For my own sanity, I really need to start using titles.
Attended a Q&A yesterday with Shannon Minter and Terry Stewart, two of the attorneys who argued the marriage case before the California Supreme Court. It is, of course, a ruling I strongly agree with, and it was nice to hear them talk about both the ruling and their thoughts and process when putting together the briefs. They spoke a bit about how and why they decided to sidestep the issue if "immutability," the supposed requirement that they prove that homosexuality was an inherited genetic characteristic*, by using the model of religion--obviously, one's religion is a mutable characteristic, yet an individual's right to the religion he or she sees fit is still recognized by the state. I found that to be an intriguing, and persuasive, analogy.
It was really interesting and I wish I could articulate more, but I didn't take notes, it's early in the morning, and I didn't really get any sleep last night. I was up reading until just about 2:00 this morning, and then was woken up around 5:00 because the house was shaking. Damn thunder.
* True or not, I've never liked the idea of a predetermined sexuality. I believe it's our social experiences which limit the playing field, so to speak. Given that sexuality is such an important component of an individual's identity, I find it difficult to see why it should somehow be considered to be formed differently than any other aspect of identity. And so I've always disliked the "immutability" problem that people on both sides of the argument like to point to.
Anyway, I've probably rambled long enough for one morning.
It was really interesting and I wish I could articulate more, but I didn't take notes, it's early in the morning, and I didn't really get any sleep last night. I was up reading until just about 2:00 this morning, and then was woken up around 5:00 because the house was shaking. Damn thunder.
* True or not, I've never liked the idea of a predetermined sexuality. I believe it's our social experiences which limit the playing field, so to speak. Given that sexuality is such an important component of an individual's identity, I find it difficult to see why it should somehow be considered to be formed differently than any other aspect of identity. And so I've always disliked the "immutability" problem that people on both sides of the argument like to point to.
Anyway, I've probably rambled long enough for one morning.