First. I just got back from a three hour dinner with various law students and George Takei. To those of you who do not know, he is Mr. Sulu. Oh god. It was amazing.
Second. Sunday didn't happen, more or less. That is because,
Third. Saturday night was Barrister's Ball (aka Law School Prom). I escorted Bergy's delightful sister (Christy) first to Mal's pre-party, which was awesome, and then to the Ball, where--because we were early--we took a stroll around the area, chatting. She is very good people. The Ball itself was fun. I danced with most of my friends, most frequently with Bergy and Christy. I was be-tuxed, with my dad's reversible red-or-black bow tie, which they sent because they couldn't find mine. Bergy was in a white tux with a pink vest and pink bow tie, and was disappointed that no white top hat could be found to complete his outrageous outfit. Post-Ball, there were traitorous shoes in the rain and then games at Bergy's until six in the morning. Then I went home and finished reading a book, finally closing my eyes at a bit before nine.
Fourth. Watchmen. Awesome. That is all, because I"m sure that some of you have not seen it, and I will not spoil things for you.
Now to finish my Con Law reading and go to sleep. I expected to be home... about two hours ago. Then I would have worked on my brief. Oh well. The sheer AWESOME of having become George Takei's impromptu informant on how Prop 8 and the arguments concerning it worked was so worth that.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Also, this needed sharing
Reproduced by the same dude as brought you Mayo v. Satan and Associates:
http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Documents/Fisher_v_Lowe.pdf
http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Documents/Fisher_v_Lowe.pdf
A piece of logic, for your consideration.
I'm starting from the amusing philosophy of Bishop Berkeley (after whom, incidentally, UC Berkeley and the accompanying Bay Area city were named), namely that to be is to be perceived. For X to exist, it must be perceived by something. A thing can perceive itself, but only while consciously doing so--thus, while sleeping, one cannot perceive one's self. Thus, given that the conscious organisms of creation cannot observe all things at all times, there must be some Prime Watcher (read: God) whose duty it is to observe all things and generally keep creation running at all times. Thus, God must be, and must never sleep (for if he/she/it slept, then God would cease to be for lack of being perceived), and therefore must be--having existed for so damn long--the most sleep-deprived entity in creation. Thus, to be sleep deprived is to be like God. Therefore, law students, as a whole, being nearly terminally sleep deprived as a general rule (there are execptions--Bergy--to this rule), must be really quite close to God.
Therefore, law students are Godly.
Therefore, law students are Godly.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Yeah, I suppose I do need to post something here
Even if it is a post telling you all that very little is going on in my life except school and staving off sickness (where is Nik and his witchery when I could use it?). In any event, yes. School. It takes my time. I am now next year's treasurer for Habeas Chorus (hah. Haha. Hahahaha. Yes, you heard me right: I'm the treasurer of an a capella group), which ended up being settled because even though I had been challenged to a duel for the presidency (and, as the challengee, got to choose weapons, and offered my standby that I think I stole from Max--handgrenades; one pace), I decided I didn't care as much as she did. JR, our new president, offered to buy me several drinks by way of thanks--I told her to buy me a book instead. So Neal Stephenson's Anathem should soon be mine.
As for the rest, there has been dancing. A reasonable amount of it. There has also been an unreasonable amount of CLR. I won't even get into the contract drafting module except to note my incredulity at the knowledge of that woman (ista femina, for those who know the significance of it) actually had clients and didn't either garner their intense scorn or send them screaming from her office. But yes. Writing a brief kinda sucked. Also, fuck FCRA. Fuck it with a stick. We are not friends, it and I (clearly).
It is winter, in Chicago, which means that it's cold (except, not really. And there's no snow. I'd now like to register another complaint at the weather. It's been snowing at my altitude tonight, but I know that it's rain at street level, so I'm disappointed), and that the whole world is sick, and illness cross-contamination is becoming pandemic. So, I begin to fear I may be laid low by the microbial cohorts. Also, I wish I had time to write. It's getting to that time again where sanity will need preservation by way of words.
Upcoming things: writing the other side's brief, which will suck more, because it's a full brief (I really hope it's only one argument, but fear it may be both, which might kill lots of my classmates); planning a LARP alla murder mystery party (not of the 'lightning bolt... lightning bolt... lightning bolt... sleep!' variety) with Bergy; part of spring break up in the cities (the bus tickets have been bought. I arrive in MPLS ~8, I think, on the 16th).
