My high school friends and other acquaintances from California hometowns are maddened by the state supreme court's ruling on Proposition 8 yesterday, and rightly so—but I don't think all is lost for gay residents and allies who want to see the legal regime of heterosexuality reversed in marriage. In fact, after reading sections of the decision, I think the court leaves more loopholes than a wedding ring shop.
First of all, the court's reading of proposition 8 confines the amendment to a much narrower definition of marriage recognition for the state than I would have expected—and thus allows California to uphold the 18,000 that it has already issued to its residents, and possibly recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states as well (though the Court did not explicitly address the later issue in its decision).
Though Proposition 8 reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” but rather than completely strip same-sex relationships of the legal status afforded to straight couples, the court says this constitutional amendment only "carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage.” It is merely the name "marriage,"—albeit significant to advocates of equal protection for same-sex couples who, like me, can't help but compare this ruling to "separate but equal" hypocrisy—not the rights it confers, that this measure alters.
Though I agree that this amendment violates the ethos of the equal protection clause, both in California and in other states with similar constitutions, that's tough to argue, as advocates and dissenter Justice Carlos Moreno are finding. I wasn't expecting the court to bite the revision argument, which suggested that Proposition 8 constituted such a change to the constitution that it would require a 2/3 majority vote in the state legislature, and I'm willing to accept that this was the best outcome the court would offer supporters of marriage equality like me.
More heartening, the court has left room for another ballot initiative to come up and reverse this amendment—something that activist supporters are already working on for 2010. In liberally affirming the amendment process by which Proposition 8 became law, the decision implicitly suggests that, should a pro-gay marriage initiative were to be on the ballot and pass with a majority vote, it would be found constitutional too.
We just have to keep fighting to push this state over 50% next time.
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Monday, December 29, 2008
Will Safire's Office Pool, 2009
Will Safire has released his annual office pool in which he invites readers to predict how some of the year's biggest news stories will play out in 2009.
Here are my picks:
1. In Demo-dominated D.C., post-postpartisan tension will pit:
(a) lame-duck Fed chairman Ben Bernanke against Fed chairman-in-waiting Larry Summers and Fed chairman-of-Christmas-past Paul Volcker (a k a “The G.D.P. Deflator”) over an “imperial Fed”
2. Springtime for G.M. will lead to:
(b) a “pre-pack bankruptcy” auto rescue sweetened by federal pension protection and guarantee of new-car warranties
3. Toughest foreign affairs challenge will come if:
(a) Afghanistan becomes “Obama’s War” or “Obama’s Retreat,” and
(b) Iraq backslides into chaos after too-early U.S. withdrawal
4. Oil selling below $50 a barrel will:
(c) be the equivalent of a huge U.S. tax-cut stimulus
5. Best-picture Oscar goes to:
(b) “Slumdog Millionaire”
6. The non-fiction sleeper will be:
(d) “Losing the News,” by Alex Jones, and
(e) “Ponzi Shmonzi: The Bernie Madoff Story,” crash-published by a dozen houses
7. The don’t-ask deficit at year’s end will be:
(c) $1,393,665,042,198 and no cents. (Why so specific? A billion is a thousand million, and a trillion is a thousand billion. That’s 10 to the 12th power, or 1 followed by 12 zeroes). I'm kidding about this pick, I would much rather (a) "under $1 trillion, thanks to the new administration’s cutting of waste, fraud and abuse, as well as tax-soaking of the remaining rich" be the case. —Rachel
8. In Congress:
(c) among Senate Democrats, Judiciary chairman Pat Leahy’s influence will rise because Supreme Court nominations will take center stage, while Harry Reid’s clout dissipates because of home-state weakness
9. Post-honeymoon journalists and bloody-minded bloggers will dig into:
(b) suspicion by conspiracy theorists about the unremarked lobbying that led to the expensive renaming, after 72 years, of the Triborough Bridge to the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge just in time for Caroline Kennedy’s campaign for anointment to an open Senate seat
10. The Supreme Court will decide:
(e) that in al-Marri v. Pucciarelli, a legal U.S. resident cannot be held indefinitely at Guantánamo
11. Obama philosophy will be regarded as:
(a) proudly liberal on environment and regulation and
(b) determinedly centrist on health care, immigration and protectionism.
