|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 19 - 04 May 2012 - Main.AjGarcia
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
_ | | | Can We Have Our Wedding Cake and Eat it Too? No. | |
<
< | Critics of this position might counterargue and say that gay people should have the liberty to marry the person they love, and those other elements of the queer community can be preserved. In other words, they might claim we can have our cake and eat it too (for those that want it). But at the tip of the tongue when we talk about gay marriage is the desire to be just like heterosexual couples. Queers will be subjected to the heterosexual societal pressure to make families, babies, and live in monogamous relationships. The possibility of marriage is a disease that infects the sex we want through expectation and societal pressure. As the elderly die, the possibility of gay marriage comes closer every day, and with it the convenience of conformity that eliminates creativity and individuality. We need to stop now and reject it. | >
> | Critics of this position might counterargue and say that gay people should have the liberty to marry the person they love, and those other elements of the queer community can be preserved. In other words, they might claim we can have our cake and eat it too (for those that want it). But at the tip of the tongue when we talk about gay marriage is the desire to be just like heterosexual couples. Queers will be subjected to the heterosexual societal pressure to make families, babies, and live in monogamous relationships. The possibility of marriage is a disease that infects the sex we want through expectation and societal pressure. As the elderly die, the possibility of nation-wide gay marriage comes closer every day, and with it the convenience of conformity that eliminates creativity and individuality. | | |
Conforming to Heterosexuality Destroys the Authenticity that Blossomed in the Absence of Imposed Structure |
|
|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 18 - 04 May 2012 - Main.AjGarcia
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
_ | | | Introduction | |
<
< | The politics of the gay community has shifted tremendously from Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 to today. We’ve transitioned from asking the state to get out of our private lives, to begging for it to enter our public ones. Gay marriage has become the most important issue for the queer community. Yet, I believe marriage equality comes at too high of a cost to be the champion cause we choose to pursue. As Katherine Franke writes, “As lesbigay people are herded into a particular form of sociability—a narrow conception of family—we have lost an interest in, if not now disavow, other forms of sociality that a generation ago we celebrated.” I argue that the gay community needs to resist the temptation to buy into the heteronormativity that marriage stands for, or risk losing the opportunity for a revolution where we could re-define sexuality, relationships, and identity. | >
> | Gay marriage has become the defining issue for the queer community in the last ten years. Yet, I believe marriage equality comes at too high of a cost to be the champion cause we choose to pursue. As Katherine Franke writes, “As lesbigay people are herded into a particular form of sociability—a narrow conception of family—we have lost an interest in, if not now disavow, other forms of sociality that a generation ago we celebrated.” I argue that the gay community needs to resist the temptation to buy into the heteronormativity that marriage stands for, or risk losing the opportunity to preserve our queer definitions of sexuality, relationships, and identity for the sake of suffocating conformity. | | | | |
<
< | The Birth of Queerphobia | >
> | Queerphobia | | | As the older generations dies, so dies with it the more typical conception of homophobia—which I define to be the fear of gay people as a class and the rejection of them as individuals. Yet, instead of taking the opportunity to celebrate its death, a new kind of queerphobia has been created that distinguishes between “normal gays” and “pervert ones”—one that despises anything different than the heternormativity of marriage and its pastoral conceptions of sexuality that accompanies it. | |
<
< | Accelerating this transformation of this pervert-fearing monster are gay marriage advocates. LGBT activists have decided that the way to achieve equality is by having the same legal entitlements that would accompany a heterosexual couple. But to become apart of the tradition of heterosexual marriage, requires the acceptance of heternormative definitions of sexuality and normalcy. It requires the gay community to reject the sexual deviancy that once defined it. Instead, we must publish pictures of lesbians in wedding gowns with their dresses held by their three kids and parents. We must ask two handsome, young gay men in tuxedos to kiss in front of city hall. We find gay marriage advocates shouting at the top of their lungs, “Look how normal gay people are!” But do we want that?! | >
> | Accelerating It | | | | |
<
< | To be corralled and socialized into the heterosexual tradition of marriage requires that we reject the aspects of our community that once made it unique. We sacrifice our cultural identity and ask that we paint it in the bland colors of heterosexuality. Drag queens, club kids, horny queers cruising in alleys, and men giving head in the bushes and behind dumpsters must be put to the side. We must hide our leather and S&M toys and slip on tacky and boring sweater vests that declare our normalcy and fit to be herded into mainstream America. To the front goes the happy couple with three biological children, to the back goes the polyamorous triangle, individuals who abhor monogamy, non-traditional families, and the queers that don’t like their sex in missionary. | >
> | Accelerating this transformation of this pervert-fearing monster are gay marriage advocates. LGBT activists have decided that the way to achieve equality is by having the same legal entitlements that would accompany a heterosexual couple. But to become apart of the tradition of heterosexual marriage, requires the acceptance of heternormative definitions of sexuality and normalcy. It requires the gay community to reject the sexual deviancy that once defined it. Instead, we must publish pictures of lesbians in wedding gowns with their dresses held by their three kids and parents. We must ask two handsome, young gay men in tuxedos to kiss in front of city hall. We find gay marriage advocates shouting at the top of their lungs, “Look how normal gay people are!” But we need to stop and ask, "Why do we want that? And at what cost does it come?" | | | | |
>
> | The Costs of Accelerating It | | | | |
<
< | Can We Have Our Wedding Cake and Eat it Too? | >
> | To be corralled and socialized into the heterosexual tradition of marriage requires that we reject the aspects of our community that once made it unique. We sacrifice our cultural identity and ask that we paint it in the bland colors of heterosexuality. Drag queens, club kids, queers cruising in alleys, and sexual perversion must be put to the side. We must hide our leather and S&M toys and slip on our best straight-looking outfits. To the front goes the happy couple with three biological children, to the back goes the polyamorous triangle and individuals who abhor monogamy, non-traditional families, and the queers that don’t like their sex in missionary. The worst part is that we're willing to eviscerate the lifestyles and sexualities that blossomed in the absence of the heterosex watchdog--which dictates what relationships and sex should look like--for a tradition that is stifling and contrary what our biologies have shown we actually want. | | | | |
>
> | Can We Have Our Wedding Cake and Eat it Too? No. | | | | |
<
< | Critics of this position might counterargue and say that gay people should have the liberty to marry the person they love, and those other elements of the queer community can be preserved. In other words, they might claim we can have our cake and eat it too. But I don’t think this is true. At the tip of the tongue when we talk about gay marriage is the desire to be just like a heterosexual couple. When gay people say they want marriage, they want the lifestyle and social capital that comes along with it. As the elderly die, the possibility of gay marriage comes closer every day, and with it the convenience of conformity that eliminates creativity and individuality. | >
> | Critics of this position might counterargue and say that gay people should have the liberty to marry the person they love, and those other elements of the queer community can be preserved. In other words, they might claim we can have our cake and eat it too (for those that want it). But at the tip of the tongue when we talk about gay marriage is the desire to be just like heterosexual couples. Queers will be subjected to the heterosexual societal pressure to make families, babies, and live in monogamous relationships. The possibility of marriage is a disease that infects the sex we want through expectation and societal pressure. As the elderly die, the possibility of gay marriage comes closer every day, and with it the convenience of conformity that eliminates creativity and individuality. We need to stop now and reject it. | | | | |
<
< | While wanting to legally bind oneself to a monogamous partner “till death to you part,” may be strangely desired by the more masochistic and lemming of individuals, I don’t know what is to be gained by cliff jumping into marriage. For people that would like to live like heterosexuals in their traditional definition of a relationship, they can certainly do that without the marriage certificate. Sure they might want the benefits, but at what costs do those legal privileges come? If gay marriage was to be the central cause of the gay agenda, that would mean the queer-top priority would be the desire to be apart of a tradition that has rejected non-heterosexual definitions of sexuality and relationships. | | | | |