For the rest, boys are dumb, books are happy (I stayed up until 5:15 AM this past saturday reading The Name of the Wind, by Patrick Rothfuss, which may have become--about ten pages in, and moreso as the book progressed--my favorite book of the past several years, easily), and there needs to be snow on the ground. But none of these general things are new.
Torts quote: 'It was a snowblower. She put her hand in it. This seems dumb.' My muppet-esque (seriously--strong resemblence to Bert of Sesame Street) prof on a case we were reading for that day.
Post-script: satisfied, Max?
As for the rest, there has been dancing. A reasonable amount of it. There has also been an unreasonable amount of CLR. I won't even get into the contract drafting module except to note my incredulity at the knowledge of that woman (ista femina, for those who know the significance of it) actually had clients and didn't either garner their intense scorn or send them screaming from her office. But yes. Writing a brief kinda sucked. Also, fuck FCRA. Fuck it with a stick. We are not friends, it and I (clearly).
It is winter, in Chicago, which means that it's cold (except, not really. And there's no snow. I'd now like to register another complaint at the weather. It's been snowing at my altitude tonight, but I know that it's rain at street level, so I'm disappointed), and that the whole world is sick, and illness cross-contamination is becoming pandemic. So, I begin to fear I may be laid low by the microbial cohorts. Also, I wish I had time to write. It's getting to that time again where sanity will need preservation by way of words.
Upcoming things: writing the other side's brief, which will suck more, because it's a full brief (I really hope it's only one argument, but fear it may be both, which might kill lots of my classmates); planning a LARP alla murder mystery party (not of the 'lightning bolt... lightning bolt... lightning bolt... sleep!' variety) with Bergy; part of spring break up in the cities (the bus tickets have been bought. I arrive in MPLS ~8, I think, on the 16th).
For the rest, boys are dumb, books are happy (I stayed up until 5:15 AM this past saturday reading The Name of the Wind, by Patrick Rothfuss, which may have become--about ten pages in, and moreso as the book progressed--my favorite book of the past several years, easily), and there needs to be snow on the ground. But none of these general things are new.
Torts quote: 'It was a snowblower. She put her hand in it. This seems dumb.' My muppet-esque (seriously--strong resemblence to Bert of Sesame Street) prof on a case we were reading for that day.
Post-script: satisfied, Max?
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Not Okay.
This is officially not okay. Really. I know this will seem odd, and possibly mildly hypocritical coming from me, but... Damn. It's fucking cold, and I no longer approve. I walked home from my date tonight (well, from the El, but... six of one), and I'm impressed I still have a nose. Windchill of -25, according to Weather Underground.
That's just not right. I want it to be balmy and 27 again. Much better for snow, anyway.
That's just not right. I want it to be balmy and 27 again. Much better for snow, anyway.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
I got cranky in CLR...
First, here is a link to an article:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-central_chadwick_11edi.State.Edition1.15efc13.html
Second, here is the response I got (with my response to the article... I mean, my rant at the article... copied in the reply):
Dear Mr. Kidney,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and respectful response to my article. I especially appreciated the links to additional resources, which were quite interesting. As I said, I believe this issue is fraught with difficulty, and more debate is needed. I am concerned that we are moving quickly toward making a major change in social policy. I am still thinking about this issue and the reason I mentioned civil unions is that they might address some concerns without redefining marriage. Your response was well-reasoned. I bet you will make an excellent lawyer. :)
Thanks again for taking the time to reply.
Wishing you all the best-
Michelle Chadwick
---- Des <draskireis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Mrs. Chadwick,
>
> I'm
> writing this in response to your article "Debating Gay Marriage" which
> I came across this afternoon. I take exception to the disparity
> between your expressed tone and the implications of your choice of
> words (nevermind your arguments, which I find largely to be the
> standard more or less specious set, and I'd like to address those as
> well). I will be upfront--for full disclosure, as you might have
> guessed anyway--I am gay, and am also not religious so my opinion on
> this matter will clearly differ from yours.