12. Year-end presidential approval rating will be:
(c) sinking but 30 points higher than that of Congress and the news media
Visit http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/opinion/29safire.html to see the options, and Safire's picks.
Here are my picks:
1. In Demo-dominated D.C., post-postpartisan tension will pit:
(a) lame-duck Fed chairman Ben Bernanke against Fed chairman-in-waiting Larry Summers and Fed chairman-of-Christmas-past Paul Volcker (a k a “The G.D.P. Deflator”) over an “imperial Fed”
2. Springtime for G.M. will lead to:
(b) a “pre-pack bankruptcy” auto rescue sweetened by federal pension protection and guarantee of new-car warranties
3. Toughest foreign affairs challenge will come if:
(a) Afghanistan becomes “Obama’s War” or “Obama’s Retreat,” and
(b) Iraq backslides into chaos after too-early U.S. withdrawal
4. Oil selling below $50 a barrel will:
(c) be the equivalent of a huge U.S. tax-cut stimulus
5. Best-picture Oscar goes to:
(b) “Slumdog Millionaire”
6. The non-fiction sleeper will be:
(d) “Losing the News,” by Alex Jones, and
(e) “Ponzi Shmonzi: The Bernie Madoff Story,” crash-published by a dozen houses
7. The don’t-ask deficit at year’s end will be:
(c) $1,393,665,042,198 and no cents. (Why so specific? A billion is a thousand million, and a trillion is a thousand billion. That’s 10 to the 12th power, or 1 followed by 12 zeroes). I'm kidding about this pick, I would much rather (a) "under $1 trillion, thanks to the new administration’s cutting of waste, fraud and abuse, as well as tax-soaking of the remaining rich" be the case. —Rachel
8. In Congress:
(c) among Senate Democrats, Judiciary chairman Pat Leahy’s influence will rise because Supreme Court nominations will take center stage, while Harry Reid’s clout dissipates because of home-state weakness
9. Post-honeymoon journalists and bloody-minded bloggers will dig into:
(b) suspicion by conspiracy theorists about the unremarked lobbying that led to the expensive renaming, after 72 years, of the Triborough Bridge to the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge just in time for Caroline Kennedy’s campaign for anointment to an open Senate seat
10. The Supreme Court will decide:
(e) that in al-Marri v. Pucciarelli, a legal U.S. resident cannot be held indefinitely at Guantánamo
11. Obama philosophy will be regarded as:
(a) proudly liberal on environment and regulation and
(b) determinedly centrist on health care, immigration and protectionism.
12. Year-end presidential approval rating will be:
(c) sinking but 30 points higher than that of Congress and the news media
Visit http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/opinion/29safire.html to see the options, and Safire's picks.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
God Between the Sheets, or “How to move from whining about the economy to whoopee!”
Something about sex and marriage, they just seem to go hand in hand...
Texas Pastor’s Advice for Better Marriage: More Sex, More Often: I just think this is a really amusing article: Rev. Ed Young of the evangelical Fellowship Church entreats his parishioners to strengthen their marital bonds by taking the Seven Day Sex Challenge. You guessed it—he told spouses that having sex once a day for a week would bring them closer to each other and closer to God, and "double up the amount of intimacy we have in marriage. And when I say intimacy, I don’t mean holding hands in the park or a back rub.”
Maureen Dowd actually writes a good opinion piece for the New York Times on the new Gus Van Sant biopic, "Milk," the story of the murder of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in American history. He served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors with Sen. Diane Feinstein.
