Monday, November 24, 2008

In the news: Oh, so now we think of this?

Prop 8 (a measure designed to outlaw heathen-themed weddings in the state of California) was in the news (sort of) at the end of last week because the courts of Cali decided they would hear the case against upholding this outlawing. People were all pissed, because minorities were acting like they hated gay people, because the gay minority reminded them what being a minority feels like, and they were just glad they weren't being treated like that anymore (out in the open, that is), so they piled-on the geys with a flurry of Yes on 8 votes that were no match for the hippie love-fests of Castro Street. Now those minorites are all, like, "Maybe this opens us up for similar types of discrimination against us, in the future..." and the geys are all, "Look, don't even talk to me right now." From Reuters:

The court had recognized such marriages in May, and about 20,000 same-sex
couples wed before the November vote. Those marriages may now hang in the
balance. Connecticut and Massachusetts are the only states that allow gay

Legal scholars say the measure, which defines marriage as between a
man and a woman, breaks new ground by limiting the courts' ability to protect

"They could take away any right from any group," said University
of Southern California Law Professor David Cruz, who filed a brief in favor of
gay marriage in an earlier case.

Oh, they could, could they? But wouldn't this have to violate some other precedent in order for anybody to give a shit? I mean, we're talking about h0m0s here, ok? Oh wait, there's that equal protection thing that should protect constitutions from enacting No Homo policies! What about that?

"The entire purpose behind the constitutional principle of equal protection
would be subverted if the constitutional protection of unpopular minorities were
subject to simple majority rule," read a brief by black, Asian and Hispanic
groups challenging the ban. "This case is not simply about gay and lesbian

"The history of California demonstrates with sobering clarity the potential
for disfavored minorities to be subjected to oppression by hostile majorities,"
the minority groups say in their brief, pointing to segregation laws and one
excluding Asian-Americans from land ownership as examples. [reuters]
Gah, it's like when you know how a movie is going to end (with an anti-climactic guy-on-guy wedding), but the writers insist on wasting your time with stupid courtroom scenes and heavy-handed references to segregation and prison camps for Asian people. GET TO THE MARRIAGE ALREADY! Some of us have cats to feed!

No comments: