iainpj: (Default)
( May. 7th, 2013 04:55 pm)
I'd have posted this at TUS, but TUS is tossed for the moment, and I think I'm content to let the weblog be moribund for now, so:

Delaware Senate OKs marriage equality; state's governor immediately sign into law

Just after the Delaware Senate passed marriage-equality legislation, Gov. Jack Markell signed the bill into law.

That will make Delaware the 11th state, plus Washington, D.C., to legalize gay marriage...


That does make me even more curious about what's going to happen with the various pending Supreme Court decisions. I really don't think they're going to hit the big picture issues that the administration (and many people) would like, and that there will be some level of turfing/punting/shoving the issue back to lower courts so they can ignore it for a year or two longer. But there may be a shade less of the turfing and punting than there might have been a few months earlier.

Next on the board: Minnesota! (probably) Minnesota House to vote on same-sex marriage proposal Thursday.

Sadly, Illinois will likely not be on the board any time soon. "Illinois GOP chair resigns, cites support for same-sex marriage as a reason." Yep, his own party forced him out, but only in small part because he wouldn't block legislative consideration of same-sex marriage. Mostly, the issue seems to have been that even in traditionally Republican areas, the GOP took a major hit in Illinois. That said, socially conservative politicians on both sides of the aisle in the Assembly are blocking the vote in the lower chamber, while it has already passed the Senate, and the governor has said he will sign it if it reaches his desk. However, the legislature adjourns at the end of next week for the summer, and with no signs that it's going to come to a vote, they'll need to start from scratch when the new session begins.

For what it's worth (very little): seven of the original Thirteen Colonies now allow same-sex marriage: Delaware, Connecticut, Massachussets, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island. With the vague possibility of New Jersey, none of the others is even the tiniest bit likely to pass same-sex marriage any time soon. New Jersey's people are relatively liberal, but their governor is not, and may also be considering a run for the roses -- er, that is, the White House sometime in the future, and approving gay marriage is Simply Not Done In the Haut GOPoiserie. Pennsylvania and North Carolina are both in the "moderate, tending to conservative" camps. And the others are bedrock conservative. Virginia is even now getting snotty about the fact that they're not being allowed to keep their sodomy law, which was effectively struck from the books years ago. The state argues that it's needed to govern said acts between adults and undaraged minors. (There is the rather puzzling question of why Virginia would need any sodomy law for that, since they have laws governing such behavior already.)
The Histories of Bucky and Jason Todd Explained [Comic] ... honestly, I can't argue with that conclusion. Though it is arguable whether 'tis better to be a brainwashed assassin responsible for the deaths of many who gets shocked back to sanity and then knows what he's done and has to deal, or a seriously cheesed off "anti-hero" responsible for the deaths of hundreds who knows exactly what he's doing at all points and does it anyway. (...OK, more than a hundred, anyway; Jason Todd just killed over a hundred admittedly very nasty criminals in Blackgate Prison a couple issues ago in "Batman and Robin". Granted that nobody not related to them will mourn them, this is still putting Jason into the company of the Joker and Firefly, in terms of being a really prolific mass murderer in the DCU. And for his sins, he gets to head up a new comic!)

"There is a reason that so many horrible things happen in Gotham". (Not a comic.) And let me just say: SQUEEEEEEE! Not just because this title is finally appearing, not just because both Williams and Amy Reeder Hadley make some seriously gorgeous art (I miss her Madame Xanadu), but because they're using a version of La Llorona for the first story arc! You probably have to have been brought up in Mexico or the Southwest US to really get it, but ... well, I was. So, you know. SQUEEEEE!

"Obama's Evolving Position". The first of this week's strips on the topic. Evolution proceeds impressively.

Another on the same topic, only with fewer reptiles.

(In all fairness, there's also this:
Justice Department strongly backs gays on marriage (San Francisco Chronicle, sfgate.com)
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, July 7, 2011

The latest San Francisco court filing on same-sex marriage reads like a gay rights manifesto: It rejects tradition, morals and procreation as justifications for marriage restrictions and concludes that a federal ban on spousal benefits was unconstitutionally based on "animus" - dislike, rooted in prejudice - toward gays and lesbians.

The brief comes not from Lambda Legal or the American Civil Liberties Union but the Obama administration's Justice Department - which, like the president himself, may be tiptoeing toward a wholehearted endorsement of same-sex marriage rights. [...]

-- The law "was motivated in substantial part by animus toward gays and lesbians and their intimate relationship," and rested on "stereotype-based thinking" that offends the constitutional guarantee of equality, the Justice Department wrote.
-- Even sincere moral or religious disapproval of homosexuality "is not a legitimate policy objective" or basis for a law.
-- Laws that penalize or prohibit same-sex marriage do not encourage heterosexual marriage, procreation or responsible child-rearing, but instead deny children of same-sex couples "the benefits of the stable home life produced by legally recognized marriage."
-- Proposition 8, the 2008 California initiative banning same-sex marriage, was an example of a "political backlash" demonstrating the relative powerlessness of gays and lesbians - a critical factor in judicial review of all such laws. [...]


