Hosted by a Lego Eggo waffle.
Question of the Day
What's the best bad pun you know?
I'll get us started.
Hey, Llama ask you a question: guanaco on a picnic? Alpaca lunch!
Blog Note
Disqus is glitchy again. If you're getting a "system error" message when you try to comment, it's not just you. Comments just aren't showing up at the moment.
It's not something we can control on our end. Hopefully, it will be resolved soon. My apologies for the inconvenience.
UPDATE: Looks like it's working again now. If you're still having problems, fire me an(other) email.
Number of the Day
[Trigger warning for sexual assault and medical malfeasance.]
$3,000: The fine, in addition to a four-month suspension, that was levied against Montreal physician Dr. Barry Rabinovitch by the Quebec College of Physicians after he was discovered to have filmed his female patients with a hidden camera.
According to the disciplinary report released Tuesday, the investigation found that Rabinovitch filmed 10 to 15 women in various stages of undress in an examining room between January and May 2009.FAIL. The message their penalty actually sends is: "It'll cost you three grand and a nice vacation to sexually assault your patients."
...The professional order calls the actions "hateful and degrading" and says the penalty must send a deterrent message to all members of the profession.
[H/T to Shaker Aphra_Behn.]
Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, proud distributors of the Grammy-nominated album Olivia Sings Stuff.
Recommended Reading:
Mustang Bobby: It Was All a Lie
Resistance: Assimilate! Assimilate! [TW for racism]
Belva: Fighting Racism, One Swimsuit at a Time [TW for racism]
Brian: Dialogue with a Troll [TW for fat hatred, self-harm]
Andy: Mormon Mom Reposts Video Speaking Out for Same-Sex Marriage Despite Threats from Church Officials
Tigtog: Gratuitous Colin Firth Blogging
Leave your links in comments...
Sensitive Areas
by Shaker koach
[Trigger warning for description of "enhanced security pat-down."]
I recently flew across the U.S. and was selected to go through the body scanning machines at one airport. I declined, and opted to receive the TSA pat-down instead. Since I'm not easily triggered by pat-downs, I thought I'd go through it, pay careful attention to what was said and done, and then share my experiences with others, so they can make a more informed decision knowing what the pat-down entails.
This is not about the pros and cons of airport security, how to actually create a more secure environment, the health implications of backscatter machines, etc. This is only about what you can (probably) expect if you opt out of entering the backscatter machine and have to be patted down by TSA agents.
I am a cis lesbian and present as a butch, fat female.
My flights were on a major airline, through mid-size airports. Although all of the airports had backscatter/millimeter wave machines installed, they were only being used at one airport. (This always intrigues me—why have the machines if they aren't used? I've seen security officials decide to stop using the machines when the security lines get too long, sending everyone through the simple metal detector instead. Somehow I don't think that busyness = less chance of terrorism, or that terrorists would be unable to notice this pattern. But I digress.)
My partner and I were in one of the lines that were occasionally directed1 toward the backscatter machines; as we got closer to the machines, I wrestled with my choice. If selected for backscatter searching, would I do it, or would I refuse? I decided to opt out of the backscatter machines and have the pat-down, for two reasons. First, I thought I might be able to leverage my not being triggered to provide a description to those who may be triggered, or just want to know what to expect. Secondly, I see this as a small form of civil disobedience, a token stand against the process of eroding our liberties. I refuse to submit to the machine just because everyone else is or just because everyone thinks I should.
A male TSA official waved me toward the backscatter machine and said, "You need to go through there."
koach: No, I decline.
TSA (professional, slightly bored): Really? You do know that means we'll have to pat you down, including touching sensitive areas (with a glance at my breasts)?
koach: Yes, I know.
TSA: Ok, stand over there, on the yellow X. (There was an X on the floor, made from yellow tape. The TSA official said, 'Call for a female screener,' and another agent, with a much louder voice, did so.)
2nd TSA agent (professional, calm, pulling on latex gloves): You want a pat-down instead of using the machine?
koach: Yes.
2nd TSA agent (a little skeptical): Well, you know I will have to touch you all over, including sensitive areas?
koach: Yes, I know. I'm fine with that.
2nd TSA agent: Do you want a private screening, or is out here ok?
koach: Here is fine. (I wanted it to be public, open—let others see. This is my bit of civil disobedience, my protest against the system.)
