I-Want-To-Be-A-Politician-So-Badly mask and they turn into human beings for a moment. Well, as human as Todd Akin can get.

6. Rachel Maddow’s Colorado messup

Did anyone else see this? This was a really endearing moment to me because you could tell it had been a long day, the MSNBC panelists were getting tired, the adrenaline was wearing off, and we were all waiting for Romney HQ to admit defeat in Ohio. Apparently, when Rachel went to the bathroom, the network called Colorado and announced Obama was the winner. Rachel didn’t notice this and said Colorado was still too close to call (“Too Close To Call” was a really difficult drinking game, just so you know). This wasn’t even a big deal, but when they came back from commercial break, obviously someone told Rachel Colorado had been called and she started yelling at the other panelists because no one told her. This was one of silly moments that made me feel a little less like crying/getting sick/drinking myself all the way to Blackoutville, USA.

5. Donald Trump throws a tantrum on Twitter

I’ve wondered for years why Trump is such an advocate of job creation after he has made a living by literally saying, “You’re fired” to people. Apparently, people still think Trump is relevant in 2012 and these people read his Twitter and then talk about it on the television. Here’s his tweets from last night. Warning: this man is delusional.

I can’t even read these tweets without smiling. I’m not even mad, Donald. I mean, I’m a little mad that you are apparently totally unaware of how the “travesty” of the election played into Bush’s election in 200, but mostly I’m just impressed you honestly believe what you are saying. (Spoiler alert: Obama won the popular vote, too, so… awkward….)

4. Two words: Tammy Baldwin

Tammy Baldwin, you guys. Is there anything else to say? There’s a lesbian in the Senate and she’s awesome. She said in an interview with CNN last night, “I didn’t run to make history, I ran to make a difference.” Four for you, Tammy Baldwin.

3. Elizabeth Warren’s Victory Speech

I cried.

2. Historic Number of Female Congresswomen

There are at least 19 female Senators now. This is the highest it’s ever been, can you believe that? Out of 100 seats, the highest number is 19? We still have a long way to go, but this is a huge step forward in equal representation in politics. In similarly awesome news, of the 90 women serving in congress right now, 24 of them are women of color. We also have our first female Asian-American Senator, Mazie Hirono from Hawaii. Also also, New Hampshire elected the first all-woman delegation by voting in Gov. Maggie Hassan, and Congresswomen Carol Shea-Porter and Ann McLane Kuster, who join Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Kelly Ayotte.

1. Hair Flag Lady

Does she even need an introduction? Hair Flag Lady won the hearts of Americans last night during Obama’s victory speech by standing behind him and moving her head side to side with a flag proudly stuck into her hair. I don’t think I’ve ever been more proud to be an American.

We Won So Many Things! Obama, Same-Sex Marriage, Drugs, Rock ‘n Roll

It’s nearly 11 PM in California and we’ve been awake forever, because we had to vote first thing in the morning so I could come home and freak out about it all day. I’ve eaten a lot of potstickers and Chuck Todd is definitely fading and Rachel Maddow remains a supreme being and WOW, what a day! WHAT A FUCKING DAY!

Tammy Baldwin: Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) will become the first openly gay woman in the U.S. Senate!

We’ve never ever won a popular vote on marriage equality until tonight. This is really fucking historic.

Marriage Equality Wins in Maine: Question 1 has succeeded! That means gay marriage is legal in Maine. See — we got gay marriage in Maine in 2009 but then before anybody could start getting married, they took it back. Now everybody has come to their senses, so suck it Maggie Gallagher!

Marriage Equality Wins in Maryland: Guess where else you can get married? Maryland! That’s why it’s called Maryland, you know, because gay people can get married there!

Marriage Equality Is Winning In Washington: Washington state, birthplace of Nirvana and coffee, so far is voting in favor of Referendum 74 to affirm the state’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage! Votes are still being counted.

Discrimination Against Gay People Loses in Minnesota: Minnesotans were voting on whether or not to amend their state constitution to deny same-sex couples the right to marry today, and it’s official — they’re now the first state to reject a same-sex marriage ban!

Weed: Medical marijuana was legalized in Massachusetts and in Colorado and Washington, small amounts of marijuana were legalized for adults for recreational use. So that’ll be neat.

Also Notable:

Todd Akin, who believes in a magical thing called “legitimate rape,” lost in Missouri. Incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill kept her seat.

Richard Mourdock, who believes pregnancy from rape is a gift from G-d, lost in Indiana to Joe Donnelly.

Openly pansexual Mary Gonzalez won the race for Texas State District 75.

Elizabeth Warren defeated Scott Brown to become the first woman to represent Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate!

In California, Mark Takano is the first openly gay person of color elected to congress!

Rachel Maddow: Just briefly, and I’m not being hyperbolic — Rachel Maddow’s presence is so comforting on my television. This must be what it feels like for straight white men every time they watch everything, ever. Rachel Maddow is a safe space.

Oh right and…

Barack Obama Has Been Re-Elected!!!

The networks called it for Obama and we were really excited about it, but then Romney got upset because he hadn’t written his speech yet, so he bought himself some time by saying he wanted to wait for Ohio to finish counting all their votes. Then at 12:55 EST he conceded and a little before 2 AM EST Barack Obama gave his speech in which he actually mentioned gay people! I sort of want to just lie down now, you know? Like, I’m just so relieved. My brain is reclining. I’m so relieved and thrilled.

Also: every one of you who stood up for your rights against people who wanted to vote against them made a difference tonight. It feels like we — the feminist and queer “blogosphere” — have been just screaming all year. We’ve just been screaming because what else can you do but scream when you’re forced to make a case for yourself on issues that shouldn’t be up for debate anymore. Because sometimes there really is a wrong and a right. Tonight the left won, and that’s all right. I think voter turnout numbers are gonna be massive this year, and a tip of the hat to all of y’all who turned out. Not everything went our way tonight, but for tonight, let’s just celebrate. Celebrate that it’s time for shit to start making sense.  GAME ON.

Notes On Watching America Vote, From A Canadian

Today is a very important day for my country, Canada: America will vote for a president while we partake in our favourite national pastime – watching Americans. This morning I awoke to Jian Gomeshi speaking about the election on CBC radio’s The Q. Last week I stayed up until two in the morning glued to the Canadian documentary program, The Passionate Eye’s, series, “Anger in America.” This Hour has 22 Minutes recently ran a skit in which Romney eats Big Bird for Thanksgiving Diner. And tonight,an impersonated Don Cherry, the infamous host of Hockey Night in Canada, will be only one of many Canadian T.V hosts covering the American election.

The world stares at the US election as smallcreatures stare at a boa constrictor into whose cage they’ve been dropped.

— Joyce Carol Oates (@JoyceCarolOates) November 6, 2012

Pierre Trudeau saw the U.S. as more of an elephant. He once said, “Living next to the United States is a little like sleeping with an elephant. You always wonder if they will roll over on you.” But according to a recent National Post editorial board, we don’t have much to fear: “regardless of whether [Mitt Romney] or Barack Obama is inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2013, no one is forecasting major disruptions in the U.S-Canada relationship.” I wondered why it is that Canadians care so much about what happens in America tonight, so I decided to ask my friends and fellow Canadians how they felt about this election.

I had confirmation that not only do we care, but this election is making us anxious. My friend Christal tells me, “I’m too nervous to watch. I might go to the gym to distract myself.” Diana, a host of the popular radio show Gaywire, might be coping in a different way: “I haven’t had hard liquor in 2+ years. If Romney wins tonight (or is close to winning) I will be drinking one drink after another.”

My friend Mike explained one of the reasons we’ll all be closely watching this election: “To me one of the issues that should be front and centre of every voter is climate change. Internationally, the U.S. is a key constituent in making that change possible and hope this election doesn’t move the U.S. backward.”

Taryn, a political science student at the University of Alberta, and Christal both emphasized the connection between what happens in America and what happens here. When asked if she cares about this election, Christal said, “Of course I care. U.S. politics can (and do) majorly influence Canadian politics. It’s no coincidence that Harper came into power while Bush was president.”

Taryn explained, “I have witnessed what a more (neo-)conservative politician is capable of doing here in Canada. When it comes down to it, the legality of abortion is important to me based on principle, and Obama being a more socially progressive politician does make me root for him, especially based on his attempt at introducing health care. I also know that American politics will have a great affect on Canada and the rest of the world, and having an American president like Romney will only increase the speed at which Stephen Harper is able to turn Canada into something we don’t recognize or want.”

You only need to think of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to know that we as Canadians have a lot to lose at the hands of the Americans; but the reason The National Post is able to say that our relationship with the U.S. is safe is because, compared to Canadians of previous decades, we don’t have as much to lose. As The National Post says, “unlike in the 1980s, and even the early 1990s — there simply is no longer a serious constituency for across-the-board protectionism in the United States (or, for that matter, Canada).”

This, my dear Canadians, is because we have already sold out. The National Post makes it seem like we should be relieved; when really the lack of animosity between the Canadian government and the American one should be a cause for concern. In the 1987 anthology, If You Love this Country:Facts and Feelings on Free Trade, edited by Laurier Lapierre, Margaret Atwood writes:

Our national animal is the beaver, noted for its industry and its co-operative spirit. In medieval bestiaries it is also noted for its habit, when frightened, of biting off its own testicles and offering them to its pursuer. I hope we are not succumbing to some form of that impulse.