>
> It is kind of you to
> take into account the horrors that are perpetrated on people because of
> their suspected or actual sexual orientation. It is also quite kind of
> you to humanize us--portray us as people who love and want to be loved,
> who respect and want to be respected (and to have our loves--the which
> we cannot control--respected, as well). While you're doing this,
> however, you ignore the consequence of your words: people commit
> violence against gay people because we are an 'other' group,
> marginalized and scapegoated, and so on. And arguments that put us
> outside of or contrary to 'nature's pattern', as you put it, only
> further that marginalization and dehumanization which leads to
> violence. (Incidentally--homosexuality is not merely a human thing,
> and is not outside the pattern of nature, unless it is so situated in
> all the species in which it occurs. See http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
> ). So, in essence, your article, seemingly conciliatory in tone to
> gays and at least overtly suggesting that gays be treated with
> 'gentleness and respect' is likely to have no such effect, but rather
> the opposite of what you purport to intend.
>
> While it is
> literally true that the origins of any given person's being gay has not
> been precisely determined, most scientific theories run toward genetic
> or pre-birth environmental factors--which is to say, that it's on the
> nature side of things rather than the nurture side of things (which is
> further to say, as far as parenting goes, that gayness, as it were, is
> only contagious in the same way that genetic defects are contagious).
> Here's a study involving twins (mono- and di-zygotic, and showing the
> difference between incidence of homosexuality between the types of
> twins, suggesting a genetic component): http://www.springerlink.com/content/2263646523551487/
> . And here's a study inolving fraternal birth order (that is, the more
> older brothers one has, the more likely a guy is to be gay): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WMD-45KKS7X-72&_user=1458830&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000052790&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1458830&md5=e70fbf916601ebf4b2c0f95466348792 .
>
>
> I
> won't touch your personal definition of the purpose of a family.
> You're certainly entitled to such an opinion. The problem, though, is
> that the government has no duty to define the purpose of a family in
> such a fashion. But, for sake of argument, let's do that. Why does
> the government have an interest in people getting married?
> 'Stability,' comes the answer from a chorus of everyone. What sorts of
> stability is the government interested in? 'Family!' cries the same
> chorus.
>
> Family, though, can be defined various ways: you
> could set up family as people cleaving to each other for life
> (nevermind the heterosexual divorce rate), where I'd argue that
> including such gays as want to get married (there are, contrary to pop
> culture, gays--even men--who want nothing more than to fall in love
> with a wonderful [same sex person] and settle down to live a nice life
> with that person. I, for one.) would have a bolstering effect on the
> strength of marriage, insofar as more people would be successfully
> participating in the same institution you so fervently wish to protect
> (from us).
>
> One
> could alternatively define family as being for the creation and
> nurturing of children. I'm pleased that you make the obvious
> concessions to science--although you fail to allow as how there are
> more homosexual couples willing (happy!) to adopt, particularly by
> comparison to straight couples. If children are the bedrock of
> marriage, this would explain shotgun weddings, sure. This would
> explain a number of marriages--at least, on the surface. I think it's
> putting the cart before the horse: I think that the creation and
> nurturing of children is not required of marriage, but instead requires
> marriage (that is, should be a consequence of marriage, not a
> prerequisite for it). Further, there have been studies done--precisely
> to allay the fears of people like you--investigating the fitness of
> homosexual parents. Here's a guide to them, by the APA: http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
> . They show, relatively conclusively, that there is no internal
> disadvantage to gays being parents (as far as effects on the children
> go, homophobic jibes from those outside the family notwithstanding),
> and (I don't know whether they include any of the studies showing that
> gays tend to make at least as good parents, but they exist) might even
> be better parents than the average heterosexual parents (gays have to
> want kids; this is not always so with straight couples saddled with
> children).
>
> You say that there are single parents who do an
> excellent job at it, and despite not being the ideal child-raising
> situation, you accept them. What if the single parent in question were
> gay? How is a gay couple differently non-ideal? Since, as I've
> suggested above (with more evidence than you have shown to the
> contrary), gays are good parents, most notably because when we acquire
> children, it's certain that we want them and think we can do right by
> them.