With Same-Sex Marriage, a Court Takes on the People’s Voice: A pretty interesting article published a couple of days ago about more of the legal issues surrounding California's gay marriage ban Prop. 8. The state supreme court will probably rule on Prop. 8's constitutionality early next year. If you don't have time to read it all, atleast read the chunk below:
Texas Pastor’s Advice for Better Marriage: More Sex, More Often: I just think this is a really amusing article: Rev. Ed Young of the evangelical Fellowship Church entreats his parishioners to strengthen their marital bonds by taking the Seven Day Sex Challenge. You guessed it—he told spouses that having sex once a day for a week would bring them closer to each other and closer to God, and "double up the amount of intimacy we have in marriage. And when I say intimacy, I don’t mean holding hands in the park or a back rub.”
Maureen Dowd actually writes a good opinion piece for the New York Times on the new Gus Van Sant biopic, "Milk," the story of the murder of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in American history. He served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors with Sen. Diane Feinstein.
With Same-Sex Marriage, a Court Takes on the People’s Voice: A pretty interesting article published a couple of days ago about more of the legal issues surrounding California's gay marriage ban Prop. 8. The state supreme court will probably rule on Prop. 8's constitutionality early next year. If you don't have time to read it all, atleast read the chunk below:
“The California Supreme Court has never articulated criteria for what makes something an amendment versus a revision,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine. “So I don’t think you can predict anything because there is so little law.”
Supporters of the ban say legal history is on their side. “Whenever an amendment or an initiative has been challenged, almost always the court rejects that and upholds the people’s initiative power,” said Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for backers of the proposition, citing past state bans on the use of race, sex or ethnicity in college admissions and caps on property taxes. “These are major policy changes that the court has recognized are fine,” he said.
But Jennifer C. Pizer, a lawyer with Lamdba Legal, which represents one of the petitioners, said that Proposition 8 “essentially nullifies the equal protection guarantee” of the Constitution and sets a dangerous precedent, something that has been cited by several minority groups who asked for relief from the court.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Wedding Bell Blues
"Am I ever gonna see my wedding day?" not to trivialize the gay marriage ban, but I'm sure plenty California residents asked themselves that question after last Tuesday.
Like most California voters I know personally (and 48% of the entire state, actually) I am ecstatic over Barack Obama’s win, but deeply troubled by Tuesday’s outcome on Proposition 8. Prop. 8, which narrowly passed with 52% of the vote, will add a provision to the state constitution clarifying that marriage is only valid and recognized in California if it is “between a man and a woman.”
I rejoiced at the court’s decision to allow same-sex weddings last May as gays and lesbians across the state posed in tuxedos and white gowns, but now it looks like I’ll eventually be attending some weddings in Canada if this provision isn’t challenged.
I can think of a few reasons the ban should not have passed but did:
Last week I read Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the landmark Supreme Court case that made all state sodomy laws unconstitutional, for my gender studies class. We talked about how there were two possible arguments against laws criminilizing sodomy: the right to privacy and equal protection for heterosexual and same-sex couples. But the court’s opinion only discusses the right to privacy, which means there is no precedent for granting the same rights to heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Though it is still unclear what will happen at the level of the state courts in California, I am pessimistic about whether gay marriage—which was also banned in Arizona and Florida, though neither state ever issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the first place—will ever make it to the Supreme Court.
According to an LA Times article published today, opponents of the gay marriage ban may have a case at the state level if they can argue that the constitution’s change"substantially alter the basic governmental framework,” and therefore is a revision that must be passed by two-thirds of the state legislature.
Complicating the issue further are the 18,000 marriage licenses the state has issued to same sex couples since last summer.
Tthe article’s author, Goodwin Liu also addresses a good question I have heard people indifferent to the ban pose: “Why does it matter whether gay couples remain married in a post-Proposition 8 world? One answer has to do with the dignity and stature that marriage confers. Even if marriage provides no greater rights than domestic partnership, a separate-but-equal regime unavoidably signals that same-sex relationships are of lesser worth.
Another answer has to do with the future of gay marriage writ large. Gay marriage is in the cross-hairs of a culture war, and culture wars, both sides know, are won through symbols, examples and personal experiences.”
Thirty years ago, homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease in the DSM. If this crucial shift in the psychological community and political arena is indicative of a slowly sweeping cultural change, then maybe the gay marriage ban is just a cultural blip on the path to full legitimization, the dying cries of vociferous but transient majority.
