Quick Thoughts on CA Decision

Some quick thoughts on the wonderful California decision (still reading it):

It took me forever to find the actual decision of the court. I had to skim through the first seven pages before I found something resembling a ruling. Then on the next page it said something about not needing to deal with the word “marriage” and I thought maybe it was more like the New Jersey decision, pro-rights but not mandating the word. Thoroughly confused and figuring I wasn’t going to find anything definitive in the next few pages, I tried to find the end of the opinion but couldn’t (the end is in the middle, as the main opinion is followed by some concurrences/dissents). Finally found the end and realized the good news.

In six months, Californians will likely be voting on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Some people expect a backlash against the court’s decision. Some people, those who are anti-gay or who are against marriage equality for gay couples, will feel angered and energized by the decision and be even more eager to turn out to vote in favor of the amendment. Also, the vote will be happening in the context of the Obama-McCain race on the same day’s ballot; if McCain runs strong in California, this could help get out the Republican vote.

But I think this decision helps those of us on the side of equality more than those on the other side. Over the next six months, gay couples will be marrying in California. And Californians will see that gay couples have gotten legally married and the world hasn’t fallen apart. Just as important, there are many people who might oppose same-sex marriages in theory but who are good at heart, who have empathy for their fellow human beings, and who are not going to want to take marriage away from couples who have already been legally married under the imprimatur of the California constitution. They’re not going to want to tell the children of those couples, sorry, your parents are no longer married. This is different from the legally dicey San Francisco marriages four years ago; this is really and truly legal.

This is really and truly wonderful.

California Marriage Decision Excerpt

Key passage from the decision:

[W]e conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.

A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

Kerrigan and Mock – When?

Speaking of court decisions on same-sex marriage, what the hell is taking the Connecticut Supreme Court so long? It heard oral arguments in Kerrigan and Mock exactly one year ago yesterday. There’s no way they need a year to decide the case. It’s a travesty of justice.

Unless it’s going to come out the wrong way, in which case… keep taking your time.

Seriously though, in the interests of the justice system, it’s ridiculous that a court can hear a case and then not issue a decision.

CA: Amendment vs. Proposition

Whether or not the California Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage equality today, Californians will probably be voting this fall on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex couples’ marriages. Apparently, 1.1 million signatures have been submitted, and only 694,354 need to be found valid in order for the amendment to get on the ballot — about 63% of those submitted.

What I don’t understand is why it’s so easy for Californians to amend their constitution. It merely requires a one-time majority vote by the public — the state legislature has no involvement. The process is exactly the same as for a ballot proposition, except that a ballot proposition requires signatures from 5% of the number of voters in the last gubernatorial election in order to get on the ballot and can be found unconstitutional, while a proposed constitutional amendment requires 8% to get on the ballot and becomes part of the state constitution and therefore by definition cannot be unconstitutional — although whether it violates the U.S. Constitution is another matter.

Under traditional ideas of constitutional theory, this is bad. Amending a constitution is supposed to be harder than passing an ordinary law because constitutional law is supposed to be “higher” than ordinary law. If you can simply amend the constitution by popular vote, what’s the point of having a constitution?

This is particularly troublesome when it comes to individual rights. One of the purposes of a constitution is to protect individual rights from being taken away by a majority. If a majority of Californians can remove a minority’s individual rights through simple popular vote, something is really wrong.

In 2000, a majority of Californians voted in favor of a ballot proposition to ban same-sex marriage. Had it been a constitutional amendment instead of a ballot proposition, the ban would have been enshrined in the state constitution and the California Supreme Court wouldn’t be able to do anything about it today. We’re just lucky that it came up in the form it did.

Upcoming Concert

To my readers in the New York area: my chorus is performing two concerts this weekend with the Astoria Symphony, one on Saturday night on the Upper West Side and another on Sunday afternoon in Long Island City (Queens). We’re singing mostly modern music, including the premiere of a piece by legendary Pulitzer-Prize-winning composer David Del Tredici called Queer Hosannas. We’re also performing Arnold Schoenberg’s Survivor From Warsaw, about a survivor of the Holocaust; the beautiful Brahms Alto Rhapsody; and a piece by former chorus member Stefan Weisman called David and Jonathan, about the biblical pair who some have presumed to have been lovers.