Today, not only does America have our oil and our water, it also has our undivided attention. When it comes to Canada, the key word in the Joyce Carol Oates tweet is dropped. We have allowed our government to drop us into this cage. While it may be easy to picture America as a big boa constrictor of a bully and see ourselves as small, victimized creatures, it seems like its varying degrees of privilege, rather than differences of citizenship, that define where we stand on these issues.

Low-income Americans don’t care that Canada has been sold for its resources. They care about having resources.

As Autostraddle’s very own Fonseca says, “My mom gets by on $1,000 USD monthly. She has to make it stretch. I don’t think she cares where her gas, plastics, etc. come from, or if they can be recycled.”

She further explained that when low-income Americans go to the polls, they’re voting for the party that promises them prosperity – the American dream. Meanwhile, North of the border, rich and poor Canadians alike support Harper because he promises the Canadian equivalent of the American dream – a strong economy otherwise known as Canada’s Economic Action Plan.

As my friend Taryn highlights, candidates haven’t spoken about things like climate change, poverty, and racism on a societal or structural level: “The current American electoral system is broken, just as the Canadian one is – we do not have candidates representing the full breadth of options in terms of what will make our societies more just, equitable and sustainable.”

This evening as we watch the winner give his victory speech, we need to ask ourselves whom exactly the victory is for: low-income Americans? Canadians? Women? And then, we need to think about putting our beaver-industriousness to good-use and gnaw our way out of the damn cage.

OPEN THREAD: 2012 Election Day Live-Blog, With Extra Feelings

Get your sticker that says you voted, even if your polling place doesn’t have one! Print out the whole sheet and stick one to your forehead with some tape. Congratulations! You’ve just participated in Democracy.

---

Greetings Queers, and Happy Election Day! Welcome to our Feelings Thread / Election Day Party Live Blog. Are you excited? I’m excited.

I love Election Day– I feel about Election Day the way most people feel about Christmas. And we’ve done a lot of amazing reporting on the Election so far. We taught everyone how to Vote with their VAG (and then we did it again. And again for local elections and voting while abroad.) We talked about loving your Republican family and voting while trans*. We gave you the low down on Bain Capital and we covered (I mean g-chatted) all kinds of debates, including the vice presidential one and there was freedom and justice (and an app) for all. So now it’s time for us to bite our nails and stare at the TV and have a big ole feelings party together on the interwebs. We’re going to have updates from a whole bunch of the Autostraddle staff today, and the greatest surprise is WE’RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE UPDATES FROM YOU!

That’s right. If you have a link to something you’d like covered, a picture of your Election Day Party, witty commentary or just about anything you can dream up, you’ve got two options: a) leave it in the comments below! It is an open thread after all or b) email it to ali [at] autostraddle.com to submit it for inclusion in the body of the post. Not everything may go up, but I’d love your submissions! Especially if you’re making election-themed jello-shots. Then I want pics or it didn’t happen.

So let’s have a grand time together! And hopefully this great country of ours won’t be set back forty years when we wake up in the morning.

8:08 am. Just turned on MSNBC! Who’s watching along with me?

8:14 am. I’m putting out the “pics or it didn’t happen” call for pictures of y’all voting. Send ’em to ali [at] autostraddle.com.

8:22 am. Can anyone guess where Brandy Howard is going to be sending us updates from tonight?

8:27 am. Aww, you guys, here’s a tweet from Contributing Editor Vanessa last night. She’s voted for the first time ever today! Check out her button!

Time to be dorky: I am SO excited to vote for the first time tomorrow!! instagr.am/p/RrIl9tQVTn/

— Vanessa (@vanessapamela) November 6, 2012

8:31 am. Awww, sorry Vanessa. No “I Voted” stickers at her polling place. But I award you an imaginary internet “I Voted” sticker, complete with not-imaginary love from Autostraddle.

I just voted for the 1st time! Obv for @barackobama. Kinda sad I didn’t get a cute “I VOTED” sticker. I just wanna tell the whole world!

— Vanessa (@vanessapamela) November 6, 2012

8:37 am. !! Reader Sarah (SugarMaple86) just voted in Ohio! Ohio is a swing state! You get an imaginary virtual internet chocolate chip cookie from me!

8:42 am. That’s right Lanie, Brandy Howard is gonna be at the Victory Party in Chicago. Here’s what she emailed me last week: “On November 6th, I am going to Obama’s victory party in Chicago!!  I’m so fucking excited- I can’t even see straight.” I’ve been trying to come up with some kinda “can’t see straight” joke, but I haven’t had my coffee yet.

8:44 am. Is it weird that I feel like heckling my TV just because Rachel Maddow isn’t on it yet?

8:49 am. Holy Election, Batman! The news anchors just casually dropped in that Biden is going to run four years from now. Apparently he announced that this morning and I missed it? Imma fact check that. Stand by. Update: I can’t find anything on the google machine about that except that he joked about it days ago. So until I can, it isn’t real. Back to fun pictures of readers voting!

8:59 am. Reader Cara voted in North Carolina. That’s another swing state, you guys!

9:01 am. MSNBC just had a great map of battleground states. Imma try to find one, y’all, because it was helpful.

9:04 am. Romney and Mrs. Romney just voted in Massachusetts. You guys, I keep finding myself heckling my TV.

9:07 am. MSNBC tells me that we’ll start to know which candidate is having a good night by 9 pm est. Which means I’m going to have an ulcer for twelve hours.

9:13 am. Politico has a great view of the swing states. Super helpful. It also includes predictions based on previous polls. Update: It doesn’t include PA, though, which is another state that both candidates are really gunning for.

9:23 am. In case you haven’t decided who you’re voting for yet, here’s a message from the Greatest Generation, via Move On. This is very much NSFW, so don’t hit play unless you’re a) at home or b) work for Autostraddle or similar cray cray liberal website. In that case, hit play and call over your co-workers.

[yframe url=’https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f17fWth3YgA&feature=player_embedded’]

9:16 am. I missed Joe Biden voting. So here’s some pictures of Joe Biden voting!

9:26 am. There are so many mustache-related bets happening regarding this election. Do y’all have mustache-related bets, or is that just every MSNBC news anchor and analyst?

9:32 am. MSNBC is discussing how Obama will win without Ohio. They’re saying it seems plausible. He would need Wisconsin, Iowa and Virginia, which is not unlikely.

9:36 am. Just reminding you guys to send your voting pictures to ali [at] autostraddle.com. I want to see you brag! Send me pictures of your stickers, you with two thumbs up in front of your polling place. You dancing around like a cray cray person because you participated in Democracy today. Yeah, I want that photo too.

9:43 am. A vote against Todd Akin from reader Sherri!

9:46 am. Haley Barbour, who I fundamentally disagree with on just about everything, just said don’t believe exit polls because so many people voted early. I feel like I kinda agree with that. And now my brain is melting out of my ear.

9:55 am. Reader Mareika just voted for Elizabeth Warren and President Obama in MA. She just sent me the following email: “Hopefully you can see the sticker through all the femme in this picture.”

9:57 am. I just saw a Fox News commercial touting them as Fair and Balanced election reporting and the best place to keep up with the election. I vommed in my mouth a little. Anyone have the fortitude and/or the stomach to see what Fox News is saying and then report back to us here?

10:01 am. Hey y’all, just did some research and you’re not supposed to take pictures of your complete ballot because different states have different rules about it. So I’m going to follow the “Don’t Tweet Your Ballot” rule from now on. Only give me pictures of you and your stickers!

10:04 am. Okay, I just figured out where the Joe Biden 2016 rumor came about. Someone asked him if it’s the last time he’ll be voting for himself as he was walking out of the polling place this morning. He said, “No, I don’t think so.” Thoughts? I’d be really pumped if he ran in 2016.

10:09 am. I wanted to highlight a comment from Amanda:

I voted at 6AM and now I’m running a huge phone bank for Obama allllll day.

If anyone out there wants to make some calls into swing states and make sure our supporters get out and vote look up your local OFA office and stop in – they’ll all be going hard until the polls close on the West Coast.

Have the day off? Go make some calls!

10:14 am. Here’s a picture of Olivia’s sweet sticker!

10:23 am. Omg, my girlfriend just sent me the link to Your Fucking Polling Place. It will help you find your fucking polling place.

10:28 am. Wanted to highlight a comment from Evidux–

Guys, please remind everyone to stay in line at the polls. As long as you’re in line when the polling closes, they still have to let you vote.

10:30 am. MSNBC says “nobody knows nothin'” at this point in the day. Exact quote.

10:32 am. Just got the following email from Daneille: “We can do this, Ohio!”

10:44 am. Hey y’all, just changed the order of the live blog. The other way was too confusing for readers. Now everything is in regular chronological order!

10:47 am. Rachel Maddow just told me a lot about voter suppression in 31 seconds. You should also see this.

10:52 am. Renata voted from Edinburgh and she doesn’t get a sticker for voting absentee, so she made a sign. VOTING SPIRIT, EVERYONE!

10:56 am. HOLY ELECTION DAY, BATMAN! I pronounce this the best Election Day outfit. Becca, you win all the things!