As a registered California voter, I’m keeping my eye on this issue.
UPDATE: My favorite memory from the Prop. 8 Protest in downtown Chicago last Saturday:
Tall Man: I can see some anti-gay marriage protestors over there.
Woman: Oh no! Are there very many?
Man: I don't think so; their sign says there's just one man and one woman.
Like most California voters I know personally (and 48% of the entire state, actually) I am ecstatic over Barack Obama’s win, but deeply troubled by Tuesday’s outcome on Proposition 8. Prop. 8, which narrowly passed with 52% of the vote, will add a provision to the state constitution clarifying that marriage is only valid and recognized in California if it is “between a man and a woman.”
I rejoiced at the court’s decision to allow same-sex weddings last May as gays and lesbians across the state posed in tuxedos and white gowns, but now it looks like I’ll eventually be attending some weddings in Canada if this provision isn’t challenged.
I can think of a few reasons the ban should not have passed but did:
- Church-funded initiatives to get out the vote in favor of Prop. 8 framed the issue in terms of legitimizing homosexuality as an identity and practice, rather than an issue simply of whether same sex couples should have the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples.
- This election saw a huge number of new voters turning out for Obama, and several voter misinformation campaigns tried to take advantage of them and the confusing language of Prop. 8.
- This is a stereotype but this time we did see a much larger black and hispanic turnout than in recent past elections.
Last week I read Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the landmark Supreme Court case that made all state sodomy laws unconstitutional, for my gender studies class. We talked about how there were two possible arguments against laws criminilizing sodomy: the right to privacy and equal protection for heterosexual and same-sex couples. But the court’s opinion only discusses the right to privacy, which means there is no precedent for granting the same rights to heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Though it is still unclear what will happen at the level of the state courts in California, I am pessimistic about whether gay marriage—which was also banned in Arizona and Florida, though neither state ever issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the first place—will ever make it to the Supreme Court.
According to an LA Times article published today, opponents of the gay marriage ban may have a case at the state level if they can argue that the constitution’s change"substantially alter the basic governmental framework,” and therefore is a revision that must be passed by two-thirds of the state legislature.
Complicating the issue further are the 18,000 marriage licenses the state has issued to same sex couples since last summer.
Tthe article’s author, Goodwin Liu also addresses a good question I have heard people indifferent to the ban pose: “Why does it matter whether gay couples remain married in a post-Proposition 8 world? One answer has to do with the dignity and stature that marriage confers. Even if marriage provides no greater rights than domestic partnership, a separate-but-equal regime unavoidably signals that same-sex relationships are of lesser worth.
Another answer has to do with the future of gay marriage writ large. Gay marriage is in the cross-hairs of a culture war, and culture wars, both sides know, are won through symbols, examples and personal experiences.”
Thirty years ago, homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease in the DSM. If this crucial shift in the psychological community and political arena is indicative of a slowly sweeping cultural change, then maybe the gay marriage ban is just a cultural blip on the path to full legitimization, the dying cries of vociferous but transient majority.
As a registered California voter, I’m keeping my eye on this issue.
UPDATE: My favorite memory from the Prop. 8 Protest in downtown Chicago last Saturday:
Tall Man: I can see some anti-gay marriage protestors over there.
Woman: Oh no! Are there very many?
Man: I don't think so; their sign says there's just one man and one woman.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Why I Can't Support Sarah Palin
"You have to read this, Rachel,” my mom said, showing me the NYTimes Week In Review. “You’re younger than me, you’re smarter than me, and you’re more articulate than me (Note: it’s times like these when I doubt this the most). You have to be able to speak up to the people who support her!” I know whom she’s referring to. Like a god who’s name need not be uttered to instill reverence or fear, Sarah Palin is the “Her,” the “That woman,” who spent time on every television in my house last week. She’s a moose-killing, pregnant-child-rearing, lipsticked pitbull from Nowhere Alaska, and even my 53 year-old mother in Southern California is afraid of her bark.
