What is that pink equal sign about?

Jessica Cuffman
Mar 26, 2013

"News" comes from anywhere and everywhere these days.

Maybe a better word for it is information.

Early today, several of my friends changed their profile pictures on Facebook to a red background with a pink equal sign, and my curiosity piqued. Perhaps you saw it, too.

Quickly, I learned it was a movement from the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for LGBT equal rights — which made sense for the friends I saw posting it on their profiles.

They're friends who have always made their stance on the matter abundantly clear. Props to my former ruggers, my roller derby teammates, and dozens of others, former roommates, co-workers and classmates. These are friends who don't flippantly change their profiles to support the cause of the week. These are people I know and respect.

And I'm so glad to see them united, many strangers to each other, but speaking out clearly for a cause they believe in.

So why today? Because today is the first day of two for arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on California's Proposition 8, a historical event in what will happen with same-sex marriage in this country.

Comprehensive coverage from many sources:

• First, the LA Times on the likely votes of the court.

• Then, the New York Times on the intersection between Catholic schoolchildren, an Ohio lesbian couple, and a drag queen HERE.

• Bullet point breakdown from USA Today HERE.

• Click HERE for more on the Human Rights Campaign.

• A blog on the best social media images supporting same sex marriage. I particularly love the rainbow house (I want one!), and an image illustrating the similarities between protestors who once opposed equal rights regarding race to another group opposing equal rights for LGBT.

So. Where do you stand?

Sidenote on roller derby: SRG played Gem City Rollergirls for our season opener last weekend. We lost 208-142, not a horrible spread for a bout, especially considering they obliterated us last year. It also means when we host them next month, on April 27, you're guaranteed to see some great derby action. More information and updates HERE.



So now SR has decided to have a daily column dedicated to gay issues? I know it says the author writes about feminism, but the content is more slanted toward LGBT than feminism. Unless of course feminism has taken on a new meaning.

Jessica Cuffman

Decent question.

You can't separate gay rights from women's rights. They're intertwined, based on the same philosophies of equality. Difference is, courts have ruled on one, but not the other. And that's what's happening now.

At least in my perspective as a feminist, which is why I've written about the topic.

Please, feel free to post any other questions.

yogi bear

so are you part of the LGBT or just a feminist?


Actually, I find your assessment misguided. Women's rights stemmed from gender, gay rights is all about sexual orientation. Out of one side of the mouth activists scream, stay out of my bedroom, while simultaneously cramming their bedroom practices down peoples throats, in order to legitimize their behavior. On that note, I know of at least one woman, my wife, who vehemently disagrees with you.

Grace Ellis

I think that most academic discussion of women's and sexuality studies would disagree with you, KnuckleDragger. Most ideas of modern feminism encompass issues of sex, gender, sexuality, race, class, body, disability and other ways that people identify and categorize themselves because all of these identities work together in a way that's inseparable. Women's studies and queer studies are especially close together academically because they both deal with the ways all people are affected by the patriarchy and specifically by its ideas of masculinity and femininity.

As far as your pro-choice vs gay rights point is concerned, I feel like you're setting up straw-men arguments. I think that a woman's right to control her body goes hand-in-hand with a gay or lesbian couple that wants to get married because they're both about citizens who are seeking rights that the group in power (in this example, men who can control their bodies how they choose and straight people) already have. Also, to say that same-sex couples are "cramming their bedroom practices down people's throats" unfairly boils down lesbian and gay couples to their sexual practices and excludes all of the ways that, for example, legalizing gay marriage would affect lesbian and gay couples outside of their bedroom.

BW1's picture

OK, here's another question - are you ever going to produce any original content or are you just going to continue re-packaging a bunch of links to what OTHER people are saying>

The Big Dog's back

Feel threatened knucklehead?


No...but apparently you do, dog pile. Still showing that you hate real women I see.

Good 2 B Me

Not very 'informed' if it took you until this morning to find out about this. It has been 'News' on the web for a while now. This did not just happen today.


Showing your support is great. Now, tell your friends to take the next step by calling and writing legislators. I doubt the Supreme Court Justices are checking their Facebooks right now.


Romans 1
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.

Even if 99.99% of the people support it same sex marriage is still wrong.

Good 2 B Me

Arguing Religion is the most ridiculous thing! Religion is hokey smoke and mirrors. If you believe it, that is fine, but not everyone believes in YOUR God or beliefs. It is not YOUR right to tell others what they can do.

Colonel Angus

Personally, I love it when people pick and choose which bible verses suit their need and ignore the others. I really like this one:

Leviticus 20:10
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

I wonder if there are any bible thumpers in Huron.

Good 2 B Me

The Bible should have no place in deciding the Laws of the United States.


Austin 3:16 says I just whooped somebody's a**!


Yeah, let' s throw out the last and only moral compass we have. Might as well close all the churchs too.


As it is not the right of atheists, who represent less than 10% of the population, to force their beliefs on others.

Good 2 B Me

Let's hope that the Athiests NEVER treat the Christians the way that the Christians have treated them!

Most Wanted

ROMANS 1:26-27

What does Romans 1:26-27 say about God?