>
> While
> there aren't studies, to my knowledge, of the long-term effects of gay
> marriage, I must ask--why the requirement of that? Were there ever
> long-term studies of heterosexual marriage and its effects on
> children? What about divorce (of that, I'm sure there are, and I'm
> sure it doesn't say very nice things, but it doesn't affect my argument
> so I'm not going to the trouble of searching them out)? Further,
> you've set up a neatly circular requirement: there cannot be gay
> marriage until there have been studies on gay marriage and its effects
> on children, you say--but for those studies to happen, there must be
> gay marriage somewhere (except, by your requirements, there can't be,
> so you've neatly stopped gay marriage in its tracks forever--or would,
> if you could). I'd like to point out, however, that gay marriage is
> legal in various places, and has been for at least a little while:
> Massachusetts, Canada, various countries in Europe, South Africa, and
> the fabric of society has not dissolved.
>
> As
> to your slippery slope argument, that is tenuous at best--but
> deceptively (no, insidiously) attractive if taken without thought.
> Sure. Let gays into marriage. Then we'll have to let this whole
> parade of horrors in, too. So... on second thought, let's not let gays
> in. The problem is that we're changing a part of the marriage laws,
> which have several requirements beyond mere gender. Incest is out
> because, as Bbow pointed out, (regardless of the whole birth-defect
> issue, which wouldn't apply so well to gay couples) it could lead to
> children being raised as potential sex partners either for older
> siblings or parents, which is, to put it mildly, terrible. Polygamy is
> still barred because not only would we not change the number allowed
> into a marriage contract, but also because--as is frequently stated
> (and truthfully, as opposed to similar claims about a blanket
> assumption of homosexual promiscuity) of polygamous relationships--they
> are inherently unstable due to the nature of a relationship that is not
> merely binary.
>
> Let
> me make a positive case for gay marriage to you, if in fact you're
> still doing me the courtesy of reading this. Let us assume that the
> purpose of marriage is to have a family of some kind--be it with or
> without children, as you please. Let us further assume that a
> requirement of marriage is love between two people (which is why
> polygamy is still out, as stated above). Let us finally assume that
> civil unions are in all ways equivalent (that is, separate but equal)
> in that the 1500-odd state and federal benefits, great and small alike,
> are conferred on both institutions. What, then, opponents of gay
> marriage might ask, is the difference between a civil union and
> allowing gay marriage?
>
> One
> of the features of marriage is that it is a historic and communally
> recognized relationship, generally implying a stronger sense of
> permanence (divorce rates notwithstanding) than mere 'partnership' or
> 'going out'. It's the shock you get when you hear from your playboy
> friend that he's given his heart to his latest flavor of the week and
> that he's proposed to her, and that they're to be married. It's
> permanence and respect before the community (e.g. '[she, he]'s going to
> make an honest [man, woman] out of me.'). To have a civil union, then,
> would be to be denied that same respect, that same implication of
> permanence, that same privilege.
>
> Further,
> if--as I'm assuming--civil unions are in all ways comparable to
> marriage, this would include rights regarding the acquiring (by
> scientific or adoptive means) of children. How does this comport with
> your notions of family and how children ought be raised? That is, if
> it comports with it, why not go all the way to marriage, and if it
> doesn't, is your bone-tossing of civil unions being hypothetically
> acceptable in the future a specious claim?
>
> Finally, I'd like to
> point out that marriage is a self-selecting group--if one doesn't want
> to get married, one won't do it. There are all sorts of comments about
> how gays are big fans of infidelity and adultery (except that we can't
> get married so that's almost moot) and generally not big fans of
> commitment. I'm ignoring, for the moment, all the anecdotal evidence
> to the contrary, of lesbian couples who've been together for thirty
> plus years, and of gay men who've been faithful to each other for as
> long as they've been together--which in various cases has been rather a
> while. Given that divorce rates are so high, and that divorce is
> (sometimes,
> but not too loudly) considered to be a greater threat to marriage than
> allowing gays to join the ranks of marital bliss, how would allowing
> those gay couples who would want to get married to do so--which would
> likely lead to an overall decline in the divorce rate--be a bad thing?
>
> If
> strengthening the institution of marriage and supporting the raising of
> children in a family setting is your aim, I fail to see how allowing
> gay marriage is a notion that comports with what you want: gays make
> good parents when they decide to raise children. The institution of
> marriage strengthens the bond between the heads of a family allowing
> them to better weather the difficulties of life because they are
> recognized as a legal unit in public (such that the same respect
> accorded them for being married acts also as a social pressure to make
> them want to weather out the bad times as well as the good), which not
> only helps with children, but (if gays were included) would also
> increase the sanctity of marriage by allowing more loving
> family-raising couples into the institution.