Saturday night at 8pm:

The Church of St. Paul & St. Andrew
263 West 86th Street
Manhattan

Sunday afternoon at 3pm:

LaGuardia Performing Arts Center
31-10 Thompson Ave.
Long Island City, Queens

Hope some of you can make it!

Recount

danny strong

In a week and a half, HBO is airing a TV movie called Recount, about the 2000 Florida recount. Sounds interesting enough, although some people are criticizing the movie for portraying Gore team member (and former Secretary of State) Warren Christopher as too much of a wimp.

Even more intriguing: the writer of the screenplay happens to be Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s Danny Strong, a.k.a. Jonathan Levinson.

Sue Simmons

I can watch this forever.

I think you have to be a New Yorker to fully appreciate it — you might even have to have grown up in the New York area. Sue Simmons and Chuck Scarborough have hosted the local news on Channel 4 for as long as I can remember. To hear Sue Simmons swear on the air — particularly with such vehemence — is, well… I was going to say delightful, but that’s not quite the word.

Maybe I just mean awesome.

(As a commenter on Gothamist said, “I think I’ve found my new ringtone.”)

I Want to Be a Millionaire

Inspired by Jere’s recent post, I tried out yesterday for Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. I applied online a couple of weeks ago and was scheduled for a tryout yesterday after work. I also received via email a list of open-ended questions to fill out, presumably in order to elicit interesting facts about me.

So I went to the ABC offices yesterday for my tryout. It was similar to Jere’s — a large group of people taking a 10-minute, 30-trivia-question multiple-choice Scantron test in an ABC cafeteria. The guy sitting next to me was a burly, middle-aged, gray-goateed man with a thick Boston accent who seemed like he’d do well on TV.

A portion of us passed the test, including me. Everyone who passed had a Polaroid picture taken and was ushered to another part of the cafeteria, where we sat at round tables to await a short interview with one of seven interviewers, who were lined up at seven adjacent two-person tables along one wall. We were told that some people might have second interviews but that that didn’t necessarily mean anything.

While waiting for my interview, I noticed that one woman was picked for a second interview, which was taped by a video camera. She was a smartly-dressed 30-something Asian-American woman with a very cute smile; I could hear her speak, and she sounded utterly charming, talking about how she watches the show every day and how when she told her four-year-old daughter that she was going to try out, her daughter said, “So you might get a chance to be in the hot seat?” She seemed like a very promising contestant. I knew I didn’t have half her charisma and I felt envious.

Eventually my name was called by one of the interviewers. The interviewer gave off a definite gay vibe. On my application I’d mentioned that I sing in a gay men’s chorus, and when the interviewer got to that part, he said, “What chorus do you sing with?” I told him which one, and he said he knew a particular person in the chorus. I asked him some questions to see if it was the same person, and it was. He even knew that this is a busy week of rehearsals for us. And then he said, “Well, this isn’t awkward at all, is it?” and got all flustered and remarked that his face was probably bright red. I said, “I can’t tell at all — it blends right into the red in the upholstery of the seat behind you!” I don’t know why he was nervous when I was the one trying out for a game show. Maybe he and the chorus member are dating? I don’t know.

Anyway, he told me I’d get a postcard in the mail in a couple of weeks informing me of whether I’d be entered into the contestant pool. I’m guessing probably not. No matter — it was at least fun to try out and prove to myself that I could pass the qualifying test.

Guess this means I have to pay off the rest of my student loan the old-fashioned way.

Chuck Todd Profile

Howard Kurtz writes about one of my political crushes, MSNBC’s Chuck Todd.

On a cable channel packed with such opinionated personalities as Olbermann and Chris Matthews, Todd stands out by not being flamboyant. While others are getting punch-drunk on polls, New York Times critic Alessandra Stanley observed, Todd is “the designated driver of MSNBC’s political coverage.”

He is accustomed to the role. During his boyhood in Miami, Todd recalls, his conservative father and a liberal cousin often got sloshed and argued about politics.

Todd was 16 when his dad died. Strapped for cash, Todd was accepted by George Washington University on a music scholarship — he played the French horn — and pursued a double major in politics.

Longtime friend Andrew Flagel, now George Mason University’s dean of admissions, says Todd had phenomenal recall, “whether it had to do with every sports fact you could ever have at your fingertips or every congressional race. He was the Jimmy the Greek of politics. We’d be out at one of the bars in Georgetown or Foggy Bottom and he’d end up with 20 people around us, arguing about either politics or sports, and he’s emceeing the discussion.”

The Right to Campaign

This Times editorial says something silly that I’ve also seen elsewhere.

There is a lot of talk that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now fated to lose the Democratic nomination and should pull out of the race. We believe it is her right to stay in the fight and challenge Senator Barack Obama as long as she has the desire and the means to do so. That is the essence of the democratic process.

Will people stop using this straw man? Has anyone ever said she has no right to continue campaigning? No.

I have the right to wear a clown suit to work every day. But if someone says “You shouldn’t wear a clown suit to work every day,” and I respond by saying, “But I have the right to do it,” that doesn’t really address the point. “I can if I want to” is rarely a useful answer to anything. It’s what a five year old says.

The question isn’t whether Clinton has the right to continue campaigning. Of course she does. The question is whether it serves any purpose. Me, I don’t care if she continues campaigning or not, as long as she stops bringing the likely nominee down with her. Also, superdelegates are allowed to change their minds as many times as they want until the convention at the end of August, and since neither candidate will reach a majority without superdelegates and Obama could still somehow collapse over the next three and a half months, she’s there as a backup.

But she’d be there as a backup anyway. Maybe the best thing for her to do is not end her campaign, but “suspend” it, right after the Montana and South Dakota primaries on June 3. At that point, there won’t be anyone left but superdelegates to convince, and while it’s unlikely a publicly-declared superdelegate will have a change of heart, she can still be there as a backup in case Obama falls apart.

Side note: how weird is it that Puerto Rico has more delegates than Montana and South Dakota combined, and more delegates than Kentucky alone, but Puerto Ricans don’t get to vote for president?

Winning a State

From the Times:

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the speaker of the House, was among those on Wednesday giving Mrs. Clinton room to make her own calculations about the race, saying “a win is a win,” in reference to the Indiana results.

This is something that has annoyed me throughout this nomination process. A win isn’t a win. There’s no such thing as “winning a state” in the Democratic nomination process, or rather, there’s no real importance to winning a state, since states aren’t winner-take-all. These primary nights are not about winning a state; they’re about adding proportional chunks of delegates to running totals. But to the news media, that’s not quite as exciting.

News anchors were up past midnight waiting to see whether Obama or Clinton had won Indiana, when it really only meant the difference of one or two delegates out of 2,000. The media is used to covering winner-take-all presidential elections, and they’re wedded to the concept of “calling a state” for one candidate or another. Determining a “winner” creates news. But it’s inaccurate to say that “winning a state” matters in anything but a symbolic sense.

Glory Days

Glory Days, the new musical about four college friends, has closed after opening night. One official performance. The reviews were pretty miserable. We saw one of the preview performances a couple of weeks ago; it was a cute show (with cute guys), earnest and somewhat poignant, but it didn’t belong on Broadway.

The songs aren’t bad. You can hear some of them on the show’s MySpace page.

(The last show to close after one performance was The Oldest Living Confederate Widow Tells All, a one-woman show starring Ellen Burstyn five years ago. But at least both those shows opened, unlike Bobbi Boland, starring Farrah Fawcett, which closed in previews.)

ABC Jingles

Related to my previous post: here are my two favorite ABC-TV jingles ever, from 1981 (“Now is the Time, ABC is the Place”) and 1982 (“Come on Along with ABC”). These promo spots are filled with TV stars and the tunes are just so damn catchy.

TV networks would never spend money like this today, and this wonderful schmaltz would never fly in our irony-dominated age.

1977-83

Here are some musings that are not very well organized or polished, are probably naive, and might seem silly to anyone else but me. But I want to get them down.

I was having weird thoughts the other day about television, popular culture, and the passage of time, and particularly, for some reason, the vast gulf between the years 1977 and 1983. This was triggered by these compilations of TV show openings that I discovered on Sunday morning, especially the ones from the early 80s.

Why 1977 and 1983? Perhaps because of the nice symmetry — three years on either side of 1980.