I would not, myself, argue that our president is tiptoeing toward any endorsement of same-sex marriage rights. In fact, I would argue that he's tying himself into rhetorical knots to avoid doing any such thing, while also trying to avoid alienating gay and lesbian voters. At the same time, it looks like his administration, between trying to get rid of DADT and its newly articulated position on DOMA, is advancing a surprisingly coherent view of civil rights. Having his personal position appear to be so very different from his administration's position seems very strange sometimes, even allowing that he's doing this because he has to govern people who think very differently about the issue. But I digress. Back to comics!

You can sort of understand why she might think that way. What with all the ducking out on dates and everything.

Yes. Yes, it IS.

That would be probably the most unusual description of Austin, TX, I've ever seen.

Strangely enough, some days, web development works exactly like this.

Well ... you can't argue with the endpoint, some days.

"The Prince and the Sea: a romance." And a fairy tale in the folktale mold. Which means that things will not be quite what you expect.

What. The. HELL! is he thinking!? (Yes, there are two strips after this one, and SHE does the right thing, but I honestly can't understand why he would think that was even necessary.)

And in conclusion, just because of today's title:


Grim Amusements / 24 June 2011 / "New York says yea"

...It will be interesting to see what the effect of this is, and how long it lasts. How long will it be before some conservative organization challenges the law in court? (At the moment, New York does not have an initiative and referendum process, although the Senate approved the draft law this very session, only two weeks ago.[...])

... But still. New York said yea. And that's something, for today.
grim amusements / april 11, 2011 / don't ask, don't tell ... especially about THAT

[...]that's ... kind of not how human nature works, unfortunately. Not in the short term, anyway.

"Often, in male-on-male cases, assailants go after those they assume are gay, even if they are not." So what do you think will happen if/when they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the private in the bunk over there actually is gay? Out, proud, just wants to serve their country like all the other soldiers there? What do you think will happen?

In the short term, what's likely to happen is that openly gay people will have a big fat target on their backs. Depending on how well the commanders follow the sexual assault reporting, tracking and disciplinary procedures -- and that's going to be highly variable -- openly gay soldiers may be somewhat less reluctant to report the assaults. After all, they can't accuse you of being gay because you report the assault, which is what frequently happens now. That said, it may also work that some gay soldiers will be less likely to report the assault ... because they're gay. After all, if the idea is that being gay makes you less manly, then the idea that you couldn't protect yourself from being raped by your fellow soldiers only reinforces the point, right? And in either case, in the short term, the likelihood is that actual assaults are going to spike. People who will rape you to put you in your place because they feel you're week, or because you're gay or, well, Just Because They Can aren't any less likely to rape someone who actually IS gay, especially if the idea is to make the person understand just how much they don't belong.

Understand: this isn't a blanket indictment of all male soldiers; of course most aren't rapists, just as most men aren't.....
grim amusements / april 11, 2011 / don't ask, don't tell ... especially about THAT

[...]that's ... kind of not how human nature works, unfortunately. Not in the short term, anyway.

"Often, in male-on-male cases, assailants go after those they assume are gay, even if they are not." So what do you think will happen if/when they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the private in the bunk over there actually is gay? Out, proud, just wants to serve their country like all the other soldiers there? What do you think will happen?

In the short term, what's likely to happen is that openly gay people will have a big fat target on their backs. Depending on how well the commanders follow the sexual assault reporting, tracking and disciplinary procedures -- and that's going to be highly variable -- openly gay soldiers may be somewhat less reluctant to report the assaults. After all, they can't accuse you of being gay because you report the assault, which is what frequently happens now. That said, it may also work that some gay soldiers will be less likely to report the assault ... because they're gay. After all, if the idea is that being gay makes you less manly, then the idea that you couldn't protect yourself from being raped by your fellow soldiers only reinforces the point, right? And in either case, in the short term, the likelihood is that actual assaults are going to spike. People who will rape you to put you in your place because they feel you're week, or because you're gay or, well, Just Because They Can aren't any less likely to rape someone who actually IS gay, especially if the idea is to make the person understand just how much they don't belong.

Understand: this isn't a blanket indictment of all male soldiers; of course most aren't rapists, just as most men aren't.....
grim amusements / February 23, 2011 / administration to stop defending doma:
"And then a miracle occurred."

Obama Orders End to Defense of Gay Marriage Law - NYTimes.com

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON -- President Obama, in a major legal policy shift, has directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act -- the 1996 law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages -- against lawsuits challenging it as unconstitutional...


In gay rights victory, Obama administration won't defend Defense of Marriage Act
By Jerry Markon, Ed O'Keefe and Sandhya Somashekhar
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 23, 2011; 3:16 PM

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will no longer defend the constitutionality of the federal government's ban on recognizing same-sex marriages, a rare legal reversal and the latest in a series of political victories for gay rights activists....