>
> I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
>
> Respectfully,
> Desmond
> Kidney
> Candidate, Juris Doctor
> Northwestern School of Law Class of '11
I don't know that I've ever been quite so amused at a more or less complete blow-off before.
In other, (that is, personal) news, one of my cats (at home) died yesterday. Classes have started, and with the exception of CLR are excellent. Looking for a job that will take me to SF or keep me here over the summer. I think that's it for the moment--there will be a more in-depth post on things post-Christmas when I do that.
http://www.dallasnews.com/
Second, here is the response I got (with my response to the article... I mean, my rant at the article... copied in the reply):
Dear Mr. Kidney,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and respectful response to my article. I especially appreciated the links to additional resources, which were quite interesting. As I said, I believe this issue is fraught with difficulty, and more debate is needed. I am concerned that we are moving quickly toward making a major change in social policy. I am still thinking about this issue and the reason I mentioned civil unions is that they might address some concerns without redefining marriage. Your response was well-reasoned. I bet you will make an excellent lawyer. :)
Thanks again for taking the time to reply.
Wishing you all the best-
Michelle Chadwick
---- Des <draskireis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Mrs. Chadwick,
>
> I'm
> writing this in response to your article "Debating Gay Marriage" which
> I came across this afternoon. I take exception to the disparity
> between your expressed tone and the implications of your choice of
> words (nevermind your arguments, which I find largely to be the
> standard more or less specious set, and I'd like to address those as
> well). I will be upfront--for full disclosure, as you might have
> guessed anyway--I am gay, and am also not religious so my opinion on
> this matter will clearly differ from yours.
>
> It is kind of you to
> take into account the horrors that are perpetrated on people because of
> their suspected or actual sexual orientation. It is also quite kind of
> you to humanize us--portray us as people who love and want to be loved,
> who respect and want to be respected (and to have our loves--the which
> we cannot control--respected, as well). While you're doing this,
> however, you ignore the consequence of your words: people commit
> violence against gay people because we are an 'other' group,
> marginalized and scapegoated, and so on. And arguments that put us
> outside of or contrary to 'nature's pattern', as you put it, only
> further that marginalization and dehumanization which leads to
> violence. (Incidentally--homosexuality is not merely a human thing,
> and is not outside the pattern of nature, unless it is so situated in
> all the species in which it occurs. See http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
> ). So, in essence, your article, seemingly conciliatory in tone to
> gays and at least overtly suggesting that gays be treated with
> 'gentleness and respect' is likely to have no such effect, but rather
> the opposite of what you purport to intend.
>
> While it is
> literally true that the origins of any given person's being gay has not
> been precisely determined, most scientific theories run toward genetic
> or pre-birth environmental factors--which is to say, that it's on the
> nature side of things rather than the nurture side of things (which is
> further to say, as far as parenting goes, that gayness, as it were, is
> only contagious in the same way that genetic defects are contagious).
> Here's a study involving twins (mono- and di-zygotic, and showing the
> difference between incidence of homosexuality between the types of
> twins, suggesting a genetic component): http://www.springerlink.com/content/2263646523551487/
> . And here's a study inolving fraternal birth order (that is, the more
> older brothers one has, the more likely a guy is to be gay): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WMD-45KKS7X-72&_user=1458830&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000052790&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1458830&md5=e70fbf916601ebf4b2c0f95466348792 .
>
>
> I
> won't touch your personal definition of the purpose of a family.
> You're certainly entitled to such an opinion. The problem, though, is
> that the government has no duty to define the purpose of a family in
> such a fashion. But, for sake of argument, let's do that. Why does
> the government have an interest in people getting married?
> 'Stability,' comes the answer from a chorus of everyone. What sorts of
> stability is the government interested in? 'Family!' cries the same
> chorus.
>
> Family, though, can be defined various ways: you
> could set up family as people cleaving to each other for life
> (nevermind the heterosexual divorce rate), where I'd argue that
> including such gays as want to get married (there are, contrary to pop
> culture, gays--even men--who want nothing more than to fall in love
> with a wonderful [same sex person] and settle down to live a nice life
> with that person. I, for one.) would have a bolstering effect on the
> strength of marriage, insofar as more people would be successfully
> participating in the same institution you so fervently wish to protect
> (from us).