2nd TSA agent (very calm, almost resigned): Ok then. Where are your items? (We waited until all of my items—carryon bag, laptop, shoes, jacket—came through the metal detector. The agent collected them and put them on a table in front of me. I was not allowed to touch my belongings, but I could see them. She asked me to remove everything—even a cough drop and a receipt—from my pockets. She stood facing me, about two feet away—just inside my personal space.) Ok, I'm going to describe the process to you. If at any time, you are uncomfortable or want me to stop, just say so. If you want to go to a private screening area, we can. Ok?
koach: Ok.
2nd TSA agent (professional, perhaps a bit nervous): I'm going to ask you to hold out your arms. I'll start by touching your head, your hair, your neck. I have to touch your collar; you may feel a bit of tugging. I'll run my hand down your arms and your fingers. Then I'll check your torso. I have to check the front of your torso, using the back of my hand. I'll swoop under your chest, from the middle around to the side. I'll do this on both sides. Then I'll check your legs. On your legs, I have to go from your torso, from where I meet resistance, down to the floor in one motion. On the interior of your legs, I have to go from where there is resistance to the floor. I have to check your waistband and your pant cuffs. You may feel like I'm tugging on it as I check it. Ok?
koach: Ok, I'm ready.
2nd TSA agent: Do you have any problems areas, with being touched? Any difficulties I should know about?
koach: Nope, nothing.
The TSA agent then did as she described. She asked me to stand on the yellow X, my feet about shoulder width apart, and hold my arms up, straight out from my shoulders (forming a T-shape). From behind me, no more than a foot away, she touched the top of my head, ran her fingers down my hair (but did not run her fingers through my hair). My hair is short, but thick, and she kind of patted it, to make sure there was nothing hidden in/under it. She touched my ears and my neck, then put two (gloved) fingers just inside my shirt collar (I was wearing a t-shirt). Still behind me, she grasped my collar and lightly tugged on it, first the left side, then the middle, then the right side. She ran her hands down my shoulders, my upper and lower arms, all the way to my fingertips. She did this on both arms, on both the outer and inner sides of my arms. Then she touched my back, running the palms (I think) of her hands from the top of my shoulders down to my pants waistband. She did this a few times, to cover my entire back.
Then the TSA agent came around to face me, standing a little less than arm's length away (it felt pretty close to me, just a bit closer than is usually comfortable). She repeated checking my arms, in same way. Then she said, "Now I'm going to check the front of your torso. I'm going to use the backs of my hands, like this," demonstrating a roughly U-shaped hand gesture, with the backs of her gloved hands toward me. "I'll do this a couple of times, on both sides." She looked at me to see if I objected. When I did not, she began touching me with the motion she had demonstrated. She did not look me in the eyes, but watched her hands; it seemed she was being deliberate, careful, and precise. I was wearing a sports bra, so she could not easily put her hands between my breasts, but just kind of started at the bottom of the bra in the middle, and moved her hands across the bottom of my breasts to the outside, near my armpits. (I am large breasted, a DD, and she did not "pick up" my breasts and check underneath them. May have been the sports bra.) She used the back of her hands to softly pat me on my clavicle, above my breasts, on my breasts, and on my stomach, down to my pants waistband.
Then she had to check my pants. My shirt was untucked, hanging over my waistband, so she asked me to pull it up, so she could visually inspect my waistband. My stomach and back, about 1-2 inches, were exposed. She went behind me again and touched the waistband of my pants, then tugged horizontally on my waistband (so it didn't feel as if she was trying to pull my pants down). She tugged in the middle, on the left side of my back, on the far left side, and on the right and far right. She then crouched behind me, touched my waistband, and ran her hands from my waist, over my buttocks, down the backs of my legs, to the floor. (I do not know if she used her palms or backs of her hands.) She did this a few times, to cover my entire backside and thighs.
Still behind me, she then said, "Now I'm going to check the interior of your legs. I'll go from where I meet resistance straight down to the floor." She put her hands, palms together as if she was praying, between my legs at about knee height. Because I am fat, when I am standing comfortably, my thighs meet and touch below my vulva. She slowly moved her hands up, until they touched where my thighs come together; my pants were a little baggy and this did cause my pants to move, to bunch up a little around her hands. She then separated her hands, and moved the backs of her hands down the insides of my legs until her hands touched the floor. She repeated this process.