For our discussion, this is the most controversial biblical passage of them all. In Romans 1:26-27 the apostle Paul describes non-Jewish women who exchange “natural use for unnatural” and non-Jewish men who “leave the natural use of women, working shame with each other.”

This verse appears to be clear: Paul sees women having sex with women and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice. But let’s go back 2,000 years and try to understand why.

Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors — including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male and female) — all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure.

The Bible is clear that sexuality is a gift from God. Our Creator celebrates our passion. But the Bible is also clear that when passion gets control of our lives, we’re in deep trouble.

When we live for pleasure, when we forget that we are God’s children and that God has great dreams for our lives, we may end up serving the false gods of sex and passion, just as they did in Paul’s time. In our obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who created us — and in the process we may cause God to abandon all the great dreams God has for our lives.

Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because they were lesbian or gay? I don’t think so. Did God abandon them because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read your bible again.


“Read your bible again.” No problem…I read it every day. How about you read it once?

Instead, to support your chosen lifestyle, you cut and paste a nonsensical interpretation.

The passage describes the behavior as wrong, opposed to God and contrary to nature.

Most Wanted

"Nonsensical"...is that your "Christian" view point or just your judgmental self speaking out? First of all, my lifestyle is not in question here. I happen to be straight, married for 23 years, 3 grown children. You quoted verse. I quoted an article. It happened to end in the sentence read your bible again.

Secondly, the verse you quoted has NOTHING whatsoever to do with marriage and actually nothing to do with homosexuality. It has to do with the people at the time refusing to acknowledge and worship God, and because the did so, they were abandoned by God, and by being abandoned they sank into sexual depravity. The point was refusing God...not what sexual orientation someone was. The Bible is not about sexual orientation. The verse did talk about men with men and women with women.. but it also talked about castration, prostitution, orgies, worshipping other gods and so forth...but for your cause you choose to only use the "men with men" and "women with women" and take it out of context to suit your purpose.

You want to get word for word on the Bible, do you live by these words because they are in the Bible?:

If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.

If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.

MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.

The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.

MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.

If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.


And yet another biblical illiterate, mangling the Word of God in a desperate attempt to vindicate his sin.

Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Most Wanted

That's what I love about you so called "Christians"...so loving and Christ like! I must be illiterate and a sinner because we disagree? You're one hell of a God like example!


Then you know the true history of the pink triangle...right?

Mime Bloggling's picture
Mime Bloggling

Hmm...from the looks of your links above you would think the American people were totally for gay marriage. Why no links to websites for traditional marriage? Most states that had the opportunity to vote/VOTE on redefining marriage have voted gay marriage down. Only 9 states have approved while over 30 states prohibit it in their Constitutions. Did you know that there was a march in Washington today for traditional marriage? The media was typically silent about it because it doesn't fit their pro-gay marriage narrative. At least be fair...add a few links explaining the other side of the issue.
Here are a couple of websites that might help:



"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."


You have the right to describe marriage any way you like. You do not have the right, or power, to keep other Americans from having the same rights you do.

Good 2 B Me



{{Thumbs Up}} Mime


While I appreciate the rights of one and all to share their opinions on a given issues, I sincerely hope that the Supreme Court Justices are paying no attention whatsoever to public opinion. Their job is to render a decision based on the Constitution, not on the cause du jour.

I hope everyone remembers that the majority once thought black people were too ignorant, even uneducable, to vote, be property owners, or in any other way equivalent to whites. And yet the courts (and the facts, of course) determined otherwise. More in line with the hearings this week is the notion that racially mixed marriage was once illegal.

That being said, it's unfortunate that this matter is being decided on the issues currently before the High Court. In today's case, for example, the majority of California voters determined that gay marriage should not be recognized. Those who favor upholding Prop 8 say that the majority has spoken, but they forget that the Founders very deliberately crafted the Bill of Rights to protect minority rights from what they called the "tyranny of the majority."

In tomorrow's hearing, the Court will consider the Defense of Marriage Act (by "marriage," read "traditional male/female marriage). The truth is that if there was a legitimate freedom of religion and religious expression in this country, the government would never have involved itself in marriage in the first place! I cannot express how much I'd love to see a ruling rendered on First Amendment grounds on this one!

I agree that being married gives you certain advantages with the government involving taxes, inheritance, etc. I also agree that it's discriminatory not to give others the opportunity to enjoy those same perks. But then where do you draw the line? Justice Sotomayor asked today whether or not if "love" was the rationale, polygamy wouldn't be next on the "legalize it" agenda. And she's right! Marital status should have nothing to do with anything as far as the government is concerned.

Marriage is a sacrament. To tell churches how they may or may not administer their sacraments is the ultimate in interference by the government. And rest assured that, by denying some churches the right to perform gay marriages, other prohibitions and/or mandates are coming your way soon! (Look at the contraceptive mandates already, and the issues involved for devout Catholics in that regard.)

Get government out of religion. Let religion honor its faith. And let everybody else mind their own dam*ed business!

The Big Dog's back

Sorry sam, but your wrong. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on marriage. Just because some religions consider it a sacrament doesn't mean they own it. We are a Republic, not a Theocracy.