![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Icon appropriate pleze
May. 26th, 2009 09:06 pmOriginally composed as a criticism of a faction of fandom, this icon still has some occasional use, mostly outside of fandom. Witness today's California Supreme Court decision which basically says the justices agree to uphold last fall's public referendum Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage - but will allow 18,000 marriages (I'm quoting the NY Times, so I hope that's correct) performed in the state prior to that to stand as legal unions.
Some people are upset by this. Me, not so much ... because I think I recognize what might be at work behind this decision, legally speaking. The court has as well as stated that some people are entitled to particular rights while others are not - including 36,000 homosexual people against the rest of the state's gay population. The justices know somebody's going to challenge this on the grounds of unequal application of the law (even a "grandfather clause" has to have a limit) - they have to know. The question is, what will happen as a result once it gets back to the CASC? Will they reverse decision yet again and declare same-sex marriage legal as their colleagues have in other states (this is my hope) - and this is just a gambit for some breathing room for them to stall before doing it? Will they find sufficient grounds to kick it up to the Ninth Circuit? (I could be wrong on that - I think it's the Ninth Circuit that decides if it has Constitutional merit.) I think once/if it breaks into the federal level, then it can work its way to the US Supreme Court if need be.
But, do we want it to right now? Or at all?
I am the furthest thing from a Constitutional scholar - I've been a journalist for 15 years and was a paralegal for 5.5 years - but I think the document hands details of marriage requirements over as states' rights. The only reason you would want something like this to go federal, I'd think, would be to force all states to recognize a marriage which is now legal in only four states (five? four?). While that's the ultimate goal, is it wise to force the issue beyond individual states right now? It IS working on a state-by-state level. It's not working immediately in each state ... but the movement is having a slow, positive effect.
Or, put another way: It takes a supermajority of states to ratify an amendment to the US Constitution - for example, an amendment to ban same-sex marriage (which I think would eventually go the way of Prohibition, but look how much trouble THAT caused us for far beyond the 13 years it was in place). That's somewhere between 30-40 states (I don't know precisely). Wouldn't it be wise to have at least that many states that will legally recognize gay marriage before taking the fight to the federal level? Because it wasn't that many years ago that George Bush got back into the White House on fostering a combination of anti-gay sentiment and swiftboating a decorated Vietnam war hero.
Oh, and on that other little legal matter that was all over the news today? I can't say I know enough about her yet, except that she seems very competent and frankly it would be nice not to have yet another swinging dick on the Supreme Court - by all rights, as a representation of America, it should be five women and four men anyway (BTW, the term "swinging dick" is not mine - a co-worker many years ago came up with that to refer to all the old white men who kept getting elected and appointed to high positions). As for Rush Limbaugh, all I can say is: Don't shut up now. Keep going, buddy. Illegal drug abuse while criticizing others who use drugs, making fun of the disabled, crying "racism!" in a situation where there clearly is none - someday it'll all coalesce. I've waited almost 20 years for this gelatinous mass to tip over. I can wait a bit longer. :-)
Some people are upset by this. Me, not so much ... because I think I recognize what might be at work behind this decision, legally speaking. The court has as well as stated that some people are entitled to particular rights while others are not - including 36,000 homosexual people against the rest of the state's gay population. The justices know somebody's going to challenge this on the grounds of unequal application of the law (even a "grandfather clause" has to have a limit) - they have to know. The question is, what will happen as a result once it gets back to the CASC? Will they reverse decision yet again and declare same-sex marriage legal as their colleagues have in other states (this is my hope) - and this is just a gambit for some breathing room for them to stall before doing it? Will they find sufficient grounds to kick it up to the Ninth Circuit? (I could be wrong on that - I think it's the Ninth Circuit that decides if it has Constitutional merit.) I think once/if it breaks into the federal level, then it can work its way to the US Supreme Court if need be.
But, do we want it to right now? Or at all?
I am the furthest thing from a Constitutional scholar - I've been a journalist for 15 years and was a paralegal for 5.5 years - but I think the document hands details of marriage requirements over as states' rights. The only reason you would want something like this to go federal, I'd think, would be to force all states to recognize a marriage which is now legal in only four states (five? four?). While that's the ultimate goal, is it wise to force the issue beyond individual states right now? It IS working on a state-by-state level. It's not working immediately in each state ... but the movement is having a slow, positive effect.
Or, put another way: It takes a supermajority of states to ratify an amendment to the US Constitution - for example, an amendment to ban same-sex marriage (which I think would eventually go the way of Prohibition, but look how much trouble THAT caused us for far beyond the 13 years it was in place). That's somewhere between 30-40 states (I don't know precisely). Wouldn't it be wise to have at least that many states that will legally recognize gay marriage before taking the fight to the federal level? Because it wasn't that many years ago that George Bush got back into the White House on fostering a combination of anti-gay sentiment and swiftboating a decorated Vietnam war hero.
Oh, and on that other little legal matter that was all over the news today? I can't say I know enough about her yet, except that she seems very competent and frankly it would be nice not to have yet another swinging dick on the Supreme Court - by all rights, as a representation of America, it should be five women and four men anyway (BTW, the term "swinging dick" is not mine - a co-worker many years ago came up with that to refer to all the old white men who kept getting elected and appointed to high positions). As for Rush Limbaugh, all I can say is: Don't shut up now. Keep going, buddy. Illegal drug abuse while criticizing others who use drugs, making fun of the disabled, crying "racism!" in a situation where there clearly is none - someday it'll all coalesce. I've waited almost 20 years for this gelatinous mass to tip over. I can wait a bit longer. :-)