11:00 am. Hey everyone, I’ve gotten so many emails and comments about how upset people are that their polling places don’t offer cute stickers. So Intern Geneva is going to rescue you all because she made you this:

 Click on it to make it full size and put it on your Facebook! Or Tweet that sucker! Heck, make it your profile picture on all the things.

11:05 am. Vanessa‘s girlfriend just sent her these chocolate covered strawberries and this note for voting in her first election today! We should congratulate Vanessa not only on her first vote as a US citizen, but also for her pick of human.

11:11 am. MSNBC is having Guiliani and the anchors debate the Sandy effect on voting. It’s actually kinda weird to watch, Guiliani is really panning the response. Everyone affected by Sandy, how are you voting today? Everything okay?

11:22 am. Mitt Romney arrives in Cleveland for a campaign event, says MSNBC. You guys, I hate reporting on Mitt Romney’s moves today. I never claimed to be fair and balanced. :0)

11:24 am. They’re debating the idea of popular vote v. electoral vote re: the broken system. Do y’all have popular vote feelings? Send them my way.

11:26 am. The headline on MSNBC says Ohio is the Top Prize in Election.

11:29 am. Renelle from San Francisco reminds us that local elections matter too: “Not every day you can vote to keep your English teacher from hell off the school board!”

11:33 am. Hey everyone, wanted to remind everyone not to send me pictures of their ballot. I’m following the Don’t Tweet Your Ballot rule. But pictures of your stickers, you dancing around, your election day outfit and whatever else you can think of that’s not your ballot are all welcome. Send them to ali [at] autostraddle.com and they might be included here!

11:38 am. Katlyn just cast another vote against Todd Akin! SEND INTERNET LOVE TO KATLYN!

11:39 am. Even my favorite news networks sometimes make me headdesk. They just showed footage of Obama casting his vote moments ago. But he voted early in Chicago days ago. I even covered it on AS.

11:43 am. MSNBC is running a constant ticker of poll closing times that I’m finding super helpful in terms of when to cast your vote. So I found a list online for those of y’all who don’t have access to a TV to see said ticker, via Ballotpedia.org.

11:46 am. Community, everyone! Check out yet ANOTHER adorable, voting-related thing that happened to Vanessa.

@vanessapamela I got an extra sticker for you! When I told the woman why, she said she was excited for you & the country is proud of you.

— Jen Green (@wasteunit) November 6, 2012

11:51 am. Funny story. When I was 18 months old, I knew every word to this song. My mother used to stand me on chairs at family gatherings to sing it. This is hundred percent true.

[yframe url=’https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kvk1NZDFvZU&feature=player_embedded’]

11:58 am. Xan votes for Tammy Baldwin!

12:03 pm. Check out this comment from Hansen:

My brother looked up his polling place online to see where to go and it said he wasn’t registered in the system and he started to panic about wrongly being kicked off the lists, but he went to the polling place anyway and there wasn’t a problem! It was just something like a wrong address.

WHEN IN DOUBT: go to the polling station and try to vote regardless.

THIS! There was a problem with my registration when I went to get my absentee ballot. They fixed it on the spot. GO ANYWAY. Republicans may not want you to vote, but most likely the person helping you really DOES want you to vote.

12:05 pm. They’re yelling on TV about how people who don’t vote are idiots. People, do go vote! If you don’t vote, you give up your right to complain! Talk about community, it makes you a strong part of the community you live in.

12:10 pm. Want to remind everyone who didn’t get a voting sticker that we’ve made one for you, thanks to the mad skillz of Intern Geneva. Go put it on your facebook! Twitter! Print it out and stick it to your forehead!

12:15 pm. Contributing Editor and link finding extraordinaire Kristen just found this amazing interactive graphic novel about the U.S. election on the Guardian. EVERYONE MUST SEE THIS.

12:18 pm. Jezebel reports that at least one voting machine in PA isn’t taking votes for Obama.

12:27 pm. Marni in line to vote, sent to me by Riese. It’s Marni’s first election too, everyone. LET’S GIVE MARNI SOME INTERNET LOVE.

12:32 pm. A cute story from Riese about that photo: the lovely woman at the polling place asked Marni if it was her first time voting. Riese was like, omg, can you really tell that Marni is Canadian that much? But no, apparently that poll-worker confused Marni for a 19 year old boy. Marni was all, I’m 30, even though she’s actually 29. Riese says it might be the first/last time she’s told a lie about being 30.

12:40 pm. Just received an email from the Obama campaign about making calls. Wanna make some calls?

12:44 pm. Just got the following email from Joleen: “I would much rather have Claire McCaskill in my vagina than Todd Akin!”

12:50 pm. Just got a super cute picture and super articulate email from Casey!

I voted this morning in Chicago – I didn’t get a sticker, but I did
get a receipt.  I also had to snap this in a bathroom stall at work
like a total creeper, so there’s that. Thanks for having the live blog
up today – somehow, it’s lowering my stress level to be watching this
unfold with all you wonderful ladies!

Also, you should remind people that voting on judges is also
important! If there are any other Chicago ladies who haven’t voted
yet, they can go to http://voteforjudges.org/ for more information
about who is on their ballot.  I’m sure that other cites and states
have similar resources.

Thanks!

1:00 pm. Has everyone seen Contributing Editor Cara‘s Election Day Team Pick? Head over to her post to take a look.

1:04 pm.  This tweet is relevant to our interests:

Cats voting twitter.com/BuzzFeed/statu…

— BuzzFeed (@BuzzFeed) November 6, 2012

1:06 pm. Contributing editor Carmen just sent over this gallery of 92 Years of Women Voting. This needs no commentary.

1:10 pm. I really want Rachel Maddow on my TV to happen. Like, a lot. So as a result, I’m about to give you all a barrage of election-related Maddow clips, some from readers, some from contributing editors. Are you ready?

1:14 pm. Reader Jen submitted this one. Apparently Maddow says “lady time” at the 2:20 mark. About pot, marriage equality and tons more.

1:19 pm. Cara emailed me this Maddow video about all the awesome stuff Obama has done.

1:25 pm. More Maddow! Reader Jen says she likes this one because Maddow is a prop comic. This is from last night’s episode.

1:30 pm. Do you like polls and predictions? Join editor Rachel in closely monitoring FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver’s political calculus blog. Obama is listed as having a 90.9% chance of winning. Is it weird that my stomach is bubbling like a hot tub of nervousness none-the-less?

1:34 pm. Reader Arls sent this great article about voting machines and the hype over them not working correctly. It’s a heavy, but amazingly informative. Thanks for this!

1:37 pm. Joe Biden, looking swanky.

Joe photo of the day: The VP casts his vote in Delaware. twitter.com/JoeBiden/statu…

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) November 6, 2012

1:39 pm. Let’s all give a shout out to the interns working on this post today! Geneva, Chelsey and Naimah! Much love for finding some great tweets and making some great “stickers.”

1:45 pm. AS reader Christina, voting her heart out in California so that student fees won’t go up. The Presidential election isn’t the only thing going on today, make sure you read all the ballot questions that change state by state.

1:52 pm. Some great recommendations for Oakland voters, but it doesn’t stop there. Check out these recommendations for California voters at large, including state initiatives.

1:55 pm. Okay, y’all. I have to eat lunch. Obama would want me to eat lunch, and editor Rachel thinks you all should make me sandwich. Sandwiches for freedom. Be back soonest!

2:19 pm. After lunch, the nerves are really getting to me. I keep having to employ deep breathing techniques. But Steve Garfield has a reminder for us:

2:22 pm. It’s just talking heads right now on TV, you guys. So head on over to Laura and Vanessa‘s post on Sally Kohn, because they tell me that Sally Kohn is going to be the next Rachel Maddow.

2:27 pm. Contributing editor Kate is going to do a queer strip-tease if she gets 100 likes on this post. The catch? You can only like it if you voted.

2:29 pm. MSNBC tells me the voting machine that Jezebel reported on earlier, the one that changes Obama votes to Romney votes, has been taken out of service.

2:33 pm. Everyone send internet love to Carolyn, who is watching the election from South Africa. Here’s her election night all-nighter schedule. The time difference is a bitch.

2:35 pm. Reader Arls just drew my attention to My Fair Election, where we can gather data to give viable, legal feedback on our polling places.

2:40 pm. Reader Katie wants to remind us all to vote yes on 1 in Maine. This is voting FOR marriage equality.

2:57 pm. Kristen found this great video on what happens if the Electoral College is tied. This is not something I want to think about, but since a whole bunch of the headlines I’ve read all insist that Obama and Romney are coming into this election tied.

[yframe url=’https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHEDXzOfENI’]

 3:00 pm. The reporters on “The Cycle” look like they’re having a ton of fun reporting this. “People have many questions, like who’s running? And be specific.” If you have access to a TV, these guys at least look like they’re gonna have a good laugh about this. MSNBC, y’all.

3:05 pm. Reader Sonia sent a picture and a link to the very first California Asian American Pacific Islander Voting Guide, which is a thing I didn’t know existed until right now. Thank you Sonia!

3:10 pm. I have really strong feelings about Election Day being a federal holiday on par with Christmas. Or at least maybe we vote on a weekend? Vanessa found this great piece on the tradition behind voting on a Tuesday. It makes no sense anymore, but we keep it anyways, because TRADITION!

