And from the depths, we emerge again.

[silveradept]

Yeah, so yesterday was a buncha, buncha fun. I went to see younger sister play in band - and then was going to head off to a party afterwards. Simple, right? Wrong. Proving once again the need for creative chaos in one's life, the football game started an hour later than I had thought, we arrived near the end of the first quarter because of construction (a perpetual horror here in the Mitten State), and then the game went into four overtime periods before the matter was settled. Eastern Michigan 61, Central Michigan 58. And so I went to said party anyway and stayed awake until early in the morning. Then I came back to the house, got ready for my meeting.

The meeting was not nice to me. I found out that my higher-ranking officers do not trust me very much with the important project that they've given me. Hopefully, I'll meet with The Boss soon (as soon as the e-mail servers begin working again - creative chaos preventing me from being too orderly) and get the matter straightened out and get my project approved to go forward. They fear controversy, I want to ensure that the project has an impact. Slight impasse.

This also means, of course, two days' worth of having a look at selected writings and articles or D.R.T. They still come highly recommended.

The humorous always leads. Thus, humor itself must be out front. What follows? The Five Seasons, of course. From there, disc(ordian?) races. And, proof the earth is square. And to further the conservative agenda, condoms being put to good use.

But lest we fall too far to the right, and take all things that are said for granted, R.A. Wilson requests a moment of your time, right where you are sitting now.

If the blog culture is to be believed, there's large potential in these days for very strange, possibly even strong (numerically-speaking) action of some sort. Knowing that the blog culture has certain leanings of its own, of course, the apparent solidarity may be nothing more than a very loud, but very small, segment. Even so, if there is indeed social movement in the wind, all things must start small. I will, of course, attempt to keep my ear to the ground as best I can, but where I am will likely amplify any rumblings beyond what they really are.

It may start here, in the queer culture. A massive outing could energize something. Or, as the comments make mention, the appointment of another Supreme Court judge might tip the balance one way or another on certain rights, and that could bring about energy, as could the appearance of a federal amendment doing what eleven states decided was acceptable. I do not know, if as simply the most visible of the targets, they will become the de facto leaders of any movement.

Or, perhaps, there will be carnival demonstrations, much like the idea behind the last entry Daily article.

Finally, a thought to why the constitutional measures passed on Nov. 2 are not valid: Amendment XIV, Section 1, United States Constitution states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." As citizens of their respective states, people are entitled to enter into contracts regardless of their sexual orientation. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a contract requiring a license to be issued to be valid. Certain legal benefits and legal bindings apply to the married. Interpreted in this manner, Amendment XIV of the Constitution prohibits any state from abridging the rights of homosexuals that it extends to other citizens. The actions, then, of the eleven states that passed constitutional amendments on Nov. 2 are unconstitutional and should be struck down. (Normally, this requires a court challenge. I am sure there will be such.)

Are there holes in my interpretation? I think I am idealizing the viewpoint of the state somewhat, removing religious argument from it when making my own argument, but I think the claim still stands. Are there already challenges being issued under this type of interpretation?

Comments

[the-entity.livejournal.com]

The question is in what way such a measure discriminates. Formally, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as everyone else to enter into a marriage arrangement: find a consenting member of the opposite sex, find a registry office, get married. That such an arrangement might be of little use to homosexuals as-is is not a matter of legal importance: the law is under no legal obligation to regard every individual's desires equally.

The obvious objection is that such a definition discriminates because homosexuals are being denied the right to marry the one they love. (Counter-objection: but don't the limits on marriage, like not already being married and being of age, potentially deny people this right? To which it can be replied that growing up or the person getting divorced can make these limits transient.) The question then becomes, "is the point of marriage to be able to spend life with the one you love and have the law respect your union?" If yes, there is discrimination; but whereas this is fine as an argument for changing the law, I don't know if it works as a legal argument - the law never promised to respect anyone's love, merely their consent and eligibility (age, marital status).

(I'd be uneasy about making "love" into any such fundamental legal argument myself - perhaps I'm too paranoid, but ask the courts to recognise the sanctity of love for the purpose of marriage, and sooner or later you might wind up with courts dictating what love is, or should be.)

So, I wouldn't accept your argument myself if I was a judge or jurymember (which I'm not, but that's neither here nor there). Which isn't to say it couldn't be accepted by some "activist Judge"; but I think the best chance of getting such measures overturned lies in convincing the public to do so; or possibly in blackmailing or bribing some politicians.

(I'm not sure why "activist Judge" is regarded as a term of abuse - "activism", having definite convictions and acting accordingly to further them, is the opposite of "hypocrisy", and generally worthy of respect. If judges go beyond what they're allowed to do by law, that's another matter - but they then become "vigilante Judges", and possibly don a silly costume and utility belt and go around fighting crime in the dead of night. But then, I never had any problems with Bush or anyone else having definite religious convictions and talking accordingly - even if I did disagree with them, like Bush famously does with himself. Perhaps I'm missing something.)

Also, thanks for the link to the Wilson site. Is interesting.

[silveradept]

I knew there was a catch somewhere. Language clarifications can be a bear. To follow this line of thought, though, and see if things really are as bleak as they could be imagined, would preventing civil officials from performing same-sex civil unions be a violation of XIV-1? Is there a possibility that the state is then denying to a citizen the means of entering into and enforcing a particular social contract that (if it were marriage) has the protection of law?

Obviously love's a great reason, but unfortunately, when you have to work with law, love has very little to do with it.

[the-entity.livejournal.com]

I sincerely doubt it. I'd have thought the same arguments as to discrimination in the law would apply to a civil servant being required to administer it: if there's no formal discrimination in law, there couldn't be formal discrimination in requiring the government officials to enforce and act in accordance with law. A civil servant marrying gays, for all the value it might have as a symbolic gesture, would be issuing a marriage licence that had no legal meaning, and would get a severe rap on the knuckles from his or her superiors, or the local justice system. (Some states might have a system where this isn't quite so, possibly; but I can't imagine many having loopholes where a civil servant can do things in the name of the law that the law formally can't do. It'd lead to an unworkable - but probably interesting - system.)

It might be there's an angle I haven't thought of. I'm a bit out of my depth commenting on this stuff - I'm a scientist & artist rather than a lawyer. (Especially when it comes to US law - although I know more about US law than my own country, if it comes to remembering the legal wordings and stuff. The US consitution has memorable things like keeping and bearing arms, and suchlike, whereas the UK... doesn't.)

[silveradept]

My mistake, then, in being ethnocentric and thinking you were of the same soil as I.

Maybe I should go ask Low about it, he's the law student. (Although, again, not in United States Law) Either way, I'm fairly certain there will be challenges, and the federal Supreme Court will have to make rulings and decisions and precedents.