<
< | No, Because Conforming to Heterosexuality Should Not Be Our Principal Cause
I believe what we sacrifice the opportunity for a revolution in the way we conceptualize sexuality, gender identity, and relationships. By accepting heterosexual marriage as “the right way” to live one’s life, we spit on the “perversions” and “weird” behavior that lived alongside us for so long as marginalized conduct. In desperately trying to be “normal,” we implicitly say that heternormative morality is correct and should be desired. We lose the identities, conduct, and sexual behavior that we truly want--to become apart of a tradition that society says we should want. Striving to conform destroys the opportunity to re-define sexuality, sexual appetites, and relationships. | >
> | Conforming to Heterosexuality Destroys the Authenticity that Blossomed in the Absence of Imposed Structure
I believe what we sacrifice the opportunity for a revolution in the way we conceptualize sexuality, gender identity, and relationships. In desperately trying to be “normal,” we implicitly say that heternormative morality is correct and should be desired. We lose the identities, conduct, and sexual behavior that we truly want--to become apart of a tradition that society says we should want. We had tremendous freedom in figuring out ways of living and loving when our sexuality and relationships weren't subject to societal expectations of child rearing and monogamy. Instead of championing queer alternatives in defining meaningful relationships and ways we'd like to fuck, gay marriage sets queerness on fire and confines it in an urn of conformity that is suffocating, paralyzing, and a mask for our real sexuality. Striving to conform destroys the opportunity to re-define sexuality, sexual appetites, and relationships. | | |
Conclusion | |
>
> | The oppression of homophobia and the fear of being persecuted for our sexual and gender identity over the last hundred years engendered innovative and creative ways in defining our relationships, sexuality, and self-expression. By buying into heternormative marriage, we sacrifice our “queerness” and marginalize it as something weird that should be rejected. The queer traditions of our past--free of the societal handcuffs that bind heteros with rigid notions of the family and sex--have shown us alternative avenues for expressing our sexuality and maintaining relationships with the people we love. As gay people flock to the altar to become "normal," in flames goes the authenticity of sexuality and relationships that were expressed in the alleys and away from the public eye. It’s a tragedy we’re willing to throw our queerness under the bus—and agree with its public shaming—for a desperate, harmful, and useless need to “ be normal.” | | | | |
<
< | Some LGBT individuals say they don’t like the word “queer” to describe the community because it implies being “odd” and “different.” My response is, so? The oppression of homophobia and the fear of being persecuted for our sexual and gender identity over the last hundred years engendered innovative and creative ways in defining our relationships, sexuality, and self-expression. Are we willing to throw this out the window for the opportunity to be just like miserable heterosexuals. By buying into heternormative marriage, we sacrifice our “queerness” and marginalize it as something weird that should be rejected. Instead, the sexual and gender traditions of our past have shown us an alternative way to express our sexuality and maintain relationships with the people we love. We should respect and embrace our queerdom, because it affords us the opportunity to do what we’d like instead of what heteronormativity says we should like. It’s a shame we’re willing to throw queer perversions that lived alongside gay people for so long under the bus—and agree with their public shaming—for a desperate, harmful, and useless need to “ be normal.”
(998 words) | >
> | (969 words) | | | Professor Moglen, |
|
|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 17 - 03 May 2012 - Main.AjGarcia
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
_ | | | Accelerating this transformation of this pervert-fearing monster are gay marriage advocates. LGBT activists have decided that the way to achieve equality is by having the same legal entitlements that would accompany a heterosexual couple. But to become apart of the tradition of heterosexual marriage, requires the acceptance of heternormative definitions of sexuality and normalcy. It requires the gay community to reject the sexual deviancy that once defined it. Instead, we must publish pictures of lesbians in wedding gowns with their dresses held by their three kids and parents. We must ask two handsome, young gay men in tuxedos to kiss in front of city hall. We find gay marriage advocates shouting at the top of their lungs, “Look how normal gay people are!” But do we want that?! | |
<
< | To be corralled and socialized into the heterosexual tradition of marriage requires that we reject the aspects of our community that once made it unique. We sacrifice our cultural identity and ask that we paint it in the bland colors of heterosexuality. Drag queens, club kids, horny queers cruising in alleys, and men giving head in the bushes and behind dumpsters must be put to the side. We must hide our leather and S&M toys and slip on tacky and boring sweater vests that declare our normalcy and fit to be herded into mainstream America. To the front goes the happy couple with three biological children, to the back goes the polyamorous triangle and the queers that don’t like their sex in missionary. | >
> | To be corralled and socialized into the heterosexual tradition of marriage requires that we reject the aspects of our community that once made it unique. We sacrifice our cultural identity and ask that we paint it in the bland colors of heterosexuality. Drag queens, club kids, horny queers cruising in alleys, and men giving head in the bushes and behind dumpsters must be put to the side. We must hide our leather and S&M toys and slip on tacky and boring sweater vests that declare our normalcy and fit to be herded into mainstream America. To the front goes the happy couple with three biological children, to the back goes the polyamorous triangle, individuals who abhor monogamy, non-traditional families, and the queers that don’t like their sex in missionary. | | |
Can We Have Our Wedding Cake and Eat it Too? | |
<
< | Critics of this position might counterargue and say that gay people should have the liberty to marry the person they love, and those other elements of the queer community can be preserved. In other words, they might claim we can have our cake and eat it too. But I don’t think this is true. At the tip of the tongue when we talk about gay marriage is the desire to be just like a heterosexual couple. When gay people say they want marriage, they want the lifestyle and social capital that comes along with it. | >
> | Critics of this position might counterargue and say that gay people should have the liberty to marry the person they love, and those other elements of the queer community can be preserved. In other words, they might claim we can have our cake and eat it too. But I don’t think this is true. At the tip of the tongue when we talk about gay marriage is the desire to be just like a heterosexual couple. When gay people say they want marriage, they want the lifestyle and social capital that comes along with it. As the elderly die, the possibility of gay marriage comes closer every day, and with it the convenience of conformity that eliminates creativity and individuality. | | | While wanting to legally bind oneself to a monogamous partner “till death to you part,” may be strangely desired by the more masochistic and lemming of individuals, I don’t know what is to be gained by cliff jumping into marriage. For people that would like to live like heterosexuals in their traditional definition of a relationship, they can certainly do that without the marriage certificate. Sure they might want the benefits, but at what costs do those legal privileges come? If gay marriage was to be the central cause of the gay agenda, that would mean the queer-top priority would be the desire to be apart of a tradition that has rejected non-heterosexual definitions of sexuality and relationships. |
|
|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 16 - 03 May 2012 - Main.AjGarcia
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
_ | | | Can We Have Our Wedding Cake and Eat it Too? | |
<
< | Critics of this position might counterargue and say that gay people should have the liberty to marry the person they love, and those other elements of the queer community can be preserved. Marriage after all (aside from religion) is a contract, and those other elements are sociological in nature. In other words, they might claim we can have our cake and eat it too. But I don’t think this is true. At the tip of the tongue when we talk about gay marriage is the desire to be just like a heterosexual couple. When gay people say they want marriage, they want the lifestyle and social capital that comes along with it. | >
> | Critics of this position might counterargue and say that gay people should have the liberty to marry the person they love, and those other elements of the queer community can be preserved. In other words, they might claim we can have our cake and eat it too. But I don’t think this is true. At the tip of the tongue when we talk about gay marriage is the desire to be just like a heterosexual couple. When gay people say they want marriage, they want the lifestyle and social capital that comes along with it. | | | While wanting to legally bind oneself to a monogamous partner “till death to you part,” may be strangely desired by the more masochistic and lemming of individuals, I don’t know what is to be gained by cliff jumping into marriage. For people that would like to live like heterosexuals in their traditional definition of a relationship, they can certainly do that without the marriage certificate. Sure they might want the benefits, but at what costs do those legal privileges come? If gay marriage was to be the central cause of the gay agenda, that would mean the queer-top priority would be the desire to be apart of a tradition that has rejected non-heterosexual definitions of sexuality and relationships. |
|
|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 15 - 03 May 2012 - Main.AjGarcia
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
_ | | | | |
<
< | Some LGBT individuals say they don’t like the word “queer” to describe the community because it implies being “odd” and “different.” My response is, so? The oppression of homophobia and the fear of being persecuted for our sexual and gender identity over the last hundred years engendered innovative and creative ways in defining our relationships, sexuality, and self-expression. Are we willing to throw this out the window for the opportunity to be just like miserable heterosexuals. By buying into heternormative marriage, we sacrifice our “queerness” and marginalize it as something weird that should be rejected. Instead, the sexual and gender traditions of our past have shown us an alternative way to express our sexuality and maintain relationships with the people we love. We should respect and embrace our queerdom, because it affords us the opportunity to do what we’d like instead of what heteronormativity says we should like It’s a shame we’re wiling to throw queer perversions that lived alongside gay people for so long under the bus—and agree with their public shaming—for a desperate, harmful, and useless need to “ be normal.” | >
> | Some LGBT individuals say they don’t like the word “queer” to describe the community because it implies being “odd” and “different.” My response is, so? The oppression of homophobia and the fear of being persecuted for our sexual and gender identity over the last hundred years engendered innovative and creative ways in defining our relationships, sexuality, and self-expression. Are we willing to throw this out the window for the opportunity to be just like miserable heterosexuals. By buying into heternormative marriage, we sacrifice our “queerness” and marginalize it as something weird that should be rejected. Instead, the sexual and gender traditions of our past have shown us an alternative way to express our sexuality and maintain relationships with the people we love. We should respect and embrace our queerdom, because it affords us the opportunity to do what we’d like instead of what heteronormativity says we should like. It’s a shame we’re willing to throw queer perversions that lived alongside gay people for so long under the bus—and agree with their public shaming—for a desperate, harmful, and useless need to “ be normal.” | | | (998 words) |
|
|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 14 - 03 May 2012 - Main.AjGarcia
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
_ | | | Introduction | |
<
< | The politics of the gay community has shifted tremendously from Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 to today. We’ve transitioned from asking the state to get out of our private lives, to begging for it to enter our public ones. I believe that if the gay community seeks to be treated with dignity, respect, and tolerance, marriage equality comes at too high of a cost to be the avenue we choose to pursue. As Katherine Franke writes, “As lesbigay people are herded into a particular form of sociability—a narrow conception of family—we have lost an interest in, if not now disavow, other forms of sociality that a generation ago we celebrated.” I argue that the gay community needs to resist the temptation to buy into the heteronormativity that marriage stands for, or risk losing the opportunity for a revolution where we could re-define sexuality, relationships, and identity. | >
> | The politics of the gay community has shifted tremendously from Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 to today. We’ve transitioned from asking the state to get out of our private lives, to begging for it to enter our public ones. Gay marriage has become the most important issue for the queer community. Yet, I believe marriage equality comes at too high of a cost to be the champion cause we choose to pursue. As Katherine Franke writes, “As lesbigay people are herded into a particular form of sociability—a narrow conception of family—we have lost an interest in, if not now disavow, other forms of sociality that a generation ago we celebrated.” I argue that the gay community needs to resist the temptation to buy into the heteronormativity that marriage stands for, or risk losing the opportunity for a revolution where we could re-define sexuality, relationships, and identity. | | | The Birth of Queerphobia | | | To be corralled and socialized into the heterosexual tradition of marriage requires that we reject the aspects of our community that once made it unique. We sacrifice our cultural identity and ask that we paint it in the bland colors of heterosexuality. Drag queens, club kids, horny queers cruising in alleys, and men giving head in the bushes and behind dumpsters must be put to the side. We must hide our leather and S&M toys and slip on tacky and boring sweater vests that declare our normalcy and fit to be herded into mainstream America. To the front goes the happy couple with three biological children, to the back goes the polyamorous triangle and the queers that don’t like their sex in missionary. | |
<
< | Can We Have Our Cake and Eat it Too? | >
> | Can We Have Our Wedding Cake and Eat it Too? | | | | |
<
< | Critics of this position might counterargue and say that gay people should have the liberty to marry the person they love, and those other elements of the queer community can be preserved. Marriage after all (aside from religion) is a contract, and those other elements are sociological in nature. In other words, they might claim we can have our cake and eat it too. But I don’t think this is true. At the tip of the tongue when we talk about gay marriage is the desire to be just like a heterosexual couple. I don’t understand why we want that. I haven’t seen two bears with leather vests in front of the Whitehouse speaking about the need to be treated like everyone else. In other words, when gay people say they want marriage, they want the lifestyle that comes along wit it. | >
> | Critics of this position might counterargue and say that gay people should have the liberty to marry the person they love, and those other elements of the queer community can be preserved. Marriage after all (aside from religion) is a contract, and those other elements are sociological in nature. In other words, they might claim we can have our cake and eat it too. But I don’t think this is true. At the tip of the tongue when we talk about gay marriage is the desire to be just like a heterosexual couple. When gay people say they want marriage, they want the lifestyle and social capital that comes along with it. | | | | |
<
< | While wanting to legally bind oneself to a monogamous partner “till death to you part,” may be strangely desired by the more masochistic and lemming of individuals, I don’t know what else is to be gained cliff jumping into marriage. For people that would like to live like heterosexuals in their pastoral definition of a relationship, they can certainly do that without the marriage certificate. Sure they might want the benefits, but at what costs do those tax benefits come? | >
> | While wanting to legally bind oneself to a monogamous partner “till death to you part,” may be strangely desired by the more masochistic and lemming of individuals, I don’t know what is to be gained by cliff jumping into marriage. For people that would like to live like heterosexuals in their traditional definition of a relationship, they can certainly do that without the marriage certificate. Sure they might want the benefits, but at what costs do those legal privileges come? If gay marriage was to be the central cause of the gay agenda, that would mean the queer-top priority would be the desire to be apart of a tradition that has rejected non-heterosexual definitions of sexuality and relationships. | | | | |
>
> | No, Because Conforming to Heterosexuality Should Not Be Our Principal Cause | | | I believe what we sacrifice the opportunity for a revolution in the way we conceptualize sexuality, gender identity, and relationships. By accepting heterosexual marriage as “the right way” to live one’s life, we spit on the “perversions” and “weird” behavior that lived alongside us for so long as marginalized conduct. In desperately trying to be “normal,” we implicitly say that heternormative morality is correct and should be desired. We lose the identities, conduct, and sexual behavior that we truly want--to become apart of a tradition that society says we should want. Striving to conform destroys the opportunity to re-define sexuality, sexual appetites, and relationships. | | | | |
<
