 |
You are viewing ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} stevemb's Friends PageCreate a LiveJournal Account Learn more | Explore LJ Culture Entertainment Life Music News & Politics Technology |
aggravated
amused(CNN) -- The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."I heard this on the television at the diner where I had lunch...here in Massachusetts. An older heterosexual couple (in their 70s or so) sitting near me was equally pleased. The woman said, "Good. Maybe they're listening to Massachusetts."
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal grand jury indicted a Missouri woman Thursday for her alleged role in perpetrating a hoax on the online social network MySpace against a 13-year-old neighbor who committed suicide.The sort of sheer meanness in this whole situation makes me want to weep for the young girl, and for humankind in general.
Lori Drew of suburban St. Louis is said to have helped create a false-identity MySpace account to contact Megan Meier, who thought she was chatting with a 16-year-old boy named Josh Evans. Josh didn't exist.
Megan hanged herself at home in October 2006 after receiving cruel messages, including one stating the world would be better off without her.
Notice how I phrased that subject line. I'm going to quote this post by maiac (found via a comment on this post by trektone), which explains it much better than I can:
Specifically, the Court ruled that it's unconstitutional to make a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples such that only opposite-sex couples are permitted the full recognition of their committed relationship that the term marriage bestows.
Here's a longer quote (emphasis mine) from full decision [PDF]:
...under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish -- with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life -- and officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together an officially recognized family of their own -- and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family -- constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.
Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.
[...]
One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple's right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of "marriage" exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect.
[...]
...retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise -- now emphatically rejected by this state -- that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects "second-class citizens" who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.... Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.
It's worth noting that only one of the court's seven members is a Democratic appointee. That, plus the wording of the decision, makes it likely that it will stand up even after the inevitable initiative ammendment attempting to narrow the definition of "marriage" passes.
What it comes down to is that "marriage" as defined by the state of California is a civil contract between consenting adults (only two, at the moment, but one can hope for that, too, to change eventually) that formally recognizes a family relationship between them. Period.
It has nothing to do with religion. If a religion expects its followers to believe in a narrower definition of the word, they can, just as they can believe in a narrower definition of the word "priest", or that the entire universe was created in its present form in seven days, or that the sun revolves around an unmoving Earth. As Galileo once said, "nevertheless, it moves."
Just don't try to tell my daughters who they can marry, or who has the power to marry them. In California the answer to "who can they marry" is now "anyone", just like the answer to "who has the power" has been for several decades.
bouncythnidu (who copied it from others)...thatcrazycajun's addition) If you wrote it, put it in red and yell about it!thnidu's addition) If you've filked it, put an at-sign "@" in front of it
excitedWe'll let you read the hed again -- nope, it's not a joke. Apparently millions of tiny swarming ants called "crazy raspberry ants" are causing quite a ruckus down in Houston after they accidentally arrived on board a cargo ship and started busily invading homes and offices, where they are attracted to electrical equipment. So far they've messed up sewage pumps, cause fire alarms to go haywire, destroyed computers, and taken out at least one gas meter -- and since they're resistant to over-the-counter ant killers and each colony has multiple queens, they're nearly impossible to kill. Worse, those that do die are used by the remaining ants as bridges over pesticide-treated areas. Yep, that's insanely creepy. Anyone in Houston got any horror stories to share?(Click through for creepy picture. Oh, yes... according to this article (from this post by
wcg), Today I was asked to read the other one next Friday night. Clean sweep. :-) I'm glad to finally be at a level where my reaction to "can you read in 8 days?" is not "aiiieeeee!" but "sure". (My congregation only reads one aliyah -- the sixth, this year -- so we are usually talking about 10-30 verses, not several chapters. Both of these ones are short, so that when they're doubled up the reading is not burdensome. I can read or chant, but, honestly, the chanting is easier for me to learn.)
I won't actually start learning it until Sunday, probably -- don't want to distract myself from this week's, and there's an SCA event on Saturday. But that still gives me six days.
This grew out of something more general: I'll be helping to lead services next Friday night. So we knew I'd be involved, but we didn't actually talk about division of labor until today. (Yay! I get to lead services again!)
aggravated
pleased
sleepy
gratefulocelotn and victorthecook (who may be back in the area to live -- soon, I hope!), and last night's dinner at Stacey & Jeff's weren't about my birthday per se, but timing-wise worked out for me. Reconnecting with S & J, after a bunch of years seeing each other in passing, has been great.
happy