Next she moved to my front, and essentially repeated the same steps: asking me to raise my shirt a bit, tugging on my waistband, running the backs of her hands down the fronts and outsides of my legs, then checking the interior of my legs in the same way. At no time did she touch my genitals; I think it was only because my fat thighs came together. People with a wider stance, less-fat thighs, or a more ambitious TSA agent, might have their genitals touched.
The agent finished by tugging lightly and horizontally on my pants cuffs (again, it did not feel like she was trying to pull my pants down, but just pulling the cuffs away from my body). She then told me to wait a minute, while she ran her gloves through a machine (to test for residue from bomb-making, I believe). She came back and said, "You're finished. You can put on your shoes and gather up your stuff," which I quickly did.
I am not triggered by strangers touching me, but nonetheless I did feel a bit uncomfortable—I think it was the depersonalized nature of the experience (similar, maybe, to some experiences of hospitals and medical professionals). She was not rude, but she clearly did not care about me, koach, in the least. She was just doing her job. Having my body touched like that was a bit uncomfortable. I also felt that I was putting her in an awkward situation by insisting on a pat-down, though none of the TSA agents said anything like that. I assume that some TSA agents will be more aggressive in checking between and under breasts and between legs. Overall, I was surprised and impressed with her professionalism, her lack of interest in my body as a body, and the amount of time she took to explain and describe her actions. It is safe to say that not all TSA agents will behave this professionally, but at least a few do.
-----------------------------------
1 A word on the selection: One TSA official chose people, apparently at random, to use the backscatter machine; everyone else went through the simple, standard metal detector. The people selected to use the backscatter machine weren’t entirely chosen at random: one man complained about having to take off his belt, and he was selected; two young people of color, in their late teens or twenties, were selected; one person per apparent family group was selected. The TSA official also let all people with toddlers go through the metal detector, often carrying the kids, contrary to reports I’ve been reading. I don’t know the rationale behind the some of the selections, but if you watched, the not-quite-randomness became apparent.
Open Thread: WTF Wisconsin
Links via my friend CheeseBreath, who notes she sent them along in case "the Shakers are interested in Wisconsin's GarbageFart(TM) of a governor. What's happening is what the right has been threatening for years. It's just that it looks like they'll pull it off in Madison. At least there's been a healthy resistance."
Paul Harris at The Guardian—Wisconsin's Tea Party takeover:
Wisconsin is rapidly becoming a disturbing showcase of where America as a whole is headed, as Tea Party political ideas takeover the Republican party. What began as a ragtag scattering of conservative activists two years ago is now starting to have real political power and putting its anti-government, slash-and-burn ideas into practice in ways that impact millions of Americans.TPMDC—Union Protests Continue, Teachers Call In Sick Opposing WI Gov's Proposals: "The protests against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's (R) proposals to roll back public employee unions rights are continuing Wednesday, with schools in the state capital Madison closing as the result of teachers calling in sick en masse."
Wisconsin is at the cutting edge of that transformation. Under its Tea Party-favoured new Republican governor, Scott Walker, and with a state legislature that recently flipped from blue to red (that is, from Democratic control to Republican), it is pushing a rightwing agenda that is shocking to American progressives.
UWM News: Statement of Chancellor Biddy Martin on the state budget repair bill.
Blue Cheddar: The Public Stands Their Ground—A "Filibuster" of Testimony Continues Until 3AM Wednesday in Wisconsin.
Gluten Free Pumpkins: Political activism – getting the facts down.
See How Title X Impacts Your State
If you live in the States, that is.
Guttmacher has created a very fabulous tool that allows you to get a good picture on just how much Title X does in your state (or any state, for that matter). Check it out:
State Facts About Title X and Family Planning.
From Oregon, for example:
Title X–Supported Services in OregonFour, four, Planned Parenthood clinics saw more than half as many clients as seventy-four health department clinics.
•Title X–supported centers provided contraceptive care to 70,300 women in Oregon in 2008.(3)
•These centers served 30% of women in the state in need of publicly supported contraceptive services and supplies, compared with 27% served by such centers nationally.(3)
•Of the total contraceptive clients served by these centers, 72% had incomes at or below the federal poverty level, compared with 70% nationally.(8)
•In 2006, 81 family planning centers in Oregon received support from Title X.(9,10) They included:
Health department clinics: 74
Community health centers: 3
Planned Parenthood clinics: 4
Hospital outpatient clinics: 0
Other independent clinics: 0
•These centers provided contraceptive care to the following numbers of clients:(9)
Health department clinics: 46,790
Community health centers: 1,420
Planned Parenthood clinics: 25,140
Hospital outpatient clinics: 0
Other independent clinics: 0
Impact of Services Provided by Title X–Supported Centers in Oregon
•In 2008, contraceptive services provided at Title X–supported centers in Oregon helped women avoid 14,600 unintended pregnancies, which would have resulted in 6,500 births and 6,100 abortions.(3)
•In the absence of these services, the level of abortion in Oregon would be 51% higher.(6,9)
•In 2006, contraceptive services provided at Title X–supported centers in Oregon helped women younger than age 20 avoid 3,819 unintended pregnancies.(11)
•In the absence of these services, the level of teen pregnancy in Oregon would be 55% higher.(7,11)
•By helping women avoid unintended pregnancies and the births that would follow, the services provided at Title X–supported centers in Oregon saved $18,199,000 in public funds in 2008.(12)
I know I keep saying this: Please write your congresspeople. Tell them not to support HR 217: Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act.
[Related Reading: Chip, chip, chip...]
From the Mouths of Babes
[Trigger warning for sexual violence, disregard for bodily autonomy.]
Well, not babes so much as teen idols on whose every word hang millions of young women (and men) across the globe:
[Justin Bieber] isn't sure what political party he'd support if he was old enough to vote. "I'm not sure about the parties," Bieber says. "But whatever they have in Korea, that's bad." He does have a solid opinion on abortion. "I really don't believe in abortion," Bieber says. "It's like killing a baby?" How about in cases of rape? "Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don't know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that."Except for how I just judged that and now you're gonna print it and there it goes out into the world that abortion is babykilling and rape is really sad but it's not reason to get an abortion there it goes wave bye-bye whooooooooooooops.
There's also some great stuff about abstinence. Precious, really.
A metric bieberton of fail. Irony!
[Via.]
Webcomics and Ism-fails: One Way to Get It Right
(Please note that I make no guarantees about the progressiveness of this comic; they generally try, but I'd not be surprised to find things they've done which are of a privilege-blind nature1 type which suggest they could examine their privilege more closely. The point of the article is about their response to my pointing out something of that type.)
One of the webcomics I enjoy is Darths and Droids - a set of screencaps from the Star Wars movies, re-imagined as a roleplaying game with characters of gaming archetypes (the minmaxer/munchkin, the roleplayer, the rules lawyer, et c.).
One of the little things I've liked about the series is that they've provided transcripts from the beginning, for every comic they post, so that being able to view the image-heavy comic isn't a necessity to take part. But there was also a little piece that rankled: the transcript was labeled "Vision-impaired transcript". Leaving aside the different respectful labeling conventions adhered to in the US and UK ("People-first" is a more US-centred concept, and isn't as widespread in the UK), it really doesn't need to be labeled beyond "transcript" at all - anyone most people can read the transcript or have it read to them2, or might need to, whatever their visual sense ability.
After letting my privilege make me ignore it for a while, the idea clicked with me that I could find a teaspoon opportunity here, and I tried to write an e-mail to the creators. Not finding one (because I didn't look in the obvious place, not any failure on their part), I wrote a message on Facebook (and the wrong Facebook, at that).
I posted about it at my public LJ, here. And before very long at all, who shows up in my comment thread but David Morgan-Mar, one of the webcomic's creators:
Hi, I've made the change you suggest. Thanks for expressing your concern. Truthfully, I'd been thinking the same thing for some time, but was too lazy to change it until now.No fuss, no defensiveness, just "Oh! Right, I'd meant to and forgot, thanks for the reminder!"
That's the way to respond to the criticism that something you're doing might be causing someone else pain/anxiety/unhappiness that you didn't mean/want to create. Like stepping on someone's toe: you don't defend your right to step on people's toes! You say sorry, if you didn't mean it.