< | Some LGBT individuals say they don’t like the word “queer” to describe the community because it implies being “odd” and “different.” My response is, so? The oppression of homophobia and the fear of being persecuted for our sexual and gender identity over the last hundred years engendered innovative and creative ways in defining our relationships, sexuality, and self-expression. I don’t understand why some are willing to throw this out the door for the opportunity to wear matching tuxedos at their wedding. By buying into heternormative marriage, we sacrifice our “queerness” and marginalize it as something weird that should be rejected. Instead, the sexual and gender traditions of our past have shown us an alternative way to express our sexuality and maintain relationships with the people we love. We should respect and embrace our queerdom, because it affords us the opportunity to do what we’d like instead of what heteronormativity says we should like It’s a shame we’re wiling to throw queer perversions that lived alongside gay people for so long under the bus—and agree with their public shaming—for a desperate, harmful, and useless need to “ be normal.” | >
> | Some LGBT individuals say they don’t like the word “queer” to describe the community because it implies being “odd” and “different.” My response is, so? The oppression of homophobia and the fear of being persecuted for our sexual and gender identity over the last hundred years engendered innovative and creative ways in defining our relationships, sexuality, and self-expression. Are we willing to throw this out the window for the opportunity to be just like miserable heterosexuals. By buying into heternormative marriage, we sacrifice our “queerness” and marginalize it as something weird that should be rejected. Instead, the sexual and gender traditions of our past have shown us an alternative way to express our sexuality and maintain relationships with the people we love. We should respect and embrace our queerdom, because it affords us the opportunity to do what we’d like instead of what heteronormativity says we should like It’s a shame we’re wiling to throw queer perversions that lived alongside gay people for so long under the bus—and agree with their public shaming—for a desperate, harmful, and useless need to “ be normal.” | | | | |
<
< | (994 words) | >
> | (998 words) | | | Professor Moglen, |
|
|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 13 - 02 May 2012 - Main.AjGarcia
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | >
> | _ | | | | |
<
< | Perry v. Brown: What Could have Been | >
> | Gay Marriage: Self-herding Towards Heteronormative Sociability | | | -- By AjGarcia - 15 Feb 2012
Introduction | |
<
< | In this past two months, we've witnessed significant progress in marriage equality, with legislative victories in Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Perry v. Brown. A common concern amongst gay marriage advocates is deciding upon the most efficient and effective basis for achieving marriage equality and preserving it: whether it should be through referendum, the courts, or through our legislative bodies. I contend that while a holistic approach is necessary to reverse discriminatory attitudes, my immediate concern, as a gay man, is not so much what heterosexuals think of the morality and legality of my ability to marry the person I love, but instead with my capacity to just do it. In light of the public's support of same-sex marriage and the history lessons taught to us by the Warren Court's precedent-setting opinions, I believe the federal courts today could successfully strike down bans on gay marriage and DOMA without losing credibility, respect, or authority. | >
> | The politics of the gay community has shifted tremendously from Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 to today. We’ve transitioned from asking the state to get out of our private lives, to begging for it to enter our public ones. I believe that if the gay community seeks to be treated with dignity, respect, and tolerance, marriage equality comes at too high of a cost to be the avenue we choose to pursue. As Katherine Franke writes, “As lesbigay people are herded into a particular form of sociability—a narrow conception of family—we have lost an interest in, if not now disavow, other forms of sociality that a generation ago we celebrated.” I argue that the gay community needs to resist the temptation to buy into the heteronormativity that marriage stands for, or risk losing the opportunity for a revolution where we could re-define sexuality, relationships, and identity. | | | | |
>
> | The Birth of Queerphobia | | | | |
<
< | How Much Longer Can We Wait | >
> | As the older generations dies, so dies with it the more typical conception of homophobia—which I define to be the fear of gay people as a class and the rejection of them as individuals. Yet, instead of taking the opportunity to celebrate its death, a new kind of queerphobia has been created that distinguishes between “normal gays” and “pervert ones”—one that despises anything different than the heternormativity of marriage and its pastoral conceptions of sexuality that accompanies it. | | | | |
<
< | Government officials, like Chris Christie, and advocates on both sides of the marriage equality issue often claim that as a democracy, the determination of who can get married belongs in the hands of the public. In reference to Brown v. Board, one could argue that actual integration of school districts did not happen until attitudes of the oppressors transformed--and we should wait for this to happen with respect to gay marriage. Yet, we cannot and should not wait any longer. Chris Christie forgets that the cost of changing the public's mind came at the expense of dignity, respect, and lives of African-Americans and their supporters during the Civil Rights Era. But what is the alternative? What power do the courts actually have in reversing the public's opinion about a minority? In class we discussed how the law is not as powerful as the social norms that manage our daily interactions. However, gay marriage offers the federal courts the opportunity to change this norm and its reach entirely. But some ask, at what expense could this come to the judiciary as an institution? | >
> | Accelerating this transformation of this pervert-fearing monster are gay marriage advocates. LGBT activists have decided that the way to achieve equality is by having the same legal entitlements that would accompany a heterosexual couple. But to become apart of the tradition of heterosexual marriage, requires the acceptance of heternormative definitions of sexuality and normalcy. It requires the gay community to reject the sexual deviancy that once defined it. Instead, we must publish pictures of lesbians in wedding gowns with their dresses held by their three kids and parents. We must ask two handsome, young gay men in tuxedos to kiss in front of city hall. We find gay marriage advocates shouting at the top of their lungs, “Look how normal gay people are!” But do we want that?! | | | | |
>
> | To be corralled and socialized into the heterosexual tradition of marriage requires that we reject the aspects of our community that once made it unique. We sacrifice our cultural identity and ask that we paint it in the bland colors of heterosexuality. Drag queens, club kids, horny queers cruising in alleys, and men giving head in the bushes and behind dumpsters must be put to the side. We must hide our leather and S&M toys and slip on tacky and boring sweater vests that declare our normalcy and fit to be herded into mainstream America. To the front goes the happy couple with three biological children, to the back goes the polyamorous triangle and the queers that don’t like their sex in missionary. | | | | |
<
< | The Possible Risks Assumed by the Judiciary by Ruling For Marriage Equality | | | | |
<
< | I agree that is wise to be concerned about using the courts to implement laws that are disfavored by a large portion of the public. The judiciary's authority and credibility could be significantly undermined by such a holding--leading the American population to divest trust in the federal courts' ability to decide important issues fairly. Worse, the public could come to view the court as a moot institution, and without this respect, the federal courts would be left powerless; the federal courts cannot summon an army or interfere with state funding. | >
> | Can We Have Our Cake and Eat it Too? | | | | |
<
< | Evidence of Immediate Change in the Lives of the Oppressed | >
> | Critics of this position might counterargue and say that gay people should have the liberty to marry the person they love, and those other elements of the queer community can be preserved. Marriage after all (aside from religion) is a contract, and those other elements are sociological in nature. In other words, they might claim we can have our cake and eat it too. But I don’t think this is true. At the tip of the tongue when we talk about gay marriage is the desire to be just like a heterosexual couple. I don’t understand why we want that. I haven’t seen two bears with leather vests in front of the Whitehouse speaking about the need to be treated like everyone else. In other words, when gay people say they want marriage, they want the lifestyle that comes along wit it. | | | | |
<
< | Yet, this puerile view of federal courts insults the history and reputation they have built. The Warren Court illustrated that it is possible to look past legal formalism riddled with logic for the sake of logic and take a step back to consider the prudential implications its decisions could have--especially with regard to minority classes that are unable to convey their political message to the majority absent protection. From Miranda to Griswold to Gideon to New York Times v. Sullivan amongst many other precedent-setting opinions, the Court demonstrated that it could lead and support a minority that was not in the position to support itself, by relying on its "judgment as to the relative worth and importance of competing legislative grounds, often an inarticulate and unconscious judgment . . . and yet the very root and nerve of the whole proceeding."
