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?)

[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)

[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.

[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

*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.

[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.

[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.

[iterum.livejournal.com]

I can't really imagine what they were thinking.

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

[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.

[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.

[maryling.livejournal.com]

they argue against Health Care on the premise of "Keeping the government out of our business!"

As a worker in a medical office: HA! HA HA HA HA! 70% of our income is from Medicare. Run by - guess who?

[rm.livejournal.com]

When I have actual verbs, sure.

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).

[hab318princess.livejournal.com]

Kein Problem :D (no problem)

[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.

[5251962.livejournal.com]

It already is. I have seen instances of this being pointed out by prop8/anti equality supporters.
It's like the actual words and rational thought process this judge offered- means absolutely nothing to them because of this. That sort of rationale disturbs me a great deal for what it, well, not what it implies but what it pretty loudly proclaims.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Also, do we not allow women to sit on cases about women? PoC to sit on cases about PoC?

Oh, but right, polite society demands we at least pretend to view those groups as human now.

[thatwordgrrl.livejournal.com]

Already is.

For some reason, the American Family Association sends out e-mail blasts that get caught in my spamtrap at work. So I saw their initial response, which was "The judge is gay, therefore he is BIASED against us poor oppressed CHRISTIANS!!!!"

[5251962.livejournal.com]

Exactly. I get the feeling that either these people didn't read it, or they couldn't wrap their minds around it because this has become one of their big talking points in this. That and if I see one more, "Well...WHY did we vote on that, if it was just gonna be overturned!" as argument I'm probably going to be a much less tolerant person than I have been about that. Mainly because, I ask the same question only ending it at "that". However, you try explaining that voting on a civil rights issue is ridiculous- and the only thing you really get back inspires a mental image of someone literally eating Faux news and vomiting it back up.

[5251962.livejournal.com]

I won't go off topic, but oh, I have rants. The government cannot make any changes that would require someone to, oh, I don't know, have compassion and yet- the government is supposed to impose Christian based "morality" on others? I think most of the Right confuses two words: Logic and Rhetoric.

[xtricks.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes! I'd forgotten that bit.

It's funny, I don't generally read the legal document that results from a court case but I read this one and listening to the OMG! he's queer so he must have been biased! whining becomes so ... bizarre now that I did.

Even setting aside my own feelings about the issue, I think this brief was excellently written and is really going to force the appeals process to actually deal with the core issues -- that basic rights aren't up for majority vote (and never have been), that the state's interest in marriage is secular, not moral and that there are no measurable harms that occur from same sex marriage.

[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.