3:14 pm. Want a preview of what’s on your ballot? Use TheBallot.org to get a preview before you get to the polls.

3:20 pm. Contributing editor Gabrielle‘s polling district has been declared a disaster area due to Sandy. Here’s what she did to vote:

Hi friends. Just some personal voting updates: I’m registered to vote in Suffolk county, which is a federally declared disaster zone. Because of the gas shortage, I didnt have a way to get there, but was able to vote via an affidavit ballot in Queens.

3:24 pm. The MSNBC anchors are talking about how to make voting easier. They had some interesting arguments against voting on a Tuesday, and some really compelling arguments for keeping voting on a single day. The thing is, I’m not sure I agree with that. I like Election Day being more of a deadline.

3:28 pm. To piggy back off Gabrielle’s story, did you guys know that Governor Cuomo has declared that New Yorkers can vote in any polling place?

3:33 pm. Reader Stephanie got displaced by Sandy and she’s voting at the LGBT center. “I should get extra gay unicorn points.”

3:37 pm. The MSNBC talking heads are scaring me because they just said that it’s likely that Republicans will keep the House. Terrifying.

3:39 pm. Do you live in Washington? Vote to approve Referendum 74 and keep marriage equality alive and well in your state.

3:41 pm. Intern Geneva found this tweet for you guys. DO IT FOR CANADA!

If I could vote in the USA I would. Please make sure you do your part and vote tomorrow!!! #Canadiantweet #Obama2012 :)

— Shay Mitchell (@shaymitch) November 6, 2012

3:47 pm. Reader Dena wore a Legalize Gay shirt to vote and received compliments from the poll workers!

3:50 pm. MSNBC is talking about Warren v. Scott,  McCaskill v. Akin and Baldwin v. Thompson. They just called Clare McCaskill “Claire Thank-God-I’m-Running-Against-Him McCaskill” and Todd Akin “Todd Legitimate-Rape Akin.”

3:51 pm. Polls show Tammy Baldwin up by 2 points. More on Baldwin maybe winning.

3:54 pm. MSNBC talking about how women are voting. “You don’t mess with women and politics. You just don’t do it.”

3:59 pm. Intern Geneva isn’t the only one who can make voting stickers. Reader Emily made her own too!

4:06 pm. Reader Julie voted NO in Minnesota! Don’t limit the freedom to marry!

4:10 pm. Reader Naomi wants to draw our attention to Prop 35 in California, a poorly written referendum against sex trafficking that’s actually bad for sex workers.

I’m voting to end CA’s death penalty and reform our three strikes law, as well as against an unfortunately badly written trafficking proposition (no on 35, everyone!).

4:19 pm. Autostraddle writer Rose sent over a picture and wants to direct our attention to the Warren v. Brown race in Massachusetts.

Here I am outside my polling place in Boston this morning! (Don’t worry, I didn’t put the buttons on until I was safely outside.) Voted Obama, Elizabeth Warren, yes on all the ballot questions. There was an adorable class of elementary school kids sitting on the floor watching us and talking about who they would pick; I was so happy to help show them democracy in action! After I voted I went up to the nearest Elizabeth Warren campaign office to make phone calls reminding supporters to vote.

4:23 pm. We talked about the marriage equality ballot questions on Autostraddle before, but here’s another link to The Four, a website dedicated to the four states where marriage equality is on the ballot. I always vom in my mouth a little when the majority get to vote on the minority. So let’s queer these effing elections, guys! Let’s take them back!

4:27 pm. Does anyone else think the ice rink at Rockerfeller Center turned into the map of the US is really badass? Are they gonna turn the states different colors as the night goes on, because I am going to lose my shit if that happens. #nerd.

 4:38 pm. Looks like I’m not the only one nerdy about maps! Intern Rebecca plans to color this hand-drawn map in during her election viewing party in Amsterdam.

4:45 pm. Want more internet stickers? Intern Chelsey made this one in response to a commenter from this morning. Whiskey Kitten for POTUS! Put this on your facebook and twitter machines, queermos! Happy Election Day!

4:47 pm. Breaking! NJ, you have until 5:00 to request an email ballot. Huge confusion about New Jersey’s electoral votes! Guys, that’s where my vote lives!!! I’m so nervous. Update: only people displaced by Frankenstorm Sandy can request electronic ballots.

4:53 pm. AAAAHHHAHA! Thanks reader KD15! “re: the 4:27pm comment – per MHP from this weekend, they are apparently going to color in the states in red/blue as they are called for Romney or Obama.” You guys, a giant map made of ice that is totally live updating and in color?! Please tell me you’ll all be watching MSNBC with me?!

4:56 pm. New Jersey, you still have to mail a ballot if you request an electronic one due to being displaced.

5:01 pm. Reader Nate voted in his first presidential election today and also sends us this picture from his college campus. There are no words.

5:02 pm. Intern Chelsey’s dad is gonna make me cry you guys:

so you know, i voted in florida this morning. its a battleground state! woot. my dad, an ALWAYS republican, voted for Obama because he “followed his daughters heart”. I may have cried/my heart died.

5:07 pm. Polls are starting to close in an hour! I’m blogging live on Eastern Standard time, and some polls in Kentucky and Indiana are expected to close at 6 pm my time. Check this map and get to your polling place on time. Map via Politico.

5:08 pm. On Hardball with Chris Matthews: “I’ll be shocked if we get the results from Ohio before midnight.” Then someone just said “I’ll be shocked if we get results out of Ohio in two weeks.” You guys. I can’t be doing this that long.

5:15 pm. Nine battle ground states, according to Chris Matthews. Does everyone know why we care about battleground states? Here’s a handy guide to why these states seem to count a little more. Basically, there are some states that are almost certainly going to Obama, some that are almost certainly going to Romney. Based on those predictions, each candidate needs a certain amount of electoral votes to win. So the votes from the states that are harder to call based on polling and predictions become incredibly important.

5:18 pm. McCaskill leading Akin, according to the Huffington Post.

5:25 pm. Style editor Lizz: “I’m trying to decide if I should make a “Dress Celebrate Obama Winning” article or a “Five Ways to Show Your Mourning Over Romney’s Win WIth Your Clothes” situations.” Do what the newspapers do and have both prepared? Naw, be optimistic and only have the Celebration one ready. We can do this, U.S.

5:29 pm. Thanks, reader Andrea! Colorado is a toss-up so your vote means A LOT!

5:35 pm. As we’re nearing the first poll closing of the night, I have something from Riese here for you.

on election day 2008, i was standing on a newly-assembled ikea end table/nightstand/mini-shelf-thing to hang a curtain rod because we’d just moved in to the apartment a few days earlier, and the table broke, sending me plummeting through it with a newly-exposed screw searing its way up my right leg. i refused to go to the hospital though, because OBAMA!

the reason i’m telling you this is because people who say Obama hasn’t accomplished anything over the last four years obviously haven’t seen how much progress my leg has made!

Here’s a photo of Riese’s Leg Progress.
5:38 pm. As polls start to close and we all start to watch results, I want to see the following in my inbox from all of y’all: reaction shots to states being called (youtube videos encouraged also), photos of your election watching party and SOME PATRIOTIC JELLO SHOT PHOTOS because jeez, someone has to make Election Boozey Things. Send them over to ali [at] autostraddle.com.

5:43 pm. Okay, if you are an exit polls person, Huffington Post is doing a live-updating exit poll post. But take these with a grain of salt, guys. In races that are this close, exit polls don’t mean much and races are almost never called on this data alone.

5:47 pm. And we have our first election food shot! Here are the patriotic strawberries that Vanessa‘s girlboifriend got her:

5:50 pm. Richard Wolffe on MSNBC says he thinks we will have a decision tonight. Here’s hoping, because I can’t sustain this level of stress for more than 24 hours.

5:56 pm. Chris Matthews on Hardball: “Voting is the best revenge” against people who want to stop you from voting.

6:02 pm. RACHEL MADDOW IS ON MY TELEVISION! MSNBC! GO GO GO!

6:05 pm. You guys, I’m such a Maddow fan girl. It’s embarrassing. And! And they’ve promised Melissa Harris Perry will make an appearance as well. MHP is wonderful!

6:06 pm. NBC news poll: 46 % believe the country is going in the right direction, 52% in the wrong direction.

6:09 pm. Six of the battleground states will be closed by 8 pm.

6:11 pm. Florida voters beware, you’re in two different time zones! Your polls close at 7 pm local time. Ignore coverage that says your polls close at 8 pm.

6:13 pm. I just noticed that Rachel Maddow is the only female commentator on this panel. At least she’s in charge of it.

6:16 pm. Lizz sent over video of the PA voting machine that magically transformed votes for Obama into votes for Romney.

6:19 pm. Intern Naimah in her post voting blazer!

6:20 pm. MSNBC is calling Paul Ryan a deadbeat running mate. Stand by for a good Paul Ryan video.

6:23 pm. Like I promised. Bad Lip Reading does Paul Ryan’s video diary.

[yframe url=’https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewP01X5x9Nw&feature=player_embedded’]

6:26 pm. Maddow is talking about Edith Childs, who turned down going to an Obama rally with the President because she was knocking on doors in North Carolina. Are you all fired up?!

6:28 pm. You guys, Melissa Harris Perry is the Chicago correspondent tonight! MHP all the way!