>
> One
> could alternatively define family as being for the creation and
> nurturing of children. I'm pleased that you make the obvious
> concessions to science--although you fail to allow as how there are
> more homosexual couples willing (happy!) to adopt, particularly by
> comparison to straight couples. If children are the bedrock of
> marriage, this would explain shotgun weddings, sure. This would
> explain a number of marriages--at least, on the surface. I think it's
> putting the cart before the horse: I think that the creation and
> nurturing of children is not required of marriage, but instead requires
> marriage (that is, should be a consequence of marriage, not a
> prerequisite for it). Further, there have been studies done--precisely
> to allay the fears of people like you--investigating the fitness of
> homosexual parents. Here's a guide to them, by the APA: http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
> . They show, relatively conclusively, that there is no internal
> disadvantage to gays being parents (as far as effects on the children
> go, homophobic jibes from those outside the family notwithstanding),
> and (I don't know whether they include any of the studies showing that
> gays tend to make at least as good parents, but they exist) might even
> be better parents than the average heterosexual parents (gays have to
> want kids; this is not always so with straight couples saddled with
> children).
>
> You say that there are single parents who do an
> excellent job at it, and despite not being the ideal child-raising
> situation, you accept them. What if the single parent in question were
> gay? How is a gay couple differently non-ideal? Since, as I've
> suggested above (with more evidence than you have shown to the
> contrary), gays are good parents, most notably because when we acquire
> children, it's certain that we want them and think we can do right by
> them.
>
> While
> there aren't studies, to my knowledge, of the long-term effects of gay
> marriage, I must ask--why the requirement of that? Were there ever
> long-term studies of heterosexual marriage and its effects on
> children? What about divorce (of that, I'm sure there are, and I'm
> sure it doesn't say very nice things, but it doesn't affect my argument
> so I'm not going to the trouble of searching them out)? Further,
> you've set up a neatly circular requirement: there cannot be gay
> marriage until there have been studies on gay marriage and its effects
> on children, you say--but for those studies to happen, there must be
> gay marriage somewhere (except, by your requirements, there can't be,
> so you've neatly stopped gay marriage in its tracks forever--or would,
> if you could). I'd like to point out, however, that gay marriage is
> legal in various places, and has been for at least a little while:
> Massachusetts, Canada, various countries in Europe, South Africa, and
> the fabric of society has not dissolved.
>
> As
> to your slippery slope argument, that is tenuous at best--but
> deceptively (no, insidiously) attractive if taken without thought.
> Sure. Let gays into marriage. Then we'll have to let this whole
> parade of horrors in, too. So... on second thought, let's not let gays
> in. The problem is that we're changing a part of the marriage laws,
> which have several requirements beyond mere gender. Incest is out
> because, as Bbow pointed out, (regardless of the whole birth-defect
> issue, which wouldn't apply so well to gay couples) it could lead to
> children being raised as potential sex partners either for older
> siblings or parents, which is, to put it mildly, terrible. Polygamy is
> still barred because not only would we not change the number allowed
> into a marriage contract, but also because--as is frequently stated
> (and truthfully, as opposed to similar claims about a blanket
> assumption of homosexual promiscuity) of polygamous relationships--they
> are inherently unstable due to the nature of a relationship that is not
> merely binary.
>
> Let
> me make a positive case for gay marriage to you, if in fact you're
> still doing me the courtesy of reading this. Let us assume that the
> purpose of marriage is to have a family of some kind--be it with or
> without children, as you please. Let us further assume that a
> requirement of marriage is love between two people (which is why
> polygamy is still out, as stated above). Let us finally assume that
> civil unions are in all ways equivalent (that is, separate but equal)
> in that the 1500-odd state and federal benefits, great and small alike,
> are conferred on both institutions. What, then, opponents of gay
> marriage might ask, is the difference between a civil union and
> allowing gay marriage?
>
> One
> of the features of marriage is that it is a historic and communally
> recognized relationship, generally implying a stronger sense of
> permanence (divorce rates notwithstanding) than mere 'partnership' or
> 'going out'. It's the shock you get when you hear from your playboy
> friend that he's given his heart to his latest flavor of the week and
> that he's proposed to her, and that they're to be married. It's
> permanence and respect before the community (e.g. '[she, he]'s going to
> make an honest [man, woman] out of me.'). To have a civil union, then,
> would be to be denied that same respect, that same implication of
> permanence, that same privilege.
