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

[xtricks.livejournal.com]

Well, the thing with the entire prop 8 process is that it came from a basic (bigoted) morality -- all the folks working for it really didn't think much about whether or not their morality was leagally valid; they thought about how to word their morality in a way that was palatable for the majority of the voters so they could get their law passed.

The great thing about this doc, IMO, is that however skilled the next legal team is, they are still going to have to answer some very hard questions to address the stuff brought up in the brief.

[citrinesunset.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the actual campaign to get Prop. 8 passed was totally unsound and ludicrous to begin with. It relied on false claims, scare-mongering, and laughable ads. But they obviously didn't need to put forth a decent case -- it was enough to play to the fears of all the homophobic people out there. And in all fairness, a lot of political ads do this in general -- they play on people's fears and use scary buzzwords to sway people's opinions. Prop. 8 was a particularly bad, bigoted example.

I'm glad that they were put in a position where they had to actually develop a case, and that the judge shot it down. Unfortunately, they're too dense to take this as a sign that their thinking may have been flawed.

[xtricks.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, they're too dense to take this as a sign that their thinking may have been flawed.

Well, in some ways, that's kinda good. The case they brought was so careless that if they keep that up ... it'll be difficult for even judges who are sympathetic to their views to justify the law based on the evidence at hand.

[citrinesunset.livejournal.com]

True. If they have to be prejudiced jerks, at least they're prejudiced jerks who make fools of themselves.

I guess I'd like to see these people become enlightened, but I guess it's not too likely.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

Well, that’s why this case is such an enormous blow to them. Walker spelled it out in plain, simple English, in black and white for everyone to read and realize: they’ve got nothin’. There are no facts on their side. All they have is smoke, mirrors, and fear – and he just swept that all away and said “Irrelevant to the law, folks.”

They’re livid because he just took away their best scare tactics and demonstrated that their emperor of hate has been running around bareass for the last twenty-plus years. And they can’t stand it.