6:37 pm. A great graph that actually outlines what the world thinks about this election. The only country that wants to elect Romney: Pakistan. And not even by that much.

6:44 pm. Ha, omg, reader Briana hitting us with some XKCD election love. Sometimes I feel like this. Like when I’ve been in this post for almost 11 hours.

6:50 pm. Commenter Sophie wins all the things. Super true:

I think the tumblr posts from non-Americans are evenly split between “If Romney wins you can all come live in my country” and “If Romney wins I’m coming to your country to punch you all”.

6:52 pm. Chris Hayes was just going through the Akin and Murdock rape commentary. It just makes me so, so angry to hear. I just can’t get used to it.

6:55 pm. We’re starting to get tickers across the bottom for Kentucky, New Hampshire and Indiana. But I refuse to report on them with only 1 and 2 percent in.

6:56 pm. You guys, my girlfriend brought me snacks! All I’ve had today is veggie sausage and coffee. So. Much. Coffee.

6:58 pm. Reader Lynne emails: “I voted! Time to start drinking!”

7:03 pm. Polls closing in Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky, Vermont, Georgia, South Carolina, New Hampshire and parts of Florida.

7:05 pm. Indiana and Kentucky predicted to go to Romney, Vermont predicted to go to Obama. The media seems to be pretty sure about it, but Imma say predicted because they’re saying things like 4 percent counted.

7:07 pm. Virginia still too close to call. No shit, sherlock. Polls closed 7 minutes ago.

7:13 pm. Looking at Virginia data from 2008 in specific counties. Saying we should be paying attention to Fairfax and Prince William counties. Am I the only one that just can’t be optimistic until we see real numbers from this year?

7:16 pm. Rachel Maddow reminds us that if you’re in line when the polling place closes, they still have to let you vote. STAY IN LINE, QUEERS!

7:18 pm. This comment by Riese. This. This. “seriously thank jesus for rachel maddow, her presence is so comforting to me”

7:19 pm. Aaaahhh! My first glimpse of the ice-map in color. You guys, I’m so excited about this ice-map.

7:21 pm. Y’all, Ellen also wants your stickers. Send her the Autostraddle ones!

Happy Election Day! Take a photo of your #ivoted sticker, and share it with me. But most importantly, VOTE! say.ly/LvP4wVB

— Ellen DeGeneres (@TheEllenShow) November 6, 2012

7:25 pm. Another contribution from Brianna. This may perhaps fuel your panic, however.

[yframe url=’https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1kIGa31HR8′]

7:27 pm. Polls close in Ohio at 7:30 pm. Maddow says this one is the most important for Romney. Her sources say they don’t see much of a path to the White House without it.

7:30 pm. 

If kittens could vote they’d be voting today for @barackobama and @elizabethforma because kittens care about education. #KittensPickThePrez

— Lizz (@OhHeyItsLizz) November 6, 2012

7:31 pm. Polls just closed in Ohio, West Virginia and North Carolina.

7:34 pm. West Virginia predicted to go to Romney. As of right now, it’s Obama with 3 electoral votes and Romney with 24. Remember, a candidate needs 270 to win, so we’re still super far away.

7:35 pm. South Carolina projected to Romney. Bringing Romney to 33 electoral votes.

7:40 pm. Reader Piper emails:

i’m having a lot of feelings right now, ranging from exhausted cause i’ve been running around boston like a crazy person for the past two days and only got an hour and a half of sleep last night, to excited/proud to have voted for obama and warren, and SCARED FUCKING SHITLESS of the possibility of a romney win.  it’s all somewhat confusing for me. OH GOD OHIO POLLS JUST CLOSED.

7:45 pm. Autostraddle editor Laneia voted for the first time in person: “a little old lady put a sticker on me and ali, it was like being knighted.”

7:56 pm. Commercial break! Time to beast this Indian food I ordered!

8:00 pm. Polls close in Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Tenn, Maryland, Alabama, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Mississippi, Maine, Rhode Island, Delaware, DC, New Jersey and Missouri.

8:05 pm. Called for Obama: Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Illinois.

8:07 pm. Romney has a projected 82 electoral votes, Obama 64. Here’s an online version of the map I’m looking at on MSNBC.

8:09 pm. Too early to call, but McCaskill and Warren are in the lead in their states.

8:11 pm. “Chuck has been replaced by an animated map.” I love Maddow.

8:17 pm. Florida elected a democratic senator!

8:19 pm.

All of our hard work these past 18 months comes down to what happens right now. Let’s not leave anything to chance. OFA.BO/tXQpj6 —mo

— Michelle Obama (@MichelleObama) November 6, 2012

8:24 pm. 

WAIT. mitt romney looks like he is winning because of the electoral map, not because he is, right? shit.

— carmen (@c_rios) November 7, 2012

election drinking game: drink when you’re uncomfortable, drink when you’re terrified, drink when you see wolf blitzer’s face #ballotcam

— carmen (@c_rios) November 7, 2012

i am terrified for the future of my country and drinking spiked cider with my dog. maybe this is how the spiritual journey ends. #ballotcam

— carmen (@c_rios) November 7, 2012

8:28 pm. Apparently you can send a pizza to the polls? Helping people stay in line, one pie at a time.

8:30 pm. FUCK YES! DOWNTHEWATERSPOUT MADE PARTISAN JELLO SHOTS! MY LIFE IS COMPLETE!

8:31 pm. Arkansas to Romney. Chris Murphy wins the Senate in Connecticut.

8:34 pm. That puts Romney up to 88, Obama still at 64.

8:36 pm. A quick primer on the Electoral College for those of us who are a little fuzzy from four years of forgetting about the Electoral College.

8:43 pm. A color your own Electoral College map, submitted by reader Cary, who hopes it will calm some stress.

8:49 pm. Contributing editor Malaika sent over this video of the American electoral system as explained by  Canadian sketch comedy show “This Hour Has 22 Minutes.”

8:51 pm. Since all that’s happening right now on MSNBC is men yelling at each other, here’s a hand-drawn Autostraddle badge from Kristen!

8:53 pm. You guys, if I sound panicked it’s just because there’s a lot happening at once and I’m trying to keep up with everything. It’s not because I think we should panic yet. Yes, Romney is in the lead right now. But the really important states haven’t been called yet. So it’s not time to panic. I’ll tell you when it’s time to panic.

8:55 pm. Tons of polls closing in the nine o’clock hour. Too many for me to list. I’m going to list them as they’re called for one candidate or the other by MSNBC.

8:59 pm. From my girlfriend, re: Massachusetts going to Obama. She says she found it on her Facebook.

9:00 pm. Rachel Maddow describes this as “a giant batch of poll closings.” Michigan to Obama. Texas to Romney. New York to Obama. Louisiana to Romney. Kansas to Romney. New Mexico to Obama. Nebraska to Romney, but they split electoral votes in Nebraska so 4 out of 5 electoral votes go to Romney. North Dakota to Mitt Romney, South Dakota to Romney. Arizona to Romney. 114 to Obama, 153 to Romney.

9:04 pm. Ugh, MSNBC projects the Republicans hold the House. If that’s true, that’s more John Boehner. Ugh ugh ugh.

9:06 pm. People are still in line in Virginia. STAY IN LINE, EVERYONE!

9:07 pm. Jersey is projected to Obama! MY VOTE HELPED WITH THAT!

9:09 pm. Katlyn made some white wine with patriotic fruit.

9:10 pm. Bob Casey wins for Senate in Pennsylvania. My girlfriend: “Oh Bob Casey, you’re not really much better than Republicans. But at least you’re a Democrat.”

9:14 pm. A screen shot of the MSNBC map that I’m looking at, if you don’t have cable.

9:15 pm. MSNBC projects Obama as the winner in Pennsylvania! You guys, both candidates really wanted that one. This is a good thing!

9:17 pm. Kirsten Gillibrand projected to win in New York.

9:19 pm. As per some of the commenters, keep in mind that these are ALL projections. They’re probably pretty accurate, but they’re still projections.

9:22 pm. Malaika sent us more This Hour Has 22 Minutes. Thank you, Canada, for this Big Bird sketch.

[yframe url=’https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNmPNiYT4tI’]

9:23 pm. Commenters! I have two rules for you! One, NO PANICKING! It is just not that time yet. Two, you must be sober enough to recognize a concession speech.

9:27 pm. Guess what everyone?! It’s Intern Grace’s birthday! We will probably win in Ohio because it’s Grace’s birthday.

9:28 pm. Wisconsin called for Obama! *”On Wisconsin” plays in my head / on the live blog*

9:32 pm. Style editor Lizz trying to bake cookies for all the donors to Autostraddle’s new website, but instead watching the election. I feel you, Lizz.

9:34 pm. Reader Lauren checking people in to the Democratic Victory Party in Nevada.

9:36 pm. Maddow just told me that, while her race is too close to call, Tammy Baldwin is in the lead. I WANT A LESBIAN IN THE SENATE!

9:38 pm. See? No panicking yet please! 158 for Obama, 153 for Romney.

9:42 pm. Voters Don’t Care That Tammy Baldwin is Gay.

9:43 pm. ELIZABETH WARREN PROJECTED TO DEFEAT SCOTT BROWN! THEY JUST CALLED IT.

