Prop8

Prop 8 overturned, finally. I know articles have been posted all day, but I found this a most interesting decision after an article in the New Yorker a couple months ago. Theodore Olson and David Boies defensed this case--they were opposing councils in the Gore v Bush case in 2000. This case was projected to be "too soon", even by many LBGT supported. Olson has been a typically conservative lawyer, yet they both took it up as one of the preeminent cases, as necessary to overturn immediately. There were ample arguments that this is a sheer case of judicial activism (when convenient though, right? Prop 8 violated both the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution. Clearly.) that Judge Vaughn Walker acted rashly. I don't think i am able to articulate it better than:

"Conservatives, just like liberals, rely on the Supreme Court to protect the rule of law, to protect our liberties, to look at a law and decide whether or not it fits within the Constitution. And I think the point that's really important here, when you're thinking about judicial activism, is that this is not a new right. Nobody is saying, 'Go find in the Constitution the right to get married.' Everybody, unanimous Supreme Court, says there's a right to get married, a fundamental right to get married. The question is whether you can discriminate against certain people based on their sexual orientation. And the issue of prohibiting discrimination has never in my view been looked as a test of judicial activism. That's not liberal, that's not conservative. That's not Republican or Democrat. That's simply an American Constitutional civil right."

I don't even support marriage (I don't need a church to sanction my unity with someone. I would ultimately prefer civil unions for all--with the same rights allowed to socially accepted religiously affiliated marriages) and this is still so exciting. Testimony such as, "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages." and "They come to the conclusion that withholding marriage from same sex couples hurts them and their families and doesn't help anyone." is just so completely reasonable.

Which only increases how totally appalled I am the comments on huffingtonpost. How do you comment, "Many of those that believe they are gay or lesbian are people that never learned how to interact with an attractive person of the opposite sex and that is a fact." REALLY? how can you be so utterly dense and ignorant? And moreover, what is any foundation to the assumption that marriage with someone of the opposite sex will be anymore successful? just because it COULD be fruitful? Jesus didn't ordain marriage so you could procreate. we don't even need more children on this earth. especially when half the people having children can hardly care for themselves, much less be responsible for another human being.

i only hope this is something that is looked back on 30 years from now as, "what? Really? How completely Neanderthal were we to completely deny a whole sector of people fundamental rights simply because the person they happened to be genetically fated to be attracted to was someone of the same sex as them? We really discriminated against people and wouldn't even grant them the fucked up ability to be united under the church that should've been separated from the state anyhow? Wow." I mean Loving v. Virginia was only ruled in 1967 (43 years ago, interracial marriage was outlawed. insane.)

Maybe I need a rational person that support the anti-gay marriage side beyond some unreasonable, blinded religious-led facts, but I am blinded in the manner that I cannot even believe this is still an issue. Fundamental right. It is. Allow anyone to marry. Grant anyone the ability to be tied down and miserable if they so please. We are so backward if we can't even figure this out. I haven't even been particularly political lately, and this is an obvious no brainer.