Well – what I really want to post about is what life in Australia doing “Gatz” with ERS has been like for the past month, but I simply have so much to say (and so many pictures of koala cuddling to post) that it’s going to have to wait a bit more.
Meanwhile, life in the good old USA spins on without me, and just gets more bizarre.
This yesterday in the Daily news:
LOS ANGELES – The legal eagles who fought on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore want to walk down the aisle together in federal court to overturn California‘s ban on gay marriage.
Theodore Olson, the ex-Solicitor General who represented George Bush in the 2000 ballot battle, and David Boies, who represented Al Gore, announced their partnership Wednesday, declaring Prop. 8 denies gay couples a “fundamental right” afforded in the federal Constitution.
The interesting bedfellows filed their lawsuit in U.S. District Court in northern California Friday and asked for an immediate injunction against Prop. 8 until the federal case is resolved.
“It’s not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. We’re here in part to symbolize that. This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States constitution,” said Olson, a prominent Republican.
“For too long, gay men and lesbians who seek stable committed, loving relationships within the institution of marriage have been denied that fundamental right,” he said.
Olson said he asked Boies, a Democrat, to join his team to present “a united front” in the suit filed on behalf of two same-sex couples who wish to be married but, because of Proposition 8, have been denied licenses.
“Our Constitution guarantees every American the right to be treated equally under the law,” Boies said. “There is no right more fundamental than the right to marry the person that you love and to raise a family.”
“The courts exist to reverse injustices,” he added “This is not a question of state law. It’s a question of federal Constitutional law.”
The California Supreme Court decided Tuesday to uphold Prop. 8, the controversial ballot initiative passed by 52% of voters in November that defined marriage as between a man and a woman in the state constitution.
In a nod to its support of gay marriage before the amendment passed, the court let stand the estimated 18,000 gay marriage that took place in the state between June and November.
Have you ever seen a state with a guiltier conscience? It’s like, sorry we said you guys could marry but then folks didn’t like that so we had to change it – but, um, you know, you can keep your marriage. It’s cool.
Of course I’m not saying that these marriages should be dissolved – but how in the world can you legally justify allowing same-sex couples who happened to get married before this whole mess went down to stay married, but then not let anyone else do it now because some people believe it’s wrong? I mean, does that sentence even make sense? No, because none of this makes sense. Which is why you have these two dudes fighting on the same side. (I mean, they’re getting paid – but still – it’s a very clever way to drawn attention to their case).
I have more to say on this too (soon, World – i know it’s hard for you to wait for my many opinions like this), but I had a few thoughts when I was watching the movie “Milk” and thinking about Harvey Milk and the history of protest in the gay rights movement. And right now I keep going back to this thought of – how angry do you want people to get? And how angry to they have to get for you to listen? And in what way can they focus their anger productively – since in the end we are talking about family and “family values” here – so does that mean this all has to stay nice and pretty?
In the end I know it all just happens slowly. And it’s just some strange quirk of history that I got married right in the middle of it all.
Have to go now – the drunk backpackers who live across the street from my hotel have started yelling again. Ah, Sydney…