9:45 pm. Joe Donnelly defeats Richard Murdock, the guy that said children born of rape is God’s will.

9:46 pm. Some Elizabeth Warren worship:

[yframe url=’https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs’]

9:50 pm. Reader Katlyn summarizes all our feelings about Rachel Maddow in one picture.

9:51 pm. New Hampshire goes to Obama!

9:52 pm. Obama 162. Romney 153.

9:55 pm. Same-sex marriage in Maryland is hella close.

9:56 pm. Iowa, Montana, Nevada and Utah. All closing in the 10 o’clock hour.

10:00 pm. Utah and Montana to Romney.

10:01 pm. Obama and Romney are tied in electoral votes.

10:04 pm. Chris Hayes tells us that the Senate promises to be more polarized than it is now.

10:06 pm. Clare McCaskill projected to win against Todd Legitimate Rape Akin. Rachel Maddow says McCaskill wanted to run against Akin so badly that she ran ads for him.

10:08 pm. What some of us feel like right now. (Even/especially the person who’s been live blogging this shit for fourteen hours.)

[yframe url=’https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1-xK3eDHrw’]

10:09 pm. “The war on women is breaking for the Democrats.”

10:11 pm. MSNBC: Chris Murphy’s victory speech. The new Democratic Senator from Connecticut.

10:12 pm. Mitt Romney wins entire state of Nebraska, all 5 votes.

10: 15 pm. Chloe voted for the first time today too! I’m so proud of all you queermo first time voters!

10:16 pm. Romney would have to get 5 of 6 remaining battleground states to win.

10:18 pm. Here’s where we can all keep up on the Maine marriage equality initiative. Question 1 is too close.

10:20 pm. The Tammy Baldwin race is still too close, guys. I know some people have called it but I’m not comfortable with that yet.

10:22 pm. People are still in line in Florida! Laneia hopes that someone had “stay in line” in their drinking game.

10:25 pm. A big shout out to my girlfriend, who has played a huge role in keeping me watered and fed while I obsessively follow this election. Thanks honey!

10:28 pm. Just putting out the MSNBC map again.

10:31 pm. Massachusetts appears to have legalized medical marijuana.

10:32 pm. Good point, MSNBC. Where are the concession speeches? We’re hearing from victors before concession speeches have been given.

10:34 pm. Romney gets Arizona.

10:37 pm. Romney 174, Obama 162.

10:38 pm. Differing accounts of whether or not the Romney campaign remains optimistic. “Based on what?” Guys, even though it looks like he’s leading, Romney literally has to sweep the remaining battleground states to win.

10:42 pm. Reader T-Bone showing off his election pride with reader Mary’s sticker.

10:43 pm. Minnesota for Obama!

10:44 pm. Romney 174, Obama 172.

10:47 pm. Voters on Staten Island vote by flash light.

10:48 pm. My girlfriend re: Todd Akin’s concession speech– “He should have lost on that comb-over alone.”

10:49 pm. Missouri for Romney.

10:50 pm. “I’m so tired of listening to old white men talk.” – Marni

10:54 pm. Brandy Howard with the queers at the Victory Party in Chicago.

10:55 pm. Elizabeth Warren on MSNBC!

10:56 pm. She’s really wonderful. “We’re gonna fight for a level playing field and we’re gonna put people back to work.”

10:56 pm. “i hope todd akin walks into a concrete pillar tomorrow on his way to get a coffee” –laneia on g-chat just now

11:00 pm.

The “It Gets Better” video starring Tammy Baldwin, who may become the first openly gay US Senator. bit.ly/QmoKRi

— jodikantor (@jodikantor) November 7, 2012

11:01 pm. California, Washington and Hawaii for Obama. Idaho for Romney.

11:03 pm. Obama 243, Romney 188.

11:04 pm. North Carolina to Romney.

11:08 pm. 

11:10 pm. Iowa for Obama!

11:12 pm. Oregon for Obama too!

11:13 pm. IS THIS REALLY HAPPENING? DID OBAMA JUST WIN!?

11:14 PM.  IT’S REALLY HAPPENING! HE’S AT 274! OBAMA’S GOT IT!

11:15 pm. He got Ohio, guys, that’s what did it!

11:17 pm.

This happened because of you. Thank you.

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) November 7, 2012

11:19 pm. “tbh i’m mostly glad ohio didn’t ruin everything forever” –Intern Grace.

11:21 pm. I’m now adding a purpose to this open thread: we are now also an internet birthday party for Intern Grace.

11:22 pm. We even got this despite Citizens United! Unlimited money doesn’t always win. Sometimes humans win instead.

11:24 pm. MHP in some big ass headphones tells me how wonderful things are. The night is lovely, queermos! Let’s get unsober!

11:28 pm. “i’d like to thank my grandmother in ohio for voting obama” – Riese.

11:30 pm.

Four more years. twitter.com/BarackObama/st…

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) November 7, 2012

11:34 pm. Colorado legalizes recreational use and commercial sale of marijuana. You guys in CO, please enjoy your celebratory Obama party tonight with this extra special news in mind.

11:38 pm. Oy, Romney, concede already. I need to sleep.

11:41 pm. Romney campaign is not conceding Ohio, doesn’t believe that Ohio is decided.

11:44 pm. 

Same-sex marriage measures are currently winning in all four states – ME, MD, MN, and WA.

— Towleroad(@tlrd) November 7, 2012

11:47 pm. You guys, if marriage equality wins in all four states and Tammy Baldwin gets elected, Imma die of perfect.

11:52 pm. When everyone at Intern Naimah’s house heard that Obama won:

12:00 am. MAINE!!!

Victory in Maine! @mainersunited! #marriage2012 twitter.com/TheTaskForce/s…

— The Task Force (@TheTaskForce) November 7, 2012

12:07 am. Mainers United says thank you to everyone for winning equality for all families.

12:10 am. For what it’s worth, Colorado for Obama.

12:14 am. Huffington Post has a live updating post full of marriage equality ballot referendums.  Who’s getting married in Maine?

12:18 am. Maddow tells me Maryland has legalized same sex marriage!

12:22 am. Still no concession from Romney. Lesbian Jesus, doesn’t he know I need to go to bed?

12:37 am. Tammy Duckworth wins her race!

12:38 am. Minnesota, do the right thing and oust Michelle Bachmann.

12:44 am. Obama is winning the popular vote too, y’all.

12:45 am. Cory Booker on MSNBC! Fuck yeah Cory Booker!

12:46 am. Cory Booker tells me that Washington is leading in our favor, re: marriage equality. When Cory Booker says something, I believe it. Still too close to call though.

12:47 am. Romney allegedly speaking in 7 minutes. Concession?

12:51 am. Romney has called President Obama to congratulate him on his victory.

12:54 am. TAMMY BALDWIN WINS IN WISCONSIN!

12:55 am. We have a lesbian in the Senate and Romney is conceding. I might die of perfect.

12:57 am. Well queermos, I am signing off for the night. We have a concession from Romney, now we’re waiting for a victory speech from Obama. But you don’t need my commentary to enjoy that. Just sit back and cry wildly at everything President Obama says. Don’t fight it, you know it’s going to happen. And thank you. Thank you to everyone who voted today, because we all made this happen together. As a community. Pat each other on the back, buy each other some beer. Because yes we did. Good night everyone.

Things I Read That I Love: U.S. Presidential Election Edition

Every Friday I regale you with my longform journalism suggestions in “Things I Read That I Love.” These suggestions cover a myriad of topics but today, in honor of tomorrow’s election, I’ve whipped up a thematic edition of Things I Read That I Love.

Politics and The New Normal America (October 2004), by Joan Didion for The New York Review Of Books – Joan Didion on “the apparently intractable enthusiasm of American reporters for covering political conventions,” John Kerry The Candidate, media spin, how Americans frame their ideologies, hypocrisy, polling, focus groups and all this other stuff. It’s Joan Didion so it’s really fantastic, obviously.

Vote of Confidence (January 1993), by Gretchen Reynolds for Chicago Magazine – “A huge black turnout in November 1992 altered Chicago’s electoral landscape—and raised a new political star: a 31-year-old lawyer named Barack Obama.”

The Politics of Personality Destruction (June 2007), by Jennifer Senior for New York Magazine – In addition to bringing me back to a time in American history when John McCain wasn’t the enemy, Mitt Romney wasn’t the front-runner and Hilary was still slightly favored over Barack — this is a really entertaining and interesting look at how fucked up and crazy and fake the whole campaigning thing is, and the psychological toll it takes on its less affable participants.

The GOP War on Voting (August 2011), by Ari Berman for Rolling Stone – “As the nation gears up for the 2012 presidential election, Republican officials have launched an unprecedented, centrally coordinated campaign to suppress the elements of the Democratic vote that elected Barack Obama in 2008.”

The Big Lie: “I Love My Gay Friends, But I’m Voting Romney Anyway” (October 2012), by Christopher Hennesy for The Huffington Post – You’ve likely seen this one already or already posted it to your Facebook, but you know. Just in case.

The Week In Greed #18: They Were Carless People (November 2012), by Steve Almond for The Rumpus – “It is hard to overstate the degree of cynicism at play here: If you can’t win based on your policies, lie about them. If that doesn’t work, make sure those who support your opponent can’t vote. Confuse them. Inconvenience them. Scare them.”

Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital (September 2012), by: Matt Taibbi for Rolling Stone – “How the GOP presidential candidate and his private equity firm staged an epic wealth grab, destroyed jobs – and stuck others with the bill”

Red State, Blue State (November 2012), by Ira Glass & Friends for This American Life- You can’t actually read this one, you have to listen to it, duh! “Everyone knows that politics is now so divided in our country that not only do the 2 sides disagree on the solutions to the country’s problems, they don’t even agree on what the problems are. It’s 2 versions of the world in collision. This week we hear from people who’ve seen this infect their personal lives. They’ve lost friends. They’ve become estranged from family members. A special pre-election episode of our show.”

Rock, Paper, Scissors (October 2008), by Jill Lepore for The New Yorker – The strange and wacky history of voting in America, which began with literally voting out loud, evolved into “paper voting” with bring-your-own ballots (during a time when voters were often wounded or sometimes even killed on their way to the polls) and eventually became the super-special system we’ve got today.

The Ballot Cops (October 2012), by Mariah Blake for The Atlantic – “Thirty years ago, the Republican National Committee was accused of violating the Voting Rights Act and ordered to cease its “ballot security” efforts. Now an organization called True the Vote wants to pick up where the RNC left off, by building a nationwide army to root out voter fraud—or, some would say, to suppress voter turnout.”

George W.’s Personal Jesus (February 2005), by Guy Lawson for GQ – I still remember reading this piece for the first time. It was a revelation/terrifying. “He uses his religion as a political tool better than any president in history. Christ is his number one adviser. And yet we don’t really know what he believes. It’s all part of the plan.”

Voting Rights Watch 2012, by Brentin Mock for Colorlines – Colorlines has heaps of really compelling pieces about voting rights and attempts at voter suppression categorized under its Voting Rights Watch 2012 page. I would particularly recommend Aura Bogado’s How Native Voters Are Routinely Disenfranchised in Arizona.

The Percentages: A Biography of Class (October 2011) by Sady Doyle for Tiger Beatdown – This essay has really stuck with me for its insight on the class tensions between low-income whites and the “liberal elites” they don’t want to vote for. It was in a previous edition of TIRTL.  – “you called us hicks, you made costumes out of us, you made jokes out of us, you have a bar in your big fancy city and it’s called “Trailer”: of course we want to hear that the “coastal elite” is worthless, of course we want to hear that we’re better than you, that we’re “real.”

I could go on forever, but I think this is good for now! Also if you’re looking for a solid endorsement of Barack Obama, The New Yorker’s got a good one.

Obama Endorses All The Same-Sex Marriage Things In Maine and Washington!

Barack Obama, who you may recall from Monday evening’s Foreign Policy Television Superspecial or perhaps from his present position as President of the United States, endorsed same-sex marriage initiatives in Maine and Washington today. Obama had already expressed his support for Maryland’s Quesiton 6 during a fundraiser in Baltimore this past June, and in April, Obama “explicitly came out against” Minnesota’s proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. These announcements add to a building momentum suggesting that this election year could see marriage equality’s very first victories at the polls.

Referendum 74 in Washington is a vote to approve or reject the Ferbuary 2012 bill that would legalize same-sex marriage for Washingtonians. Obviously anti-equality advocates were pretty upset about that bill and by June had gathered enough signatures to put the measure up for a vote. The statement from Paul Bell, Obama’s Northwest regional press secretary, is as follows:

“While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the president believes in treating everyone fairly and equally, with dignity and respect. Washington’s same-sex marriage law would treat all Washington couples equally, and that is why the president supports a vote to approve Referendum 74.”

Washington State Senator Ed Murray of Seattle, a 17-year advocate for gay & lesbian rights within the political system, was overjoyed and surprised to hear of the president’s endorsement: “I would never have dared to dream that a President would one day step forward at this crucial moment in the middle of his own close reelection campaign, to offer his support to our efforts.”

Washington United for Marriage is the most visible advocate of Referendum 74 and, unsurprisingly, the heathens at the National Organization for Marriage are the most visible opponents of the measure. Washington United for Marriage has garnered heaps of support from the bigshots of Seattle’s world-renowned tech industry — Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos donated $2.5 million to the cause and Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer each put in $1000,000, and on Tuesday, Bill and Melinda Gates donated another $500,000. Other local corporate supporters include Starbucks, REI, T-Mobile, Expedia and Nordstrom. NOM is relying primarily on the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle and “in-pew donations” from various parishes, including lots of out-of-state money (surprise!). Also, Obama wasn’t the only endorsement Referendum 74 got this week — The Washington State NAACP announced its support today as well.

Polling is mixed and as of last Wednesday, equality advocates maintain a very slight lead.

Over in Maine, Question 1, “An Act to Allow Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couples and Protect Religious Freedom,” will ask voters “Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”

Michael Czin, Obama’s Northeastern regional press secretary, delivered the following message on this topic:

“While the President does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the President believes in treating everyone fairly and equally, with dignity and respect. The President believes same sex couples should be treated equally and supports Question 1.”

Maine’s struggle for marriage equality is one we’ve been following since this site launched — in May 2009, Governor John Baldacci signed a same-sex marriage bill into law, and it was to take effect 90 days later. But before those 90 days passed, the lovely people of Protect Marriage Maine and their supporters mobilized to put the issue up for a vote in November. Team anti-equality won, 53%-47%. It was profoundly disappointing. Recent polling, however, suggests that this year’s initiative might actually go our way — supporters narrowly lead opponents, according to Public Policy Polling.

According to research conducted by the centrist Third Wave Think Tank released this week, a shift in attitudes about same-sex marriage isn’t the result of newer and younger voters, as many believe. In fact, only one-quarter of the change can be attributed to young people. The LA Times reports that “75% of the increase in support for gay marriage has come from Americans reconsidering the issue.” Obama, of course, is amongst those Americans who have recently “reconsidered the issue” (at least publicly). When Maine lost the same-sex marriage vote in 2009, many were disappointed that Obama hadn’t spoken out in favor of equality for Maine, but this year, he did. Let’s hope he’s one of many ready and willing to do what they weren’t willing to do three years ago or four years ago and speak out in favor of equality.

News of the World: Foreign Policy and The Last Presidential Debate

Last night we got what may be the last opportunity to have the Presidential candidates make intense eye contact with us through a television screen while leaving us with inspiring words about their vision for the future – at least, the last one before election night. This last debate was on foreign policy, something which most Americans feel a little unfamiliar on, and which it seems like Mitt Romney does too.

There were a few things going on with this debate – it was an opportunity to talk about America’s relationship with the rest of the world, not to mention our deep-seated national anxiety around the Middle East, but also the last debate, where candidates had their final opportunity to leave voters with a specific impression. The big issues in the room were Libya and Iran — Libya, because of the controversy over whether intelligence about violence in Libya was handled properly, and Iran, because the threat of professional extremist Ahmadinejad gaining access to nuclear weapons is the new Cold War — and while those issues may not have been resolved to viewers’ satisfaction, we did have an opportunity to learn a lot about what the individual candidates believe about the world and America’s relationship to it. Also, the debate happens to have occurred on the anniversary of JFK’s declaration of the Cuban missile crisis, which really set the stage as far as alarmism about security threats and unearned references to Massachusetts (shoutout Kevin Costner in Thirteen Days).

In terms of the discussion over Libya, there’s been criticism of Obama and his administration by the GOP because they claim that he mishandled intelligence that could have prevented the September 11th attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, which left four Americans dead. (For a good primer on the longer-term situation in Libya, this is a good read.) Romney also claims that Obama didn’t respond appropriately immediately after the attack, expressing sorrow for the loss or labeling it as a terrorist act. There’s also theorizing on the GOP’s part that the Obama administration’s handling of violence in Libya and the unseating of Moammar Qaddafi allowed for increased terrorist and/or extremist penetration into the region (an incoherent explanation of this via Rush Limbaugh can be read here). Many expected Romney to heavily criticize Obama’s Libya stance during this debate. But in fact, not much was said about it; TIME speculates that this is because Romney may have “come to realize that determining who is to blame in Benghazi is extremely tricky at this stage, and that seizing on a still-opaque situation can be politically hazardous. New details are emerging almost daily, shifting the world’s understanding of what happened that night and what the current situation is on the ground.” It seems as though Romney gave up the opportunity to try to pin Obama with the blame for an oversimplified version of events, because it wasn’t worth taking the chance that he would be forced to acknowledge the real and non-simple reality of the situation.

The fear of Iran gaining nuclear weaponry has been a specter looming in American foreign policy for a while now. Ahmadinejad claims that Iran is working with nuclear materials for peaceful purposes, and America on the whole doesn’t believe him. Their proximity to and strained relationship with Israel, America’s ally, is also cause for concern. As important and contentious as these issues may be, however, there wasn’t really much disagreement on them. Obama and Romney are both on the same page that “crippling sanctions” are necessary to discourage Iran, and that military action should be a last resort, although Iran’s gaining nuclear power would be each of their “red line.” They also both agree that their support of and relationship to Israel is of great importance. Essentially, this issue boiled down to bickering about who did it first and who did it better – who supported the idea of sanctions before who, and who is Israel’s absolute bestest friend ever. Probably the high point of this part of the discussion was when Romney was asked how he would respond as President if Israel announced military action against Iran, and was unable to respond to it other than a blustery insistence that that would never happen, because he and Israel would be so close that they would obviously have been involved in those plans together. Sure, Romney. Uh huh.

