sundries

[rm]

No German practice yesterday. Too much news. Too much laundry. Patty was very sweet with me in my news frenzy place. Tonight though it's all Project Runway. And hopefully some more Buffy. We want to finish Buffy and Angel before Patty heads to Cardiff and then do remote movie dates for Being Human.

Woo, Click-n-Ship from Duchess.

For those, presumably not from the US or California or really, really not paying attention, or just really over-excited on Twitter, a few details:

1. No same-sex legal marriages can take place in CA right now. There is a stay which will probably remain in place as this thing goes through the 9th Circuit and on to the Supremes. This could take years.

2. The US has not legalized gay marriage.

3. There is no guarantee of what will happen in the Supreme Court (because of the purpose of the 9th Circuit, that should be no problem), although yesterday's ruling was extremely, extremely cleverly reasoned and incredibly legally sound. It's a remarkably strong document.

4. DOMA is still on the books.

5. Other than momentum and hope, today is exactly like yesterday.

Please do read the ruling. It is a remarkable document that is profoundly philosophically feminist and has some remarkable things to say about gender. Reading the ruling gave me chills. It was like an "I was promised flying cars" moment with Actual Flying Cars, not because it's the first big step towards the legalization of same-sex marriage in this country, but because of what it says about gender and marriage in general. That felt like the future.

Hey, while we're here, if you don't think same-sex marriage should be legal; if you don't think the issue is essentially about the state's recognition or not of my humanity; if it's vitaly important to you to refer to me as "a homosexual" as if I were an object of study or a disease; if you don't understand the purpose of the judiciary in this country (which is yes, to make law and make sure law conforms to the constitution); if you have an actual problem with the 14th and 17th amendments, you can leave now. I'm not your minstrel show, and I'm not some illogical liberal/woman/homosexual; you just failed civics class. I mean it. Out out out.

There is, predictably, not a ton of other news on my radar this morning, although Elena Kagan is expected to be confirmed to the Supreme Court today.

Less annoying than the Tom Hardy thing: Joseph Gordon-Levitt in The Advocate. Really, it's a fabulous funny little interview.

Comments

[ckd]

I haven't yet read the ruling, just snippets people have mentioned; however, I've read several of the state rulings on SSM and it sounds like Walker rounded up all the good points from various places and put them together in a single package.

(As for those who would argue against SSM here in your journal: by the same "logic" they try to use, if you and a majority of your readers don't want them here they would have to shut up because they're outvoted even if free speech in your space were a right, which it isn't. Want to bet the parallel never occurs to them?)

[5251962.livejournal.com]

They usually can't seem to grasp that when they argue against Health Care on the premise of "Keeping the government out of our business!" becomes rather laughable and hypocritical when they argue against the civil rights of others- so I doubt that parallel would occur, honestly. :P

[hab318princess.livejournal.com]

If you ever want to practice German in writing - I'd be happy to help :D and I hope you enjoy Being Human (I did)

[rm.livejournal.com]

When I have actual verbs, sure.

[muntahz.livejournal.com]

I am so amazed and saddened that human beings can still deny other human beings their basic rights!
If we suddenly told people that they could not adopt children or get married unless they were "some specific thing" they would be up in arms.
Fear and ignorance is not a good for anyone!
My biggest peeve, such a mild word!, is that so many hide behind religion when it is really about their own issues!
A truly loving higher power would be about acceptance and love.
Not this action of abuse through laws.
I don't see in the constitution where any group is outlined as not being covered!
And by gum if anyone tries to add it now I will break their pens and then their fingers! ;)
Can you tell I feel strongly about this subject?

[sahiya.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the entire document; however, I've read enough to know that it is a thing of beauty, and I absolutely agree that it's like being promised flying cars with Actual Flying Cars. I'm so, SO grateful that this is being done properly and not in some ridiculous flimsy way, like Roe v. Wade. I'd prefer this ruling not be challenged over and over again for the next forty years.

[laughingacademy.livejournal.com]

Joseph Gordon-Levitt in The Advocate. Really, it's a fabulous funny little interview. -- Goddammit, at this rate I'm going to end up borrowing G.I. Joe from the library to watch JGL's performance as Cobra Commander.

*standing ovation*

[austengirl.livejournal.com]

if you don't think same-sex marriage should be legal; if you don't think the issue is essentially about the state's recognition or not of my humanity; if it's vitaly important to you to refer to me as "a homosexual" as if I were an object of study or a disease; if you don't understand the purpose of the judiciary in this country (which is yes, to make law and make sure law conforms to the constitution); if you have an actual problem with the 14th and 17th amendments, you can leave now. I'm not your minstrel show, and I'm not some illogical liberal/woman/homosexual; you just failed civics class. I mean it. Out out out.

