Comments | heinousbitca: prop 8 follies

heinousbitca

prop 8 follies

May 26, 2009 10:11

unfortunately, as much as it sucks, the Supreme Court of California plainly had no choice but to uphold Prop 8 ( Read more... )

Comments 15

kicey May 26 2009, 18:16:34 UTC

thanks, this was a very informative post.

Also, I heard you're going to Seattle, congrats :)

heinousbitca May 26 2009, 18:38:55 UTC

thank ye thank ye. i am pretty psyched that i am going to an awesome social justice-focused school with one hell of a good LRAP (you know, the program that pays your loans off when you go into public service, at least for a few years...)

fall_of_sophia May 26 2009, 18:19:13 UTC

thanks for this explanation. Florida's constitution was getting so bad we had to ammend it to make amendments harder to pass, yet Amendment 2 still passed.

and also bronski beat is delicious. give me 70s and 80s fag anthems over lesbian folk music any day.

edited to correct dingbat spelling.

heinousbitca May 26 2009, 18:37:48 UTC

yeah, yanno, while i am weak-kneed for some old indigo girls or kristin hall, i'd much rather some erasure or bronski beat/communards.

i love the word "dingbat."

bre_anachronism May 26 2009, 18:34:51 UTC

Do you mind if I repost your entry, with due credit to you of course? You summed this up so perfectly and said pretty much everything I intended to say.

heinousbitca May 26 2009, 18:36:32 UTC

go for it, and thank you for the implicit and explicit compliment. :)

bre_anachronism May 26 2009, 18:42:07 UTC

LOL thank you. You are fantastic.

arielblue May 26 2009, 18:36:33 UTC

Only you would give me both a cogent explanation of legalities and the phrase "hairier than Ron Jeremy" in the same post. Nicely done. ;)

(The comment has been removed)

heinousbitca May 26 2009, 18:57:26 UTC

i <3 dorky legal points of discussion so much that i'm dropping 60K on a DEGREE in it, so obviously bring it on.

i think it's good case law overall to employ strict scrutiny, but the problem as i see it is that other states so rarely lean on CA case law that it's not worth much in terms of convincing other states that haven't amended, like WA or NM. that said, i do like the idea that laws with discriminatory effect are per se invalid because other than the issue of marriage, it did strengthen the law. the catch is that marriage (as defined by good ol Prop H8) creates a sphere of 'separate but equal' and i think we all know how that has worked out throughout history. if you can use the ballot box to void marriage, can you use it to void employment nondiscrimination next ( ... )