If you did mean it, of course, then it would be appropriate to become defensive and angry at someone suggesting that you did a bad thing, because...wait, that's not appropriate either!
But I'm sure we can't think of anyone who'd respond like that.
1 Wow, that was bad ableism - my apologies, and thanks to Shaker KA101 for pointing it out to me.
2 Sorry for this one too (the italics in that phrase indicate edits) - it's ableist to be so cavalier about "anyone" being able to read it, as there are many reasons why someone might not be able to read a transcript either, running from differing visual abilities to dyslexia to not reading colloquial English well, or being at work with images blocked.
I'm sorry for my errors, and any othering I caused.
Today in Rape Culture
[Trigger warning for sexual violence, victim-blaming, rape apologia.]
Actual Tweet: "Poll: Is Lara Logan to blame for her sexual assault?"
This is the Rape Culture in action: Let's all vote on whether a woman brutally raped and beaten is "to blame for her sexual assault."
Congratulations,
[H/T to @SadyDoyle.]
It's never stopped being Fundamental
Back in April of 2008, I wrote a post about how Reading is Fundamental (RIF) was in trouble: the Bush administration had planned to eliminate all funding for it. A few weeks later, Spud updated with the good news that the letter writing campaign to save RIF worked.
RIF is facing elimination again.
The Republican House leadership has released their proposed FY2011 Continuing Resolution which eliminates the funding for Reading Is Fundamental (RIF) and its nationwide services. Without this federal funding, over 4.4 million children and families will not receive free books or reading encouragement from RIF programs at nearly 17,000 locations throughout the U.S.RIF has created an easy way to contact your congressperson and urge them to save this much needed program. Please do so!
Unless Congress maintains a presence for RIF in the FY11 budget, RIF will not be able to distribute 15 million books annually to the nation’s children at greatest risk for academic failure. RIF programs in schools, community centers, hospitals, military bases, and other locations serve children from low-income families, children with disabilities, homeless children, and children without adequate access to libraries. The Inexpensive Book Distribution program is authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEC.5451 Inexpensive Book Distribution Program for Reading Motivation); it has been funded by Congress and six Administrations without interruption since 1975.
Last fall RIF released a report from Learning Point Associates, an affiliate of the American Institutes for Research, noting the results of a meta-analysis of 44 studies classified as rigorous of the 108 examined in the overall review commissioned by RIF. The study found that access to print materials:
- Improves children’s reading performance
- Is instrumental in helping children learn the basics of reading
- Causes children to read more and for longer lengths of time
- Produces improved attitudes toward reading and learning among children
Since its founding in 1966, RIF has played a critical role in improving literacy in this country by providing new, free books for children to keep and build home libraries. Access to books and the power of choice ignite children’s hunger for knowledge and a passion for learning.
[Related reading: It's Fundamental, It's Still Fundamental]
I Can't Wait To See This!
[Video Paraphrase by Liss: White people. Trains. Conspiracies between white people who sound like they're reading leftover dialogue from The Overton Window. Skyscrapers. Limos. These white people are rich, yo. And they hate taxes. But they love trains. Trainwreck! Metal. Trains. Metal. Trains. Mansion. Limo. Taxes bad. Profit good. Government is the enemy; you can tell because this big fat politician who is definitely a Democrat is smoking a cigar. White people. Scheming. Trains. JOHN GALT!!! Yelling. Champagne. Trains. "If you double-cross me, I will destroy you." White people. Champagne. "Atlas Shrugged, Part 1." Part One? Ugh. Liss Barfed, Part Fart.]
On Lara Logan
[Trigger warning for sexual violence, victim-blaming, rape apologia, sexism, racism.]
Lara Logan is a CBS correspondent who was gang-raped and beaten during the celebrations in Tahrir Square last Friday after former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak resigned.
In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers. She reconnected with the CBS team, returned to her hotel and returned to the United States on the first flight the next morning. She is currently home recovering.Since this story was reported yesterday, there has been a tremendous amount of reaction, much of it absolutely horrifying in all the expected ways.