>
> Further,
> if--as I'm assuming--civil unions are in all ways comparable to
> marriage, this would include rights regarding the acquiring (by
> scientific or adoptive means) of children. How does this comport with
> your notions of family and how children ought be raised? That is, if
> it comports with it, why not go all the way to marriage, and if it
> doesn't, is your bone-tossing of civil unions being hypothetically
> acceptable in the future a specious claim?
>
> Finally, I'd like to
> point out that marriage is a self-selecting group--if one doesn't want
> to get married, one won't do it. There are all sorts of comments about
> how gays are big fans of infidelity and adultery (except that we can't
> get married so that's almost moot) and generally not big fans of
> commitment. I'm ignoring, for the moment, all the anecdotal evidence
> to the contrary, of lesbian couples who've been together for thirty
> plus years, and of gay men who've been faithful to each other for as
> long as they've been together--which in various cases has been rather a
> while. Given that divorce rates are so high, and that divorce is
> (sometimes,
> but not too loudly) considered to be a greater threat to marriage than
> allowing gays to join the ranks of marital bliss, how would allowing
> those gay couples who would want to get married to do so--which would
> likely lead to an overall decline in the divorce rate--be a bad thing?
>
> If
> strengthening the institution of marriage and supporting the raising of
> children in a family setting is your aim, I fail to see how allowing
> gay marriage is a notion that comports with what you want: gays make
> good parents when they decide to raise children. The institution of
> marriage strengthens the bond between the heads of a family allowing
> them to better weather the difficulties of life because they are
> recognized as a legal unit in public (such that the same respect
> accorded them for being married acts also as a social pressure to make
> them want to weather out the bad times as well as the good), which not
> only helps with children, but (if gays were included) would also
> increase the sanctity of marriage by allowing more loving
> family-raising couples into the institution.
>
> I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
>
> Respectfully,
> Desmond
> Kidney
> Candidate, Juris Doctor
> Northwestern School of Law Class of '11
I don't know that I've ever been quite so amused at a more or less complete blow-off before.
In other, (that is, personal) news, one of my cats (at home) died yesterday. Classes have started, and with the exception of CLR are excellent. Looking for a job that will take me to SF or keep me here over the summer. I think that's it for the moment--there will be a more in-depth post on things post-Christmas when I do that.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Merry Jesus-Baby Nativity Day
(That's how Cara put it, anyway). It's been a good Christmas. Particularly in terms of timing: it was pushed back from our usual stockings at 8ish (during college--earlier it was stockings at 6:30) with breakfast thereafter--Eggs Benedict, sausage, bacon, EMD (early morning drinks--Reymus Fizzes in particular), juice, hot chocolate--then the tree by the time noon rolled around. This year, Mom allowed as how Dad would be the arbiter of timing. So I was rousted out of bed at the young hour of 10:45 (having been up until 3:45ish with wrapping and hanging out with Strump and suchwhat), for stockings.
Best. Stocking stuffer. Ever: Nun Bowling. Oh dear god so hilarious. Also, lots of chocolate. This is a good thing.
Other loot included frying pans for my apartment and books and the settlers expansion. And CTA token cufflinks, because that's just kinda awesome. Baron (Strump's dog, for those who don't know, a small rat terrier/manchester terrier mix who is a black hole of spaz) got a Greenie in wrapping paper. He neglected to unwrap it before chowing down on it.
Last night was Christmas Eve (I mean this in terms of the event rather than the date, which ought be obvious to anyone with a calendar or a pair of eyes and a couple brain cells to rub together for sparks), and Captain Erickson and Ben and Taylor came over for dinner (Black tie, business for those under 40--I wore Dad's 'Bah Humbug' tie, which is the lovely old thin burgundy tie with the eponymous words in small cream script repeated all across the tie). Pate and cheeses during the cocktail portion of the evening. For dinner--Crabcakes, Beef Wellington (and mashed potatoes--ironically, the dish I am closest to being responsible for that isn't dessert--and pearled onions), and dessert (homemade bouche de noel, chocolate pecan pie, 'pinecones' (dacquoise meringues stacked with chocolate ganache between and around, and some dressed up in almond slices--hence the name), and chocolate brioche bread pudding). So very very tasty. I hadn't seen the Ericksons more than a couple times (like twice) since Emily's funeral (my godmother, Capt. Erickson's wife, and one of the reasosn I left Sidley) in February, so it was good to see them again in less unhappy circumstances. Fritz (their pouffy white-haired dog, Baron's best friend in the world) came, too, and they hung out while the humans did the same.
