Antonia D'orsay

Five Things To Think About

Filed By Antonia D'orsay | January 25, 2010 2:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Media
Tags: Birthdays, gender, marriage equality, Michigan, Paul Scott, Perry vs Schwarzenegger, President Obama, prop 8 trial, SCOTUS, sex, Sexual Orientation, Trans, transgender, transsexual

1. Does President Obama seem to be generally more supportive of Trans folk than he seems to be of GLB folk?

2. If corporations can spend money on elections, then that means that LGBT folks can form corporations (which are fairly cheap to do) and spend money on elections as well -- stepping outside the realm of 501c3 and c4 orgs and free of the reporting requirements that burden them.

3. On the presumption of Perry making it through the full 9th cicuit -- will that overturn amendments in the other states, and if so, will it allow for a window of opportunity before SCOTUS puts a hold on it?

4. How would you define sexual orientation? Given the attempt by the defense in the Perry Trial to show that it changes and is hard to pin down, what criteria would you use to describe it?

5. How would you feel if a politician stood up and said that they were running on a platform to deny gay people the right to be in communal showers with other persons of the same sex on the grounds they could assault them? How would you feel if every major organization was suddenly silent about it?

On number four, I'll be tackling the very concept shortly, followed by my thoughts on Marriage Equality and why it needs to exist.

I've been thinking about these five things and several others. Now that I've taken the time needed to properly absorb the enormity of the date recently passed (I got older), I'm coming back, and this is just a hint of what's coming from me...

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

The answer to Number 3 is pretty straightforward:If the plaintiffs in Perry win at the appellate level, it will most likely be on federal grounds. In other words, the court will say that a state ban on marriage violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. If this is the case, then all bans on marriage in the 9th Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington) would be void. So if the 9th Circuit says that gays have the right to get married in California, it applies to all the states in that circuit. Chances are the defense would ask the Supreme Court to stay the ruling until they could hear the case, effectively preventing any marriages from actually happening. But its possible there could be a window.

If the 9th Circuit decides the case on narrower grounds, perhaps that Prop 8 violated the 14th Amendment because the majority was voting on minority rights, but does not go so far as to say that the Constitution gives the right to marriage, then the ruling would only apply to CA....

I'm intrigued by the idea of forming a corporation rather than marrying my same-sex partner. This should make the poly community happy too, right?

1. Does it matter? The amount of support for GLB seems so small, surpassing it inspires little comfort.

2. Hooray. Now the financially challenged can compete with the financially grossly over-endowed without any burdensome reporting requirements. I'll be rushing out to take advantage of that real soon.

3. Doubtful, although one can hope. More likely, even a favorable outcome would be suspended while waiting for the Supreme Court to strike down equality in the name of "precedent".

4. Sexual orientation depends on one's particular location, and the points that supply both a foundation and opportunity for growth. I'd start with the criteria that promote happy, healthy and productive relationships irrespective of their correlation to gender attraction.

5. I'd feel disgust but little surprise. Politics seems based on expediency, not morality; so unless the two can be intertwined I feel little hope for policy based on the second value overriding the first.

You know, #5 has been used against gays and lesbians too - the Clinton DADT hearings used it constantly for reasons why gays shouldn't be allowed to serve openly.

You also forgot Question #6: Why is Toni so awesome? :)