Of course, my mom is not the kind of voter McCain was after when he chose Palin as his running mate. She’s pro-choice, anti-war, and pretty indifferent when it comes to marriage as an institution for anyone. She’s also a voracious New York Times reader who grew up on the East Coast and has consistently voted Democratic.
I’m the kind of voter Sarah Palin hopes to lure in, along with the Jesus fish and hockey-moms. I’m young and female, a first-time voter who thinks women could run the world if they would just take their heels off. I’m hopeful about the future (if not then I wouldn’t be writing this). And I want change for this country so we can stay ahead. But I’m not necessarily buying the kind that packages itself as the candidate for “Hope” and “Change.”
John McCain is 72. Reverse those digits and you get the age I will be in eight-years, possibly at the end of Sarah Palin’s second-term as president of the United States. Let me tell you why I don’t think anyone my age should risk that eight-year investment:
She speaks in tongues
It doesn’t bother me that Palin supports the U.S. troops in Iraq (her son will soon be joining them), as long as she listens to advisers who tell her it’s time to pull out. It also doesn’t bother me that Palin is against abortion, or that her 17 year-old daughter Bristol chose to keep her pregnancy. Good for her. As long as Palin will let less-fortunate teenage girls get abortions. But like a Pentecostal preacher channeling a higher power, she’s speaking about these issues in tongues. And this time it’s not God’s language, it’s the Republicans’.
As a student at the University of Chicago, I’m a bit caught up in the growing, libertarian leave-me-alone youth-culture. You know, the idea that people should do whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t harm others. It used to be called conservativism. So I can’t support a candidate who thinks that there is only one way to do things: God’s way. Iraq is not God’s war; it belongs to the Republican Party, whose year 2000 presidential candidate wanted to start it and 2008 presidential candidate wants to continue it. God did not call upon Sarah Palin to run for vice-president, McCain did. And while we’re straightening things out, no, I don’t think Barack Obama is the Democrats’ savior.
The Palin Doctrine
If this My Way or the Highway mentality sounds familiar, that’s because it’s straight from the Bush Doctrine. Sarah Palin didn’t recognize the term when Gibson asked her about it in her first interview, and this supposedly highlights her lack of knowledge and experience when it comes to foreign policy. But she actually knows the doctrine that mired our country in war with a nation that didn’t attack us and spent seven years fear-mongering to unite Americans against “unpatriotic” dissenters very well. She just knows it as the Palin Doctrine, or her instincts.
Palin told Gibson she supports Georgia in its conflict with Russia and wouldn’t mind making Georgia a NATO country (meaning the U.S. would have to go to war with Russia to defend it), Palin and McCain are also still pushing for “victory in Iraq,” and linking the conflict to al Qaeda seven years after 9/11 even though Gen. Petraeus and the Iraqi people are calling for time-tables for troop withdrawal.
She doesn't blink
That’s what Sarah Palin told us of her decision to accept the vice-presidential nomination in her interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson. But that lack of eye-batting has also made her very good at swatting lies right at us.
*She lied about supporting the "bridge to nowhere."
Palin supported the project until it became unpopular and garnered national notoriety, then she spoke out against it.
*She lied about saving Alaskans money by selling the government’s executive plane on eBay. The plane ended up selling at a loss, and now Palin is charging the state for all her trips on commercial airlines, including her trips home.
*She lied about her decisions to fire government workers, including her ex-brother-in-law. Now She’s using her executive power to override the Freedom of Information request made for the emails she exchanged during those firing periods.
Palin v. the Supreme Court
Excuse my ageism (there’s a word that’s taken a backseat to racism and feminism on the Straight Talk Express in the past months), but McCain could die, very soon, and so could several of our venerated but varicose Supreme Court Justices. If this happens, Sarah Palin will likely have the opportunity to influence the courts rulings on reproductive rights, the definition of marriage, and the sanctity of life—all issues that divide the country along religious lines.
I have a lot riding on this election. In the next four years I will graduate college, enter the workforce and face the impending economic recession. I don’t want a pig with lipstick or a woman with egg on her face leading me through the most formative years of my life.