At this point in history, marriage equality may be controversial, but it is not outrageous, dated, or unsupported--unlike arguments from anti-marriage advocates. A federal court decision would be bold but not radical, because a ban on gay marriage "serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians . . . reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples." | >
> | While wanting to legally bind oneself to a monogamous partner “till death to you part,” may be strangely desired by the more masochistic and lemming of individuals, I don’t know what else is to be gained cliff jumping into marriage. For people that would like to live like heterosexuals in their pastoral definition of a relationship, they can certainly do that without the marriage certificate. Sure they might want the benefits, but at what costs do those tax benefits come?
I believe what we sacrifice the opportunity for a revolution in the way we conceptualize sexuality, gender identity, and relationships. By accepting heterosexual marriage as “the right way” to live one’s life, we spit on the “perversions” and “weird” behavior that lived alongside us for so long as marginalized conduct. In desperately trying to be “normal,” we implicitly say that heternormative morality is correct and should be desired. We lose the identities, conduct, and sexual behavior that we truly want--to become apart of a tradition that society says we should want. Striving to conform destroys the opportunity to re-define sexuality, sexual appetites, and relationships. | | | | |
<
< | Furthermore, the opinions in Lawrence v. Texas and Loving v. Virginia, along with their short-term and long-term implications, suggest that the courts' decisions can have a drastic impact on the lives that the law was aimed towards, even if it did not necessarily change the mind of the public directly. Unlike in Brown, the courts didn't need school boards and racist local governments to agree with the court's decision before its effect was felt. Gay men could start having sex whenever they wanted in the privacy of their own homes; a black man could marry a white woman. As unpopular as it may be to other people, the holdings actually altered the conduct minorities could or could not do. | | |
Conclusion | |
<
< | I semi-applaud the Ninth Circuit for a strategic and narrow decision that discourages the Supreme Court from reviewing Perry v. Brown by finding the act of taking the right of marriage away from gay couples without reason to be the basis for unconstitutionality versus the ban on gay marriage itself--limiting the decision's applicability to other states, while still allowing gay marriage in California. Ultimately, however, the most helpful weapon in striking down all gay marriage bans would be a precedent-setting decision declaring one state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on its face. Fearful of the conservative branch of the Supreme Court, I do appreciate the Ninth Circuit's caution in ensuring a move is not made too hastily that might lead to a crippling blow to marriage equality. | | | | |
<
< | Yet, in light of these arguments I've put forward, I contend that the federal courts are in a position to ban anti-gay marriage laws without losing respect, authority, and credibility so many fear it could. | | | | |
<
< | This seems to me a very
puzzling draft. I don't understand the history or sociology at all.
Even when Bowers v. Hardwicke was decided, let alone at the time of
the decision in Lawrence, criminal sodomy prosecutions had
essentially ceased in the US; similarly, when Loving v. Virginia
was decided, although most of the States of the former Confederacy
prohibited marriages between black and white people, such marriages
were elsewhere recognized, and any such couple in the US had
practical access to legal marriage on equal terms with everyone
else.
But the Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education was by no
means a decision made after the reality of social change had
occurred, as Cooper v. Aaron and the rest of the history of
"massive resistance" showed. So your historical interpretations seem
to me more or less the reverse of a natural understanding of what
happened, in the relationship between judicial articulation and the
modification of societal mores.
I don't understand the analytical posture of the draft, either. There
isn't anyone who seriously believes, I think, that the courts
endanger their authority in deciding that equal protection requires
the issuance of a marriage license to any pair of competent,
unmarried citizens who want one. And a Supreme Court empowered to
decide the constitutionality of federal statutes generally has as
much authority to determine the constitutionality of DOMA as of the
ACA. I don't think any lawyer would seriously argue otherwise.
Treating political posturing or radio salesmanship as analytical
argument is a category mistake. And not even in making that mistake
are you analytically precise: Governor Christie, for example, is
engaged in the even more complex contortion required to explain why
he thinks making marriage law should not be the province of the
legislature, merely because his has put him to the inconvenience of
signing a law that would doom his present in the national Republican
party. His absurdities have nothing to do with the courts at all,
the matter having moved even further out of his hands.
Nor do I understand the "how long must we wait" language, at all. In
the first place, any couple wishing to get married in the United
States may now do so, regardless of sexual composition, cheaply and
swiftly. In the second place, marriage itself is a vestigial
institution of little practical importance. I've managed to live a
long heterosexual life without the slightest need for it, and I don't
foresee any likelihood that my mother and her partner, to take
another example within my own family, are likely to require it even
if California law finally seesaws back to the point at which they
could do so. Nor my youngest brother and his (female) partner, whose
union has lasted more than twenty years now, and bids fair to last
thirty more. In the third place, it is apparent that the animus
against marriages between men or between women is generationally
bound to those born in the first three quarters of the twentieth
century, and will disappear year by year now, as all our sociography
shows. The world's hard problems are the ones which involve
something important, for which there are no evasions or
workarounds,and which aren't steadily and remorselessly solving
themselves.
I don't really understand the reasoning behind your second statement in this paragraph. Some people continue to care about and find meaning in marriage, whether a "vestigial institution" or not. For many people, the practical importance of marriage today is not the sole determinant of its value for them. Furthermore, I am not sure of the relevance of your examples. Not every same sex couple wants to get married. For those couples who do want to and cannot do so in their home state, I doubt that pointing to a few examples of people who can get married but don't want to will convince them of the obsolescence of marriage or that its obsolescence matters. Those who actually care about something and are denied it are, I believe, unlikely to abandon their desire to attain it merely because some of those who can have it don't want it.
-- ElizabethSullivan - 13 Apr 2012
Nonetheless, we have two national parties, and one will not appoint
or confirm Supreme Court justices who are committed to requiring
nationwide recognition of "same-sex marriages." We must therefore
wait, to be precise about it, until the Democrats win enough national
elections to appoint a majority of the Court, or until the support of
culturally-conservative religious people born before 1975 is no
longer of significant interest to the Republicans.
I don't really know how to improve this draft, because I don't know
what it's underlying ambition really is. Are you writing an essay in
favor of allowing "same-sex marriage"? As you can see around you
every day, with a clarity that should take some of the bite out of
the remaining bigotries, the culture is so far already with you, that
the effort is almost cliché. But your introduction both
claims this is somehow about the strategy for achieving legal
equality, which seems evidently untrue and is never followed up, and
also somehow about whether the courts are doing less than they should
for unfounded reasons of concern for their authority, which seems to
me equally insubstantial. I think the most promising approach is to
quarry out from the various surface phenomena here the idea of your
own that you want to add to the discussion. Then you can put it in a
couple of clear sentences at the beginning, illustrate the new points
for the reader, draw out some implications, and address significant
objections. | >
> | Some LGBT individuals say they don’t like the word “queer” to describe the community because it implies being “odd” and “different.” My response is, so? The oppression of homophobia and the fear of being persecuted for our sexual and gender identity over the last hundred years engendered innovative and creative ways in defining our relationships, sexuality, and self-expression. I don’t understand why some are willing to throw this out the door for the opportunity to wear matching tuxedos at their wedding. By buying into heternormative marriage, we sacrifice our “queerness” and marginalize it as something weird that should be rejected. Instead, the sexual and gender traditions of our past have shown us an alternative way to express our sexuality and maintain relationships with the people we love. We should respect and embrace our queerdom, because it affords us the opportunity to do what we’d like instead of what heteronormativity says we should like It’s a shame we’re wiling to throw queer perversions that lived alongside gay people for so long under the bus—and agree with their public shaming—for a desperate, harmful, and useless need to “ be normal.”
