Monday, April 27, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Antelope Canyon, Arizona
I haven't done much exploring of Arizona since moving here in August 2007 (oh law school). I have managed to go to Sedona and Flagstaff - even managed to visit a federal prison in Pioneer recently!
But one of these days I need to trek northwest through the state to the Utah border to visit Antelope Canyon on the Navajo Reservation.
There is a collection of breathtaking photos from the canyon here one of which is this one (hard to pick a favorite):
Photo by Luca Galuzzi
But one of these days I need to trek northwest through the state to the Utah border to visit Antelope Canyon on the Navajo Reservation.
There is a collection of breathtaking photos from the canyon here one of which is this one (hard to pick a favorite):
Photo by Luca Galuzzi
Friday, April 17, 2009
Susan Boyle
I don't watch American Idol or its related shows, but I couldn't help but catch the buzz around Susan Boyle. She is astonishingly good. Her performance is here (is the American version so mean to contestants?), but also check out her rendition of "Cry Me a River":
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Are you listening, California?
At some point this year, the California Supreme Court will issue its decision in the case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Reporters who attended the oral arguments walked away with the impression that the marriages that occurred prior to the passage of Prop. 8 would not be invalidated but that going forward, the Prop 8 will stand.
They based this on the nature of the questions asked during oral argument, which is not the best way to predict what the court will do. Often both sides get a great deal of tough questions even from justices they expect will eventually vote in their favor. For an example (if you really want to geek out) listen to the oral argument in Boumediene v. Bush here; Ginsburg, one of the "liberals" on the court, asks a lot of difficult questions to the attorney representing the Guantanamo detainee who was challenging his detention.
If the California Supreme Court invalidates the marriages that occurred between the time the same court said that the then-current state constitution permitted same-sex marriage and the passage of Prop 8, the court would lose all credibility. They simply can't do it. Prop 8 was not the law during that time, the state constitution was.
The question then becomes whether they can uphold a law that, on its face, discriminates against gays by preventing them from enjoying the fundamental right of marriage. The opponents of gay marriage talk about "protecting the institution of marriage." Aside from not explaining how a gay marriage threatens their straight marriage, the opponents must also identify what the compelling state interest is in discriminating against gays (the legal standard under the Constitution is that some discrimination in our society can be OK, but only if the government entity provides some compelling interest for doing it).
The recent Iowa Supreme Court decision identifies, in the best way I've seen yet, how the state has NO interest in preventing gays from marrying, nevermind a compelling interest for doing so. I highly recommend the read, which you can find here (PDF).
This was recently followed by the Vermont Legislature(!) passing a law allowing gay marriage. These are not the "liberal activist godless heathen" judges - but elected officials saying "no more." Thank god for Vermont!!
I'm not sure how these decisions will affect the California decision, but I'm sure there is a lot of re-writing and debating going on in those justices' chambers - hopefully resulting in the law being overturned.
The federal Constitution, and the equal protection doctrine under the 14th Amendment, cannot be trumped by any state, even when the "will of the people" is to discriminate. This is why our democracy is not simply majority rule; it's meant to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
PS: My theory about these young people who support Prop 8 or similar measures is that they are male, mormon, and bought into the doctrine that prevents them from having sex outside of marriage. Some of them are in their mid-20s and not married, and let me tell you, they are hanging on by a thread.
They have had the "sacredness" of marriage shoved down their throats and have had to live against their biological impulses to believe how "special" and "sacred" marriage is so that they don't violate church rules and engage in extramarital sex.
To them, I'm sure that if gay people ("sinners" in their mind) can marry it starts to challenge the whole idea of how "sacred" marriage is, and pretty soon they have a lot more questions about a belief system that has mandated they behave in a certain way - a way that in my opinion is foolish and antiquated. Once you start to ask questions and show that there are other ways of thinking about marriage, and that it can be equally as valued and cherished without the religious rules governing it, then it can open a can of worms - nothing some of these tightly-wound folks could ever begin to do.
They based this on the nature of the questions asked during oral argument, which is not the best way to predict what the court will do. Often both sides get a great deal of tough questions even from justices they expect will eventually vote in their favor. For an example (if you really want to geek out) listen to the oral argument in Boumediene v. Bush here; Ginsburg, one of the "liberals" on the court, asks a lot of difficult questions to the attorney representing the Guantanamo detainee who was challenging his detention.
If the California Supreme Court invalidates the marriages that occurred between the time the same court said that the then-current state constitution permitted same-sex marriage and the passage of Prop 8, the court would lose all credibility. They simply can't do it. Prop 8 was not the law during that time, the state constitution was.
The question then becomes whether they can uphold a law that, on its face, discriminates against gays by preventing them from enjoying the fundamental right of marriage. The opponents of gay marriage talk about "protecting the institution of marriage." Aside from not explaining how a gay marriage threatens their straight marriage, the opponents must also identify what the compelling state interest is in discriminating against gays (the legal standard under the Constitution is that some discrimination in our society can be OK, but only if the government entity provides some compelling interest for doing it).
The recent Iowa Supreme Court decision identifies, in the best way I've seen yet, how the state has NO interest in preventing gays from marrying, nevermind a compelling interest for doing so. I highly recommend the read, which you can find here (PDF).
This was recently followed by the Vermont Legislature(!) passing a law allowing gay marriage. These are not the "liberal activist godless heathen" judges - but elected officials saying "no more." Thank god for Vermont!!
I'm not sure how these decisions will affect the California decision, but I'm sure there is a lot of re-writing and debating going on in those justices' chambers - hopefully resulting in the law being overturned.
The federal Constitution, and the equal protection doctrine under the 14th Amendment, cannot be trumped by any state, even when the "will of the people" is to discriminate. This is why our democracy is not simply majority rule; it's meant to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
PS: My theory about these young people who support Prop 8 or similar measures is that they are male, mormon, and bought into the doctrine that prevents them from having sex outside of marriage. Some of them are in their mid-20s and not married, and let me tell you, they are hanging on by a thread.
They have had the "sacredness" of marriage shoved down their throats and have had to live against their biological impulses to believe how "special" and "sacred" marriage is so that they don't violate church rules and engage in extramarital sex.
To them, I'm sure that if gay people ("sinners" in their mind) can marry it starts to challenge the whole idea of how "sacred" marriage is, and pretty soon they have a lot more questions about a belief system that has mandated they behave in a certain way - a way that in my opinion is foolish and antiquated. Once you start to ask questions and show that there are other ways of thinking about marriage, and that it can be equally as valued and cherished without the religious rules governing it, then it can open a can of worms - nothing some of these tightly-wound folks could ever begin to do.
The two Michaels take on Billy Bob
In case you haven't heard about or seen the interview where Billy Bob acts like a dick, you can find it here.
In case you have heard about the snafu but don't want to watch it (I'm there with you), please enjoy the following spoof:
In case you have heard about the snafu but don't want to watch it (I'm there with you), please enjoy the following spoof:
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)