We have leftovers for weeks. The garage is cold enough to act as a walk in fridge, which is a damn good thing.
Other than the holiday events, and wrapping (and spending five hours on or about a ladder lighting the upside-down tree that is the centerpiece of Christmas Eve dinner/Christmas breakfast. 1700 lights on that sucker), I've had two days of outings: one to hang out with the lovely Miss Liz Marquez, involving chatting and dinner and watching Love Actually, which is the only modern sappy movie my parents seem to enjoy around Christmas (rather than things involving Bing and Fred and possibly Rosemary Clooney). The other involved going out to the Leesburg outlets with Dad, to lounch (mmm... Sushi. And the Beatles on loop in the background), and then downtown to get the White House Christmas Ornament for Mom (this year's is pretty damn good). Then I went off to my coffee shop in Dupont for a couple hours to work (hah) on story (38.5k words now, but kinda don't know what to do with this section), and eventually off to dancing with Grace and various others. Five hours of dancing so happy (add to that two and a half miles walked with a 20-lb bag on my back, and you might understand how I got home at 3:30 and promptly crashed for as long as they'd let me).
That's pretty much the highlights of break so far.
Merry Christmas to y'all.
No legal quote, because it's break, dammit.
Best. Stocking stuffer. Ever: Nun Bowling. Oh dear god so hilarious. Also, lots of chocolate. This is a good thing.
Other loot included frying pans for my apartment and books and the settlers expansion. And CTA token cufflinks, because that's just kinda awesome. Baron (Strump's dog, for those who don't know, a small rat terrier/manchester terrier mix who is a black hole of spaz) got a Greenie in wrapping paper. He neglected to unwrap it before chowing down on it.
Last night was Christmas Eve (I mean this in terms of the event rather than the date, which ought be obvious to anyone with a calendar or a pair of eyes and a couple brain cells to rub together for sparks), and Captain Erickson and Ben and Taylor came over for dinner (Black tie, business for those under 40--I wore Dad's 'Bah Humbug' tie, which is the lovely old thin burgundy tie with the eponymous words in small cream script repeated all across the tie). Pate and cheeses during the cocktail portion of the evening. For dinner--Crabcakes, Beef Wellington (and mashed potatoes--ironically, the dish I am closest to being responsible for that isn't dessert--and pearled onions), and dessert (homemade bouche de noel, chocolate pecan pie, 'pinecones' (dacquoise meringues stacked with chocolate ganache between and around, and some dressed up in almond slices--hence the name), and chocolate brioche bread pudding). So very very tasty. I hadn't seen the Ericksons more than a couple times (like twice) since Emily's funeral (my godmother, Capt. Erickson's wife, and one of the reasosn I left Sidley) in February, so it was good to see them again in less unhappy circumstances. Fritz (their pouffy white-haired dog, Baron's best friend in the world) came, too, and they hung out while the humans did the same.
We have leftovers for weeks. The garage is cold enough to act as a walk in fridge, which is a damn good thing.
Other than the holiday events, and wrapping (and spending five hours on or about a ladder lighting the upside-down tree that is the centerpiece of Christmas Eve dinner/Christmas breakfast. 1700 lights on that sucker), I've had two days of outings: one to hang out with the lovely Miss Liz Marquez, involving chatting and dinner and watching Love Actually, which is the only modern sappy movie my parents seem to enjoy around Christmas (rather than things involving Bing and Fred and possibly Rosemary Clooney). The other involved going out to the Leesburg outlets with Dad, to lounch (mmm... Sushi. And the Beatles on loop in the background), and then downtown to get the White House Christmas Ornament for Mom (this year's is pretty damn good). Then I went off to my coffee shop in Dupont for a couple hours to work (hah) on story (38.5k words now, but kinda don't know what to do with this section), and eventually off to dancing with Grace and various others. Five hours of dancing so happy (add to that two and a half miles walked with a 20-lb bag on my back, and you might understand how I got home at 3:30 and promptly crashed for as long as they'd let me).
That's pretty much the highlights of break so far.
Merry Christmas to y'all.
No legal quote, because it's break, dammit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)