(994 words)
Professor Moglen, | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | I'm still working on developing these ideas. Please continue providing feedback on improving this gay marriage piece, and I will keep applying it. | | |
| |
<
< | | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | |
|
|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 12 - 13 Apr 2012 - Main.ElizabethSullivan
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | workarounds,and which aren't steadily and remorselessly solving
themselves. | |
>
> | I don't really understand the reasoning behind your second statement in this paragraph. Some people continue to care about and find meaning in marriage, whether a "vestigial institution" or not. For many people, the practical importance of marriage today is not the sole determinant of its value for them. Furthermore, I am not sure of the relevance of your examples. Not every same sex couple wants to get married. For those couples who do want to and cannot do so in their home state, I doubt that pointing to a few examples of people who can get married but don't want to will convince them of the obsolescence of marriage or that its obsolescence matters. Those who actually care about something and are denied it are, I believe, unlikely to abandon their desire to attain it merely because some of those who can have it don't want it.
-- ElizabethSullivan - 13 Apr 2012
| | | Nonetheless, we have two national parties, and one will not appoint
or confirm Supreme Court justices who are committed to requiring
nationwide recognition of "same-sex marriages." We must therefore |
|
|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 11 - 11 Apr 2012 - Main.IanSullivan
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | I semi-applaud the Ninth Circuit for a strategic and narrow decision that discourages the Supreme Court from reviewing Perry v. Brown by finding the act of taking the right of marriage away from gay couples without reason to be the basis for unconstitutionality versus the ban on gay marriage itself--limiting the decision's applicability to other states, while still allowing gay marriage in California. Ultimately, however, the most helpful weapon in striking down all gay marriage bans would be a precedent-setting decision declaring one state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on its face. Fearful of the conservative branch of the Supreme Court, I do appreciate the Ninth Circuit's caution in ensuring a move is not made too hastily that might lead to a crippling blow to marriage equality. | |
<
< | Yet, in light of these arguments I've put forward, I contend that the federal courts are in a position to ban anti-gay marriage laws without losing respect, authority, and credibility so many fear it could. (962 words) | >
> | Yet, in light of these arguments I've put forward, I contend that the federal courts are in a position to ban anti-gay marriage laws without losing respect, authority, and credibility so many fear it could.
This seems to me a very
puzzling draft. I don't understand the history or sociology at all.
Even when Bowers v. Hardwicke was decided, let alone at the time of
the decision in Lawrence, criminal sodomy prosecutions had
essentially ceased in the US; similarly, when Loving v. Virginia
was decided, although most of the States of the former Confederacy
prohibited marriages between black and white people, such marriages
were elsewhere recognized, and any such couple in the US had
practical access to legal marriage on equal terms with everyone
else.
But the Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education was by no
means a decision made after the reality of social change had
occurred, as Cooper v. Aaron and the rest of the history of
"massive resistance" showed. So your historical interpretations seem
to me more or less the reverse of a natural understanding of what
happened, in the relationship between judicial articulation and the
modification of societal mores.
I don't understand the analytical posture of the draft, either. There
isn't anyone who seriously believes, I think, that the courts
endanger their authority in deciding that equal protection requires
the issuance of a marriage license to any pair of competent,
unmarried citizens who want one. And a Supreme Court empowered to
decide the constitutionality of federal statutes generally has as
much authority to determine the constitutionality of DOMA as of the
ACA. I don't think any lawyer would seriously argue otherwise.
Treating political posturing or radio salesmanship as analytical
argument is a category mistake. And not even in making that mistake
are you analytically precise: Governor Christie, for example, is
engaged in the even more complex contortion required to explain why
he thinks making marriage law should not be the province of the
legislature, merely because his has put him to the inconvenience of
signing a law that would doom his present in the national Republican
party. His absurdities have nothing to do with the courts at all,
the matter having moved even further out of his hands.
Nor do I understand the "how long must we wait" language, at all. In
the first place, any couple wishing to get married in the United
States may now do so, regardless of sexual composition, cheaply and
swiftly. In the second place, marriage itself is a vestigial
institution of little practical importance. I've managed to live a
long heterosexual life without the slightest need for it, and I don't
foresee any likelihood that my mother and her partner, to take
another example within my own family, are likely to require it even
if California law finally seesaws back to the point at which they
could do so. Nor my youngest brother and his (female) partner, whose
union has lasted more than twenty years now, and bids fair to last
thirty more. In the third place, it is apparent that the animus
against marriages between men or between women is generationally
bound to those born in the first three quarters of the twentieth
century, and will disappear year by year now, as all our sociography
shows. The world's hard problems are the ones which involve
something important, for which there are no evasions or
workarounds,and which aren't steadily and remorselessly solving
themselves.
Nonetheless, we have two national parties, and one will not appoint
or confirm Supreme Court justices who are committed to requiring
nationwide recognition of "same-sex marriages." We must therefore
wait, to be precise about it, until the Democrats win enough national
elections to appoint a majority of the Court, or until the support of
culturally-conservative religious people born before 1975 is no
longer of significant interest to the Republicans.
I don't really know how to improve this draft, because I don't know
what it's underlying ambition really is. Are you writing an essay in
favor of allowing "same-sex marriage"? As you can see around you
every day, with a clarity that should take some of the bite out of
the remaining bigotries, the culture is so far already with you, that
the effort is almost cliché. But your introduction both
claims this is somehow about the strategy for achieving legal
equality, which seems evidently untrue and is never followed up, and
also somehow about whether the courts are doing less than they should
for unfounded reasons of concern for their authority, which seems to
me equally insubstantial. I think the most promising approach is to
quarry out from the various surface phenomena here the idea of your
own that you want to add to the discussion. Then you can put it in a
couple of clear sentences at the beginning, illustrate the new points
for the reader, draw out some implications, and address significant
objections.
