June 14, 2011

  • Wanna know something funny? All recent (and it's been quite a lot) civil right advancement for the Queer community in the U. S. A. has been either legislatively or judicially.

    Out of that, a decent portion of it has been done by either Republican judges or, to some degree, Republican congressmen (and, of course, we cannot forget Republican lawyers: Ted Olsen among them).

    After plural sexuality is accepted as normal, wonderful, and the norm (and, if you've been tracing the trends from at least the 1920s like I have, believe me it will), the Republicans will argue that their party has been defenders for gay and Trans people since at least the 2000s and that crucial moments for the legal right of Queer people were made at their hands (which, admittedly, is true).

    It'll happen. Just watch. Mark me here.

     

    In other news, the U. S. Bankruptcy Court recently delivered a ruling that defines my legal view entirely:

    "This court cannot conclude from the evidence or the record in this case that any valid governmental interest is advanced by DOMA as applied to the Debtors. Debtors have urged that recent governmental defenses of the statute assert that DOMA also serves such interests as “preserving the status quo,” “eliminating inconsistencies and easing administrative burdens” of the government. None of these post hoc defenses of DOMA withstands heightened scrutiny. In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion: the Debtors have made their case persuasively that DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled." (emphasis mine)