The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday morning on the meaning of marriage.
Two California couples challenging Proposition 8, the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, say it excludes gay and lesbian couples from an institution with a deep and distinctive meaning and thus violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
Defenders of the ban say that states should be able to work out for themselves whether to permit same-sex marriage. The Constitution is silent on the question, they say, and the court should not intervene in the vigorous debate playing out across the nation.
Nine states and the District of Columbia allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. Polls show that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, suggesting that further gains are likely in state legislatures and at the ballot box.
The trends lend support to both sides. The ban’s challengers ask the court to provide leadership in cementing victories in what they call the civil rights issue of the day. Its defenders counter that the increase in the number of states that allow same-sex marriage shows that the democratic process is working and that the court should not interfere.
The case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, was filed in 2009 by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, two lawyers who were on opposite sides in the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, which settled the 2000 presidential election. They argued that California voters had violated the federal Constitution the previous year when they approved Proposition 8, overriding a decision of the state’s Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriages. [READ MORE]
Mind you, this thought hit me like a brick to the head while navigating Chicago’s morning rush-hour traffic with the skill of Speed Racer on Adderall; yet all the grace of Andre the Giant in high heels.
While sitting through a ridiculous amount of development meetings, planning discussions, and test phase preparation at work today; I had plenty of time to allow my eyes to glass over and my imagination to wander.
Catwoman should have been a lesbian.
Of course she should have.
And not just any lesbian, but THE lesbian.
The lesbian that triggers that first tingle in every young, baby dyke’s favorite pair of boxer briefs.
She’s a shrink-wrapped fantasy on two legs, topped off with sass, whips, and the ultimate back-scratching claws — er … nails.
Furthermore, I propose a storyline whereby we are introduced to her turbulent, on-again-off-again affair with Poison Ivy. [READ MORE]
Chaim Levin, a plaintiff in a lawsuit being filed in New Jersey against therapists that claim to make homosexual men heterosexual. — Photo taken by Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
What is this idea that homosexuality is some sort of disease? How has this theory been allowed to take root in people’s minds and survive all this time?
I mean, I understand the ignorance of those in the old days when the information highway was really a dirt road trafficked by mule-drawn carts, but there really is no excuse for such absurdities in this day and age.
Treating homosexuality as if it is some sort of contagion, epidemic, or plague really does no one any good and only serves to harm rather than heal.
We have got to stop pretending homosexuality is something to be transmitted amongst men and women via saliva or blood or — *gasp* — the air!?