| | |
| |
<
< | AJ - in case you haven't read about this student, I thought I'd share this story with you, as Eric Berndt might be a good person for you to try to contact and communicate with. I thought his boldness great. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 10 - 05 Apr 2012 - Main.SkylarPolansky
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | |
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | AJ - in case you haven't read about this student, I thought I'd share this story with you, as Eric Berndt might be a good person for you to try to contact and communicate with. I thought his boldness great. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 9 - 29 Mar 2012 - Main.AjGarcia
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | Introduction | |
<
< | February bore witness to significant progress in marriage equality, with legislative victories in Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Perry v. Brown. A common concern amongst gay marriage advocates is deciding upon the most efficient and effective basis for achieving marriage equality and preserving it: whether it should be through referendum, the courts, or through our legislative bodies. I contend that while a holistic approach is necessary to reverse discriminatory attitudes, my immediate concern, as a gay man, is not so much what heterosexuals think of the morality and legality of my ability to marry the person I love, but instead with my capacity to just do it. In light of the public's support of same-sex marriage and the history lessons taught to us by the Warren Court's precedent-setting opinions, I believe the federal courts today could successfully strike down bans on gay marriage and DOMA without fear of losing credibility, respect, or authority. | >
> | In this past two months, we've witnessed significant progress in marriage equality, with legislative victories in Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Perry v. Brown. A common concern amongst gay marriage advocates is deciding upon the most efficient and effective basis for achieving marriage equality and preserving it: whether it should be through referendum, the courts, or through our legislative bodies. I contend that while a holistic approach is necessary to reverse discriminatory attitudes, my immediate concern, as a gay man, is not so much what heterosexuals think of the morality and legality of my ability to marry the person I love, but instead with my capacity to just do it. In light of the public's support of same-sex marriage and the history lessons taught to us by the Warren Court's precedent-setting opinions, I believe the federal courts today could successfully strike down bans on gay marriage and DOMA without losing credibility, respect, or authority. | | |
How Much Longer Can We Wait |
|
|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 8 - 28 Mar 2012 - Main.AjGarcia
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | I semi-applaud the Ninth Circuit for a strategic and narrow decision that discourages the Supreme Court from reviewing Perry v. Brown by finding the act of taking the right of marriage away from gay couples without reason to be the basis for unconstitutionality versus the ban on gay marriage itself--limiting the decision's applicability to other states, while still allowing gay marriage in California. Ultimately, however, the most helpful weapon in striking down all gay marriage bans would be a precedent-setting decision declaring one state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on its face. Fearful of the conservative branch of the Supreme Court, I do appreciate the Ninth Circuit's caution in ensuring a move is not made too hastily that might lead to a crippling blow to marriage equality. | |
<
< | Yet, in light of these arguments I've put forward, I contend that the federal courts are in a position to ban anti-gay marriage laws without losing respect, authority, and credibility so many fear it could--leading LGBTQ individuals to have a life filled with hope, dignity, and equality while sacrificing nothing in return to our heterosexual counterparts. (984 words) | >
> | Yet, in light of these arguments I've put forward, I contend that the federal courts are in a position to ban anti-gay marriage laws without losing respect, authority, and credibility so many fear it could. (962 words) | | |
|
|
|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 7 - 27 Mar 2012 - Main.AjGarcia
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | Introduction | |
<
< | February bore witness to significant progress in marriage equality, with legislative victories in Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Perry v. Brown. A common concern amongst gay marriage advocates is deciding upon the most efficient and effective basis for achieving marriage equality and preserving it--whether by referendum, by the courts, or through our legislative bodies. I contend that while a holistic approach is necessary to reverse discriminatory attitudes, my immediate concern, as a gay man, is not so much what heterosexuals think of the morality and legality of my ability to marry the person I love, but instead with my capacity to just do it. In light of the public's support of same-sex marriage and the history lessons taught to us by the Warren Court's precedent-setting opinions, I believe the federal courts today could successfully strike down bans on gay marriage and DOMA without fear of losing credibility, respect, or authority. | >
> | February bore witness to significant progress in marriage equality, with legislative victories in Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Perry v. Brown. A common concern amongst gay marriage advocates is deciding upon the most efficient and effective basis for achieving marriage equality and preserving it: whether it should be through referendum, the courts, or through our legislative bodies. I contend that while a holistic approach is necessary to reverse discriminatory attitudes, my immediate concern, as a gay man, is not so much what heterosexuals think of the morality and legality of my ability to marry the person I love, but instead with my capacity to just do it. In light of the public's support of same-sex marriage and the history lessons taught to us by the Warren Court's precedent-setting opinions, I believe the federal courts today could successfully strike down bans on gay marriage and DOMA without fear of losing credibility, respect, or authority. | | |
How Much Longer Can We Wait | | | Yet, this puerile view of federal courts insults the history and reputation they have built. The Warren Court illustrated that it is possible to look past legal formalism riddled with logic for the sake of logic and take a step back to consider the prudential implications its decisions could have--especially with regard to minority classes that are unable to convey their political message to the majority absent protection. From Miranda to Griswold to Gideon to New York Times v. Sullivan amongst many other precedent-setting opinions, the Court demonstrated that it could lead and support a minority that was not in the position to support itself, by relying on its "judgment as to the relative worth and importance of competing legislative grounds, often an inarticulate and unconscious judgment . . . and yet the very root and nerve of the whole proceeding."
At this point in history, marriage equality may be controversial, but it is not outrageous, dated, or unsupported--unlike arguments from anti-marriage advocates. A federal court decision would be bold but not radical, because a ban on gay marriage "serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians . . . reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples." | |
<
< | Furthermore, the opinions in Lawrence v. Texas and Loving v. Virginia, along with their short-term and long-term implications, suggest that the courts' decisions can have a drastic impact on the lives that the law was aimed towards, even if it did not necessarily change the mind of the public directly. Unlike in Brown, the courts didn't need school boards and racist local governments to get on the same page before the change in the law had the effect that was intended. Gay men could start having sex whenever they wanted in the privacy of their own homes; a black man could marry a white woman. As unpopular as it may be to other people, the holdings actually altered the conduct minorities could or could not do in the moment. | >
> | Furthermore, the opinions in Lawrence v. Texas and Loving v. Virginia, along with their short-term and long-term implications, suggest that the courts' decisions can have a drastic impact on the lives that the law was aimed towards, even if it did not necessarily change the mind of the public directly. Unlike in Brown, the courts didn't need school boards and racist local governments to agree with the court's decision before its effect was felt. Gay men could start having sex whenever they wanted in the privacy of their own homes; a black man could marry a white woman. As unpopular as it may be to other people, the holdings actually altered the conduct minorities could or could not do. | | |
Conclusion
I semi-applaud the Ninth Circuit for a strategic and narrow decision that discourages the Supreme Court from reviewing Perry v. Brown by finding the act of taking the right of marriage away from gay couples without reason to be the basis for unconstitutionality versus the ban on gay marriage itself--limiting the decision's applicability to other states, while still allowing gay marriage in California. Ultimately, however, the most helpful weapon in striking down all gay marriage bans would be a precedent-setting decision declaring one state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on its face. Fearful of the conservative branch of the Supreme Court, I do appreciate the Ninth Circuit's caution in ensuring a move is not made too hastily that might lead to a crippling blow to marriage equality. | |
<
< | Yet, in light of these arguments I've put forward, I contend that the federal courts are in a position to ban anti-gay marriage laws without losing respect, authority, and credibility so many fear it could--leading LGBTQ individuals to have a life filled with hope, dignity, and equality while sacrificing nothing in return to our heterosexual counterparts. (989 words) | >
> | Yet, in light of these arguments I've put forward, I contend that the federal courts are in a position to ban anti-gay marriage laws without losing respect, authority, and credibility so many fear it could--leading LGBTQ individuals to have a life filled with hope, dignity, and equality while sacrificing nothing in return to our heterosexual counterparts. (984 words) | | |
|
|
|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 6 - 17 Feb 2012 - Main.AjGarcia
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | How Much Longer Can We Wait | |
<
< | Government officials, like Chris Christie, and advocates on both sides of the marriage equality issue often claim that as a democracy, the determination of who can get married belongs in the hands of the public. In reference to Brown v. Board, one could argue that actual integration of school districts did not happen until attitudes of the oppressors transformed--and we should wait for this to happen with respect to gay marriage. Yet, we cannot and should not wait any longer. Chris Christie forgets that the cost of changing the public's mind came at the expense of dignity, respect, and lives of African-Americans and their supporters during the Civil Rights Era. But what is the alternative? What power do the courts actually have in reversing the public's opinion about a minority? In class we discussed how the law is not as powerful as the social norms that manage our daily interactions. However, gay marriage offers the federal courts the opportunity to change this norm and its reach entirely. But some ask, at what expense could this come to the judiciary as an institution? | >