In large part, though, more than individual issues, this debate showcased how each candidate would approach the fact that America is only one citizen of the globe, and has to interact with many other nations and governments. Romney made a point of what he called Obama’s “apology tour,” in which Obama visited a number of Middle Eastern nations and delivered speeches on their relationship with America. Romney accused Obama of “apologizing” for America’s actions and demonstrating “weakness,” which he connected to compromising American security. Aside from my previously expressed feelings about how sad and damaging it is to frame decisions in terms of “strength” and “weakness,” the fact is that Obama’s speeches in the Middle East weren’t particularly different from the statements of past presidents. Obama mostly spoke about legitimately awful things that the US is responsible for, like “the destruction of Korans in Afghanistan, and abuse of prisoners in Iraq.” Anyone who thinks those aren’t things we very much deserve to apologize for is a horrifying candidate for President, because they clearly think that by virtue of being American and perhaps by being “a Christian nation,” anything we do is justified and above reproach, regardless of who it hurts. Some of the other things Romney has claimed Obama has “apologized” for are as follows, according to fact-checkers:

“The United States certainly shares blame” for the global banking meltdown, Obama told the French. The George W. Bush administration had “lowered our standing in the world,” he told the English. And to the Turkish parliament, he said: “The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history,” which included slavery, segregation and treatment of American Indians.”

A president who acknowledges that we are still “working through… our own darker periods” is better for America, and also perhaps better suited to recognize and respond to inequality and marginalization abroad. Which brings us to Romney’s disturbing rhetoric about promoting “a civil society” and “teaching” the people of the Middle East to turn away from extremism. A reading of the situation in the Middle East, extremism included, that doesn’t think any reaching out on the part of the US is necessary but does think that we just need to train its citizens to behave better is a colonialist and utterly backwards point of view, and also frankly embarrassing. Combined with the fact that Romney literally verbatim said that our strategy should be to “get the bad guys,” it seems clear that he’s a candidate whose approach to foreign policy takes more inspiration from Rambo than it does from any kind of understanding of international relations.

Ultimately, much of the discussion about foreign policy (at least the parts that weren’t derailed into Romney talking about jobs again, as if there weren’t already perfectly good jobs supercuts of him) was actually about military policy, and how issues abroad impact American security. It would have been nice if there had been more discussion of America’s responsibility to other nations — for instance, how Romney and Ryan’s anti-choice and anti-woman policies would affect the health and safety of women abroad who rely on American aid and support, and could mean a re-institution of the global gag rule. To the extent that anyone brought up these kind of concerns, it was Obama, who thankfully made some excellent points about women’s access to education around the world. All in all, Obama’s understanding of what “foreign policy” means seemed to encompass an understanding of working towards global peace and prosperity, whereas Romney’s focus seemed to be very much on what our world could do for our country, not what our country could do for our world. And while criticisms of President Obama’s complicity in drone attacks and the continued operation of Guantanamo Bay are very much valid, it’s worth remembering that Romney very much approves of those same policies (and explicitly confirmed that in this debate), and also has a view of foreign relations which figures the entire rest of the world as merely the context in which the superpower of America exists. Obama at least seems to understand that we have to be invested in the fate of the whole human race because we belong to it, and that we aren’t just invested in the fate of other places because they might in some way impact us.

Army Of Hipster Celeb Ladies Wants You To Vote

Cara’s Team Pick

Morning, friends! Guess what? I’ve got lovely news. Today is one of those good days! No, not the Sunday Funday kind. The kind where approximately fifty badass and talented women have decided to lipsync to a politically relevant 1960s pop hit for you. It’s a gift! Go ahead, open it:

[yframe url=’https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMxtbAP2cyU’]

This pro-Obama Women Voter Call to Action PSA is the brainchild of cabaret artist and Citizen’s Band cofounder Sarah Sophie Flicker (she’s the one in the flower crown) and filmmaker Maximilla Lukacs, and like others we’ve seen recently, is much better than the higher-budget ones that have been put out this election cycle. For one thing, it has bypassed the ordinary Very Grave Piano Music in favor of Lesley Gore’s pioneering feminist anthem, “You Don’t Own Me.” That song is a better pump-up than coffee, which is lucky, because it’s going to be stuck in your head all day now.

For another, it’s a showcase of very cool people being goofy on their webcams for a good cause. I don’t know if it’s the nostalgia factor or the populist charm or what, but something about seeing celebrities eat noodles in sweatpants and play with their guinea pigs and try to outdo each others’ ferocious lip-sync faces just charms the heck out of me (even when I don’t recognize them – who are you, queer-repping polka dot girl?). They just keep popping up! Hey, Miranda July, may I borrow a book? Wait, Tavi Gevinson, can you even vote yet? Blink and you’ll miss one. (Yes, that was Carrie Brownstein in red plaid and a smile). It’s like Whack-A-Mole, but with artists/musicians/writers/fashion designers in place of the plastic moles, and rather than clobbering them, you just swoon repeatedly. I guarantee you will have two to eight new crushes by the end.

Finally, there’s the message, which is clear, simple, and well-expressed via intertitles and cute signs: women wield a huge amount of democratic power (in 2008, 60% of voters were women!) and we should a) use it, in general, and b) preferably to support candidates who will then support us, by fighting for equal rights, equal pay, and health care that belongs in this century. As Lesley Gore puts it, “I recorded You Don’t Own Me in 1964 . . . it’s hard for me to believe, but we’re still fighting for the same things we were then.”

But hey, we all know this. And I know we’re all going to vote and vote and vote some more. But, first, one more time, with Instagram-tinted feeling – “DOOOOOON’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!”  (Vote, though.)

What The Women Outside of The Binders Make Of Romney’s Debate Performance

By now, you’ve heard dozens of variations on jokes about Romney and binders full of women. Regardless of the content (binder halloween costumes! Bill Clinton popping out of nowhere excitedly!) the context is that Romney tried to use a single anecdotal reference that didn’t make a lot of sense on the sentence level (it’s hard to imagine that repeating “binders full of the dossiers of women campaign professionals” would have been as funny). Because of course, the point Romney was trying to make – that he’s invested in women and feminist concerns because he made a concerted effort to hire women to his staff as governor of Massachusetts – is undercut by the fact that he didn’t support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, along with a multitude of other facts, several of which Barack Obama has helpfully tweeted about.

And there’s one more fact, as explained by Ann Friedman at the NYT:

“Boston journalist David Bernstein reports that while Romney did indeed find himself with a binder full of women’s names, it wasn’t something he requested. The binder was put together by MassGAP, a bipartisan group of women who joined forces in 2002 to push Romney’s incoming administration to hire more women. Did you catch that? The binder of women was assembled by women and pushed onto Romney’s desk, unsolicited.”

So we learn that while the “binders full of women” were in fact real, and not an imaginary item to be mocked, they weren’t exactly something Mitt can take credit for (much like every claim he makes about how successful Massachusetts is as a state). And even after the binders were introduced, Friedman points out that Romney still didn’t exactly promote the women in them to prominent positions within his administration:

 MassGAP claims that between January 2002 and July 2004, 42 percent of Romney’s new appointees were women. Bernstein follows up with some sobering details, however: “Those were almost all to head departments and agencies that he didn’t care about — and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about — budget, business development, etc. — went to women.”

For most of us, these revelations are not really revelations. The fact that Romney wants to defund Planned Parenthood and may well nominate Supreme Court justices who would repeal Roe v. Wade is enough to signal to us that Romney’s vision of America doesn’t really include equality or opportunity for women. But “us” in this sentence refers to a select demographic that is immersed in the feminist blogosphere, who furiously reblog Mansplaining Paul Ryan, and who had already decided we weren’t voting for Romney before he had even won the GOP nomination. What about the person who actually asked the question that Romney was responding to with his binders? According to Salon, Katherine Fenton truly is the unicorn of our times, an undecided voter – and while she considers “women’s equality in the workforce” and reproductive rights to be very important, she doesn’t identify as a feminist. She’s far from being alone. What does Romney’s misleading answer mean to her?

When Salon asked her what her feelings are now on the respective candidates’ approach to the wage gap, she said “I think people around the president making choices would be more more susceptible to action on that. I don’t think Mitt Romney’s people might be as concerned as they ought to be.” As much as we sometimes want to gnash our teeth and shake our TV sets and shout about how transparent everything is, because we already know the answers. But it’s important to remember that there are people who don’t feel like the answers are already obvious, and that’s really who the debates are for. One can learn more about parties’ actual platforms and track records by reading fact checks of the debates than watching them. People who watch the debates for insight onto the candidates may not be looking for the facts or statistics outlined here; they may be looking more for what Fenton describes as her “gut” feeling about candidates. And so depending on how earnest Romney’s binder explanation felt, it may not have been the huge gaffe that so many of us experienced it as. In which case we would have to hope that as far as addressing “the war on women,” Obama’s explanation of his stance towards contraception, fair pay and Planned Parenthood came off as at least as important and sincere as Romney’s binders. Because while the facts may be on Obama’s side (and ours) in this case, those unfortunately aren’t always the deciding factor.