I had no desire whatsoever to write anything about this story, in no small part because I haven't even been able to ascertain whether Logan gave her permission to CBS to even report the story, and all its details, in the first place. But I'm getting lots of email about it, so here's the entirety of what I have to say:
1. I wish Lara Logan a speedy recovery from her physical injuries, and I wish her strength and peace.
2. If your first inclination, upon hearing of the sustained gang rape of a woman, is to suggest it was inevitable, because she was doing a job women shouldn't be doing, or because of the ethnicity and/or religion of her attackers (especially when the people who rescued her were the same fucking ethnicity and/or religion), then you are a fuckneck of epic proportions.
Discussion Thread: What I Was Taught About Rape
[Trigger warning for discussion of sexual violence, rape apologia, victim-blaming.]
In 2006, I asked: What were you taught about rape? The most common answer was nothing. Or: Nothing formal, anyway.
Lots of people were taught their first lessons about sexual violence when they were victimized by its perpetrators. Men were implicitly taught that rape was something swarthy strangers in bushes do, not Nice Guys like them and everyone they knew. Women were implicitly taught that rape prevention was exclusively their responsibility. Everyone was implicitly taught all the narratives of victim-blaming and rape apologia.
Vanishingly few respondents had ever been in a formal setting where the subject of sexual violence had been broached. Virtually no one had discussed rape in school in sex education courses, nor in the workplace in harassment seminars. The most likely place for people to have run into a formal discussion of sexual violence for the first time was a women's studies class at university.
Almost no one had discussed sexual violence with their parents, unless it was a daughter hearing some variation of "don't get yourself raped."
That discussion is long gone in the dustbin of a now-defunct commenting system. And the blog is now bigger by several orders of magnitude, so.
What were you taught about rape?
Maya Angelou Awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom
President Barack Obama presents a Medal of Freedom to author and poet Maya Angelou during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2011. [AP Photo]Yesterday, President Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, to Maya Angelou and 14 other recipients including cellist Yo-Yo Ma, civil rights activist Sylvia Mendez, and former president George H.W. Bush.
"This is one of the things I most look forward to every year," Obama said, calling the honorees "the best of who we are and who we aspire to be."The other inductees were Holocaust survivor, author, and activist Gerda Weissmann Klein, co-founder of the National Resources Defense Council John H. Adams, former ambassador to Ireland and founder of VSA Jean Kennedy Smith, former president of the AFL-CIO John J. Sweeney, artist Jasper Johns, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, civil rights activist and Congressional Representative John Lewis (D-Ga.), investor Warren Buffett, basketballer Bill Russell, baseballer Stan Musial, and and Dr. Tom Little, "an optometrist who was killed while on a humanitarian mission to Afghanistan, whose award was accepted by his wife."
...[Obama] praised Angelou for rising above an abusive childhood to inspire others with her words, saying her voice has "spoken to millions, including my mother, which is why my sister is named Maya."
He quoted Angelou, saying, "History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again," and bent down to kiss her cheek as he presented her with the medal.
I've Got Good News, And I've Got Bad News
I've Got Good News, And I've Got Bad News
First, the good: Maryland is on the verge of legalizing gay marriage. Yay!
Two more state senators — Edward J. Kasemeyer and Katherine Klausmeier — announced this week that they will support same-sex marriage legislation, and Sen. James Brochin of Baltimore County said last week that he had switched from opposing the measure to supporting it. Those three Democrats bring the total of announced supporters of the bill up to 23, just one shy of the 24 necessary for passage.
Just one shy. Yay! It seems an inevitability for Maryland. Even an aggressive push back by homobigots might prove counterproductive. "Confronted with the contrast between the alarmist rhetoric of same-sex marriage opponents and the reality of healthy, stable families asking for nothing more than equal rights" Sen. Brochin was moved to support the legislation.
Now the bad news.
The Indiana house of representatives approved a constitutional ban on marriage equality Tuesday evening with a 70-26 vote.
The measure still has to go to the senate, but it is expected to pass there easily. Boo!
Legislation needs to survive another vote in either 2013 or 2014, and then go to the voters to make it into the constitution. Whether that will happen remains to be seen. Indiana lawmakers have made it pretty clear they don't like queers. Especially when you consider that Indiana had already banned gay marriage back in 1997.
But as the ban's author Eric Turner (R-Eprehensible) notes, a constitutional amendment is necessary to keep the state's courts from overturning that law.