I wonder what caused the administration to make this sea change. According to the article, it's the fact that the latest DOMA challenge was filed in New York, and that circuit has no case law stating what level of review to use; this automatically triggers heightened scrutiny, which presumes the law unconstitutional until determined otherwise. I'm not sure that I honestly believe that; on the other hand, it could well be that the administration was just waiting for an excuse to abandon a position that was doing it real damage, not only among the LGBT peoples that had supported them in the last campaign, but with liberals of all stripes. This could have provided them with a legal excuse. After all, if they genuinely believed that legitimate acts of Congress that were constitutional, if utterly revolting, should be defended, then the logical thing to do is not to abandon the defense, but to say to the Second Circuit, "We hate this law, but we think it should be defended, and we think you should use a rational basis test for this and here's why." (That said ... seriously, the Ninth Circuit -- the one with California, yes -- uses "rational basis" for this type of case? The crunchy-granola ultra liberal [for the US court system] Ninth Circuit, which gets reversed with wild abandon, glee and possibly malice aforethought by the Supreme Court at almost every chance it gets? Huh. Who knew?)

Congress will have its own lawyer defend its own law, of course....

Grim Amusements - 2010/10/12 - one hand gets slapped down, the other slaps back

... Somehow, I didn't realize that a district court judge could order a nationwide injunction.

Regardless, I predict you a prediction. The administration has 60 days to decide what it will do. For ... oh, say, 58 days, the administration will seem to sit on its hands and do nothing. When asked what they plan to do, they'll say they're looking at their options and no final decision has been made. On the 59th day, they'll file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, asking them to block enforcement of the stay. It may be a bit sooner. After all, they only need to wait about 30 days to get past the election. They can't help themselves with more conservative people by immediately appealing; more conservative people don't like them anyway. More liberal people are already strongly disaffected with this administration, and seem less likely to vote. The administration isn't going to want to alienate any more of them by appealing before the election; there are too many marginal seats at stake this time around. They're already headed for a possibly historic loss in the House, according to all the polls. Why make it worse?

Relentlessly cynical view? Perhaps. This administration has, however, richly earned the cynicism of every gay and lesbian person around....
iainpj: (Default)
( Oct. 4th, 2010 10:14 pm)
Actually, by most legal definitions today -- at least in the US -- it might be considered the result of a sexual assault, rather than a one-night stand. Or some sort of assault, anyway. The way the story's usually told, it's not as though there were any consent involved. (Or even being awake and/or aware at the time.)

Well ... at least one might aim for less public and mockable ways. (For those who might not quite understand that last panel: here, have some context. [And I had not realized how truly intensely creepy the guy had gotten.])

Who knew that so many elves were involved in that process? (Bonus link, just because: "E-Lec-Tricity! EeeeLecTricity!")
grim amusements / August 12, 2010 / prop. 8 ruling still on temporary hold:
[...] the appeal of the stay itself will probably go all the way up to the Supreme Court. Depending on what's been done, the Court will then either decline to remove the stay or put it back in place -- I cannot see this Court allowing marriages to proceed while the case itself is still in the appeals process. [...]

[...] I have to admit, I am really fascinated to see what the Ninth does in the next week. It really would be astonishing -- and, as a commenter has said, a strong signal of where they were headed with a final decision -- if the Ninth does not continue the hold indefinitely. After all, it's likely to be six months to a year before the appeals court hears the case itself. Just imagine how many marriages could be contracted in the meantime. But there won't be any marriages conducted on or about August 18 anyway; even if the appeals court itself declines to issue an indefinite hold, I should think they would issue another temporary hold in order to allow the Supreme Court to decide whether or not to issue its own hold....
In which I confess to being seriously out of step with just about everyone I know. Again. So what else is new?


grim amusements / prop 8 struck down / August 4, 2010

...In all seriousness, that's all the enthusiasm I can muster for this. It's ... nice. But at the moment, it's only slightly more than symbolic. The judge has already stayed his order; if he decides to allow the stay to remain in place until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules on his decision, then nobody gets married. If he doesn't allow the stay to remain in place -- and the case that people are harmed by not being allowed to marry is at least nominally stronger than the case that they aren't, given the grounds of the decision -- then the stay, or lack thereof, itself will get express appealed through the Ninth and possibly/probably up to the Supreme Court, which is, one suspects, rather more likely to prefer a stay then otherwise, since it will give the process time to work itself out with no change in the status quo....

[...] The thing about Perry is that if this decision stands, logically, it takes all sorts of laws outside California down with it. (To be sure, people will need to launch court cases to get things started, but that will happen.) For example, one logical consequence ought to be to enforce the Full Faith and Credit clause specifically regarding marriage....
grim amusements / April 28, 2010 / the only openly gay male athlete:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there are only a couple of ways that a male athlete in a major sport in this country will come out.


Mind, the SI article is slightly misleadingly titled. After all, there are openly gay male athletes in minor sports like swimming and skating. And there was, briefly, one openly gay male athlete in European soccer, which is about as major as it gets. Justin Fashanu came out in 1988; he also committed suicide in 1998. But when you're talking about major team sports -- at least, team sports which are major in their own countries, which soccer isn't here -- then, yes, Thomas seems to be about it for now.
.

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags