sundries

Aug. 5th, 2010 09:55 am
[personal profile] 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.
  • Date: 2010-08-05 07:14 pm (UTC)
    From: [identity profile] idunn.livejournal.com
    The part that kills me is, those arguing that the judge is "biased" cuz he's gay won't stop and think that a straight judge would probably have biases about the case, too. Judges are human, everyone has opinions. Doing your job means putting those aside and going on the facts.

    Date: 2010-08-05 08:09 pm (UTC)
    From: [identity profile] 5251962.livejournal.com
    Not necessarily. I don't really think that a sexuality bias has to come to play in this at all- that's one of the reasons I liked how this judge brought everything down. Had really nothing to do with sexuality or any preference, but went right back to the roots of the matter in terms of what is actually Constitutional and what is not about this issue. And according to the Constitution- this isn't right.


    ..at least, I really, really hope that would be the way it was seen.

    February 2021

    S M T W T F S
     123456
    789 10111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28      

    Most Popular Tags

    Style Credit

    Expand Cut Tags

    No cut tags
    Page generated Jan. 11th, 2026 10:48 am
    Powered by Dreamwidth Studios