More In the News: Prop. 8
Lots of really newsworthy things today: Haiti, Google v. China, Bank Tax, and of course, Prop. 8's federal suit, which I've been following since it, depending on how it's interpreted, may overturn the amendment in the California Constitution. But I've since come to one important conclusion.
I really, really have to stop reading the comments in Prop. 8 articles.
A majority of the comments are trolls. But you know, I expect that. It's the Internet, and no matter how little you decide to read up on something or how intolerant you are, it's your view, you're entitled to it. That's what the Constitution--the same document that preserves freedom of religion, racial and gender equality, and "basic personal freedoms"--says you get to do. Because it also protects freedom of speech. And even though most of times these comments are wRiTtEn iN UnEplicatablE. CAPS!!! pUnctuation!! mispelled wurdz! It's cool. It's your prerogative on how to present your speech. The fact that it looks like verbal diarrhea just usually gives me a visual clue to skip over your speech, because I know it's not going to have any valid viewpoint I'm going to gleam out of it.
The danger is when things are well-written and gets you into believing there might be something halfway worthwhile. Like this comment by "jrice," to whom I gave the benefit of the doubt. Until I hit this sentence:
Given that the role of women is properly, yes, child rearing, which is a full-time job that precludes gainful employment, marriage compels the divorcing man to provide alimony in the first place and child support in the second.
Now I'm all offended as a heterosexual woman. In a debate regarding homosexual marriage. Could this be--irony??
At least the article itself is well-written. I especially like how it rebuts the "will of the voters" argument. The function of the courts has always been to interpret laws. Separation of powers and all that. Judges aren't always perfect, but neither are voters, so it helps to have the check.
You can read George Skelton's editorial and the comments here.
I really, really have to stop reading the comments in Prop. 8 articles.
A majority of the comments are trolls. But you know, I expect that. It's the Internet, and no matter how little you decide to read up on something or how intolerant you are, it's your view, you're entitled to it. That's what the Constitution--the same document that preserves freedom of religion, racial and gender equality, and "basic personal freedoms"--says you get to do. Because it also protects freedom of speech. And even though most of times these comments are wRiTtEn iN UnEplicatablE. CAPS!!! pUnctuation!! mispelled wurdz! It's cool. It's your prerogative on how to present your speech. The fact that it looks like verbal diarrhea just usually gives me a visual clue to skip over your speech, because I know it's not going to have any valid viewpoint I'm going to gleam out of it.
The danger is when things are well-written and gets you into believing there might be something halfway worthwhile. Like this comment by "jrice," to whom I gave the benefit of the doubt. Until I hit this sentence:
Given that the role of women is properly, yes, child rearing, which is a full-time job that precludes gainful employment, marriage compels the divorcing man to provide alimony in the first place and child support in the second.
Now I'm all offended as a heterosexual woman. In a debate regarding homosexual marriage. Could this be--irony??
At least the article itself is well-written. I especially like how it rebuts the "will of the voters" argument. The function of the courts has always been to interpret laws. Separation of powers and all that. Judges aren't always perfect, but neither are voters, so it helps to have the check.
You can read George Skelton's editorial and the comments here.