Of course, my mom is not the kind of voter McCain was after when he chose Palin as his running mate. She’s pro-choice, anti-war, and pretty indifferent when it comes to marriage as an institution for anyone. She’s also a voracious New York Times reader who grew up on the East Coast and has consistently voted Democratic.
I’m the kind of voter Sarah Palin hopes to lure in, along with the Jesus fish and hockey-moms. I’m young and female, a first-time voter who thinks women could run the world if they would just take their heels off. I’m hopeful about the future (if not then I wouldn’t be writing this). And I want change for this country so we can stay ahead. But I’m not necessarily buying the kind that packages itself as the candidate for “Hope” and “Change.”
John McCain is 72. Reverse those digits and you get the age I will be in eight-years, possibly at the end of Sarah Palin’s second-term as president of the United States. Let me tell you why I don’t think anyone my age should risk that eight-year investment:
She speaks in tongues
It doesn’t bother me that Palin supports the U.S. troops in Iraq (her son will soon be joining them), as long as she listens to advisers who tell her it’s time to pull out. It also doesn’t bother me that Palin is against abortion, or that her 17 year-old daughter Bristol chose to keep her pregnancy. Good for her. As long as Palin will let less-fortunate teenage girls get abortions. But like a Pentecostal preacher channeling a higher power, she’s speaking about these issues in tongues. And this time it’s not God’s language, it’s the Republicans’.
As a student at the University of Chicago, I’m a bit caught up in the growing, libertarian leave-me-alone youth-culture. You know, the idea that people should do whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t harm others. It used to be called conservativism. So I can’t support a candidate who thinks that there is only one way to do things: God’s way. Iraq is not God’s war; it belongs to the Republican Party, whose year 2000 presidential candidate wanted to start it and 2008 presidential candidate wants to continue it. God did not call upon Sarah Palin to run for vice-president, McCain did. And while we’re straightening things out, no, I don’t think Barack Obama is the Democrats’ savior.
The Palin Doctrine
If this My Way or the Highway mentality sounds familiar, that’s because it’s straight from the Bush Doctrine. Sarah Palin didn’t recognize the term when Gibson asked her about it in her first interview, and this supposedly highlights her lack of knowledge and experience when it comes to foreign policy. But she actually knows the doctrine that mired our country in war with a nation that didn’t attack us and spent seven years fear-mongering to unite Americans against “unpatriotic” dissenters very well. She just knows it as the Palin Doctrine, or her instincts.
Palin told Gibson she supports Georgia in its conflict with Russia and wouldn’t mind making Georgia a NATO country (meaning the U.S. would have to go to war with Russia to defend it), Palin and McCain are also still pushing for “victory in Iraq,” and linking the conflict to al Qaeda seven years after 9/11 even though Gen. Petraeus and the Iraqi people are calling for time-tables for troop withdrawal.
She doesn't blink
That’s what Sarah Palin told us of her decision to accept the vice-presidential nomination in her interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson. But that lack of eye-batting has also made her very good at swatting lies right at us.
*She lied about supporting the "bridge to nowhere."
Palin supported the project until it became unpopular and garnered national notoriety, then she spoke out against it.
*She lied about saving Alaskans money by selling the government’s executive plane on eBay. The plane ended up selling at a loss, and now Palin is charging the state for all her trips on commercial airlines, including her trips home.
*She lied about her decisions to fire government workers, including her ex-brother-in-law. Now She’s using her executive power to override the Freedom of Information request made for the emails she exchanged during those firing periods.
Palin v. the Supreme Court
Excuse my ageism (there’s a word that’s taken a backseat to racism and feminism on the Straight Talk Express in the past months), but McCain could die, very soon, and so could several of our venerated but varicose Supreme Court Justices. If this happens, Sarah Palin will likely have the opportunity to influence the courts rulings on reproductive rights, the definition of marriage, and the sanctity of life—all issues that divide the country along religious lines.
I have a lot riding on this election. In the next four years I will graduate college, enter the workforce and face the impending economic recession. I don’t want a pig with lipstick or a woman with egg on her face leading me through the most formative years of my life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)