Until yesterday, I wouldn't have thought that would need to be explicitly stated here, but sadly I was wrong.

And yes, great interview with Joseph Gordon-Levitt, thanks for linking.

Re: *standing ovation*

[rm.livejournal.com]

It's not the first time it's been an issue here, and there's one person reading this LJ that I know for a fact is ant-gay marriage but won't admit it in public (long story about how I know, and I can only hope she's changed her mind).

Re: *standing ovation*

[magnetgirl.livejournal.com]

best. icon. ever.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

It is a remarkable document indeed... I was up last night reading it...

[xtricks.livejournal.com]

I know! I read the whole thing last night and was amazed just in general. The judge addressed pretty much all of the 'reasonable' objections to same-sex marrige and in a really clear, thought out and comprehensive way. I have no idea why he was so thorough, the guy wasn't noted for being progressive in any fashion ... I suspect he might be very tired of the mealy-mouthed, hypocritical judgements that are increasingly common in the system.

I loved the fact that he made crystal clear the state's interest in marrige is solely based on teh stabilty, economic benefits (or costs) and security of the state and persons in it. Having that legal document as a working primise for this issue is possilby the best thing I can think of.

I also adore, aboslutely, the fact that he stated explicity that in the protection of rights for minorities (which he stated, explicitly and unequivocally gay people are), is not something that is uncer the purview of majority rules or votes.

I fanboy that judge for that document.

It was so ... strange, how the prop 8 defenders handled their case though. Did they assume the judge was already so sympathetic they could be sloppy? Did they really believe that an unthought and ill-defined concept of moral needs were going to be sufficient? I have no idea. Then again, considering one of the quotes from Scalia implied that you had to use moral judgement in order to defend marrige maybe they did assume it was sufficient. But their handling of the case was so astonishingly careless I can't really imagine what they were thinking.

[iterum.livejournal.com]

I can't really imagine what they were thinking.

"We don't like gay marriage, therefore it should be illegal. QED."

[rm.livejournal.com]

The judge is also a gay man, and no doubt when he got this case had a moment of "oh shit" just for how that would, inevitably, become a part of the discourse at least post-decision at least from the losing side.

[hoyland54.livejournal.com]

It was so ... strange, how the prop 8 defenders handled their case though.

I've been trying to figure this out as well because they seem almost hilariously incompetent and that worries me. They can't really be that useless, else they wouldn't have gotten the thing passed in the first place. (Though they got ready made support and organisation from religious groups, which they didn't seem to have here, who probably would have campaigned regardless of how incompetent these people were.) I guess what I want to know is the real reason they dropped all those witnesses.

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

I have no idea why he was so thorough, the guy wasn't noted for being progressive in any fashion ...

I like to imagine that he was just so irritated by their lack of legal rigor that he felt compelled to write a classic and completely thorough takedown. It makes me all warm and tingly inside.

[gement.livejournal.com]

One of the things going into the shoddy showing of the defense was that none of the actual defendants showed up. You'll note the first name is Schwarzenegger.

I suspect they had trouble finding a really skilled lawyer who was willing to touch the thing.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Either we all have "certain unalienable rights" or none of us really has any rights; we just have what the mob is used to giving us at any time.

I'm hoping to get to read the decision word for word today - what I scanned yesterday was brilliant. As you say, it's not just about marriage; it takes some brilliant and overdue stabs at gender discrimination. I think and hope that in the future, this ruling is going to be the lever to topple a lot of bad social precedent.

[lovefromgirl.livejournal.com]

What you said. :-D

[imaginarycircus.livejournal.com]

I have set aside some time later today to read the ruling. I still choke up when I think of the ruling of Goodridge vs. Mass Dept. of Public Health--in part because we used the opening paragraph as the reading before our wedding vows.

Actual Flying Cars pretty much sums it up, yeah

[soukup.livejournal.com]

I can't believe I'm reading this. I'm struck dumb. (I mean, like you, I'm also intensely chagrined that we're even debating whether or not I'm a human, but at the same time is an enormous relief to see a person in power exercising some common sense.)

In case anyone wants the link for the full text of the ruling, here it is.

[thunderemerald.livejournal.com]

Other than momentum and hope, today is exactly like yesterday.

True facts. But aren't momentum and hope wonderful things?

[dsmoen.livejournal.com]

I agree about the ruling. The scathing commentary of the proponent's conduct was pretty amazing to read. Heartening, even.

[morinon.livejournal.com]

Okay, I will be perfectly honest here. What does popular vote election of senators have to do with anything.

(http://s293.photobucket.com/albums/mm76/DragonWarrior5555/?action=view&current=confus.jpg)

[dsmoen.livejournal.com]

From EQCA email:

"Moments ago, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed motions opposing a stay of Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop. 8."

Let's hope. :)