In 1977, we were in the Carter era. In 1983, we were in the Reagan era.

In 1977, “Star Wars” came out. In 1983, we had “Return of the Jedi.” (Side note: a long time ago I found an online list of pop-cultural touchstones – “you know you’re a child of the 80s if…”, or something like that. One of the touchstones: when you saw “Star Wars,” you noticed all the cool spaceships. By the time you saw “Return of the Jedi,” you noticed Princess Leia’s breasts or Han Solo’s tight black pants. I was a little too young for that, being just nine years old for most of 1983.)

It’s weird that most of the TV shows we associate with the ’70s were still on the air in the early ’80s, and aging: Three’s Company, The Jeffersons, Alice, One Day at a Time, Happy Days, Benson, The Love Boat. Inga Swenson’s ’70s bowl cut was replaced by a chic, short ’80s do, and she and Benson were still trading insults. I can’t think of many ’80s shows that lasted into the early ’90s, but for some reason there’s this big ’70s-’80s overlap.

In 1977 there was disco. In 1983, there were personal computers. Remember those Charlie-Chaplinesque commercials for the IBM PC? Disco and PCs seem to belong to totally different eras.

In 1977, gay people seemed to live in a paradise. I think of Armistead Maupin’s “Tales of the City.” But by 1983, AIDS had begun to destroy the gay community. On the other side of 1980 lay devastation. My fourth-grade mustachioed math teacher (1983-84) would one day die of AIDS.

In 1977, the big thing in television was jiggle TV. Sex abounded. By the early ’80s, the conservative Reagan era was beginning to take hold and kids and families were coming to dominate TV sitcoms again. Diff’rent Strokes, Silver Spoons, The Facts of Life, and Gimme a Break were essentially about blended or nontraditional families; soon the nuclear family would make a comeback with The Cosby Show and Growing Pains, and Family Ties, already on the air in 1982, would become a big hit. Early-80’s TV, with its kid-filled sitcoms, seemed tailor-made for my age group; what would kids have watched in the late ’70s? The Fonz? Laverne & Shirley? (My own kid-centric experience of the early ’80s is no doubt distorting things. There were probably shows of both eras that don’t fit this mold. See Cheers.)

All of these long transitional years led up to what is, for me, the quintessential ’80s year: 1985. In 1985, my friends and I were in fifth grade, the highest grade in the elementary school, so we were sort of the equivalent of high school seniors and felt cool. My favorite movie, “Back to the Future,” came out that year. I discovered comic books. “We are the World” was the big pop-cultural thing and made us all feel happy and uplifted because, if we put our minds together, we could end world hunger!

I think the greatest year of childhood is the final year before you hit puberty. You’ve come to know who you are as a kid; your brain has developed far enough along that you can understand things well; and hormones haven’t yet begun to mess with everything you’ve come to be. In 1977, when I was three years old, we’d moved to the suburbs and into our New Jersey house. By 1985, I was 11. I’d lived in that house in that idyllic suburban town for eight years. It was home, and familiar; I’d grown comfortable in my skin and my school; I’d come to know who I was.

Over the next 2-3-4 years, it all changed. The decade aged. I went on to middle school, I was forced to skip a grade, I started to have troubling sexual feelings. In 1986, Iran Contra would damage the Reagan image and I’d discover “Saturday Night Live,” with its cynical skewering of politicians. In 1987, the stock market would crash. The ’80s seemed to go on forever, but everything after, say, 1986 didn’t feel like the ’80s to me anymore. By 1987, the ’80s were past their prime, like Christmas lights on December 29th. The ’80s for me basically ended in 1985.

I love the idea of people living at the end of the ’70s, on the cusp of the ’80s, not knowing what was in store. Hedonism would be replaced by conservatism. Self-actualization would be replaced by money. Wide neckties would be replaced by skinny ties. Disco clubs would be replaced by clubs where Wall Street Masters-of-the-Universe types would order expensive bottles of champagne.

Every decade grows old and encrusted before the people who have lived it move en masse into the next era. The people of 1977 found themselves living in a different world six years later — just as the people of 1997 would barely recognize the mood of 2003 (with the intervening impeachment, election recount, dot-com crash, and massive terrorist attack).

Ah, the passage of time.