> | Government officials, like Chris Christie, and advocates on both sides of the marriage equality issue often claim that as a democracy, the determination of who can get married belongs in the hands of the public. In reference to Brown v. Board, one could argue that actual integration of school districts did not happen until attitudes of the oppressors transformed--and we should wait for this to happen with respect to gay marriage. Yet, we cannot and should not wait any longer. Chris Christie forgets that the cost of changing the public's mind came at the expense of dignity, respect, and lives of African-Americans and their supporters during the Civil Rights Era. But what is the alternative? What power do the courts actually have in reversing the public's opinion about a minority? In class we discussed how the law is not as powerful as the social norms that manage our daily interactions. However, gay marriage offers the federal courts the opportunity to change this norm and its reach entirely. But some ask, at what expense could this come to the judiciary as an institution? | | |
The Possible Risks Assumed by the Judiciary by Ruling For Marriage Equality |
|
|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 5 - 16 Feb 2012 - Main.AjGarcia
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | Introduction | |
<
< | February bore witness to significant progress in marriage equality, with legislative victories in Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Perry v. Brown. A common concern amongst gay marriage advocates is deciding upon the most efficient and effective basis for achieving marriage equality and preserving it--whether by referendum, by the courts, or through our legislative bodies. I contend that while a holistic approach is necessary to reverse discriminatory attitudes, my immediate concern, as a gay man, is not so much what heterosexuals think of the morality and legality of my ability to marry the person I love, but instead with my capacity to just do it. In light of the public's support of same-sex marriage and the history lessons taught to us by the Warren Court's precedent-setting opinions, I believe the federal courts today could successfully strike down bans on gay marriage and DOMA without fear of losing credibility, respect, or authority. | >
> | February bore witness to significant progress in marriage equality, with legislative victories in Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Perry v. Brown. A common concern amongst gay marriage advocates is deciding upon the most efficient and effective basis for achieving marriage equality and preserving it--whether by referendum, by the courts, or through our legislative bodies. I contend that while a holistic approach is necessary to reverse discriminatory attitudes, my immediate concern, as a gay man, is not so much what heterosexuals think of the morality and legality of my ability to marry the person I love, but instead with my capacity to just do it. In light of the public's support of same-sex marriage and the history lessons taught to us by the Warren Court's precedent-setting opinions, I believe the federal courts today could successfully strike down bans on gay marriage and DOMA without fear of losing credibility, respect, or authority. | | |
How Much Longer Can We Wait |
|
|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 4 - 16 Feb 2012 - Main.AjGarcia
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | Introduction | |
<
< | February bore witness to significant progress in marriage equality, with legislative victories in Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Perry v. Brown. A common concern amongst gay marriage advocates is deciding upon the most efficient and effective basis for achieving marriage equality and preserving it--whether by referendum, by the courts, or through our legislative bodies. I contend that while a holistic approach is necessary to reverse discriminatory attitudes, my immediate concern, as a gay man, is not so much about what heterosexuals think of the morality and legality of my ability to marry the person I love, but instead with my ability to just do it. In light of the public's support of same-sex marriage and the history lessons taught to us by the Warren Court's precedent-setting opinions, I believe the federal courts today could successfully strike down bans on gay marriage and DOMA without fear of losing credibility, respect, or authority. | >
> | February bore witness to significant progress in marriage equality, with legislative victories in Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Perry v. Brown. A common concern amongst gay marriage advocates is deciding upon the most efficient and effective basis for achieving marriage equality and preserving it--whether by referendum, by the courts, or through our legislative bodies. I contend that while a holistic approach is necessary to reverse discriminatory attitudes, my immediate concern, as a gay man, is not so much what heterosexuals think of the morality and legality of my ability to marry the person I love, but instead with my capacity to just do it. In light of the public's support of same-sex marriage and the history lessons taught to us by the Warren Court's precedent-setting opinions, I believe the federal courts today could successfully strike down bans on gay marriage and DOMA without fear of losing credibility, respect, or authority. | | |
How Much Longer Can We Wait | | | I agree that is wise to be concerned about using the courts to implement laws that are disfavored by a large portion of the public. The judiciary's authority and credibility could be significantly undermined by such a holding--leading the American population to divest trust in the federal courts' ability to decide important issues fairly. Worse, the public could come to view the court as a moot institution, and without this respect, the federal courts would be left powerless; the federal courts cannot summon an army or interfere with state funding. | |
<
< | Examining Our Respect For the Court as an Institution | >
> | Evidence of Immediate Change in the Lives of the Oppressed | | | Yet, this puerile view of federal courts insults the history and reputation they have built. The Warren Court illustrated that it is possible to look past legal formalism riddled with logic for the sake of logic and take a step back to consider the prudential implications its decisions could have--especially with regard to minority classes that are unable to convey their political message to the majority absent protection. From Miranda to Griswold to Gideon to New York Times v. Sullivan amongst many other precedent-setting opinions, the Court demonstrated that it could lead and support a minority that was not in the position to support itself, by relying on its "judgment as to the relative worth and importance of competing legislative grounds, often an inarticulate and unconscious judgment . . . and yet the very root and nerve of the whole proceeding." | |
>
> | At this point in history, marriage equality may be controversial, but it is not outrageous, dated, or unsupported--unlike arguments from anti-marriage advocates. A federal court decision would be bold but not radical, because a ban on gay marriage "serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians . . . reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples." | | | | |
<
< | Evidence of Immediate Change in the Lives of the Oppressed
For example, the opinions in Lawrence v. Texas and Loving v. Virginia, along with their short-term and long-term implications, suggest that the courts' decisions can have a drastic impact on the lives that the law was aimed towards, even if it did not necessarily change the mind of the public directly. Unlike in Brown, the courts didn't need school boards and racist local governments to get on the same page before the change in the law had the effect that was intended. Gay men could start having sex whenever they wanted in the privacy of their own homes; a black man could marry a white woman. As unpopular as it may be to other people, the holdings actually altered the conduct minorities could or could not do in the moment. | >
> | Furthermore, the opinions in Lawrence v. Texas and Loving v. Virginia, along with their short-term and long-term implications, suggest that the courts' decisions can have a drastic impact on the lives that the law was aimed towards, even if it did not necessarily change the mind of the public directly. Unlike in Brown, the courts didn't need school boards and racist local governments to get on the same page before the change in the law had the effect that was intended. Gay men could start having sex whenever they wanted in the privacy of their own homes; a black man could marry a white woman. As unpopular as it may be to other people, the holdings actually altered the conduct minorities could or could not do in the moment. | | |
Conclusion
I semi-applaud the Ninth Circuit for a strategic and narrow decision that discourages the Supreme Court from reviewing Perry v. Brown by finding the act of taking the right of marriage away from gay couples without reason to be the basis for unconstitutionality versus the ban on gay marriage itself--limiting the decision's applicability to other states, while still allowing gay marriage in California. Ultimately, however, the most helpful weapon in striking down all gay marriage bans would be a precedent-setting decision declaring one state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on its face. Fearful of the conservative branch of the Supreme Court, I do appreciate the Ninth Circuit's caution in ensuring a move is not made too hastily that might lead to a crippling blow to marriage equality. | |
<
< | Yet, in light of these arguments I've put forward, I contend that the federal courts are in a position to ban anti-gay marriage laws without losing respect, authority, and credibility so many fear it could--leading LGBTQ individuals to have a life filled with hope, dignity, and equality while sacrificing nothing in return to our heterosexual counterparts. (926 words) | >
> | Yet, in light of these arguments I've put forward, I contend that the federal courts are in a position to ban anti-gay marriage laws without losing respect, authority, and credibility so many fear it could--leading LGBTQ individuals to have a life filled with hope, dignity, and equality while sacrificing nothing in return to our heterosexual counterparts. (989 words) | | |
|
|
|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 3 - 16 Feb 2012 - Main.AjGarcia
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | Introduction | |
<
< | February bore witness to significant progress in marriage equality, with legislative victories in Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Perry v. Brown. A common concern amongst gay marriage advocates is deciding upon the most efficient and effective basis for achieving marriage equality and preserving it--whether by referendum, by the courts, or through our legislative bodies. I contend that while a holistic approach is necessary to reverse discriminatory attitudes, my immediate concern, as a gay man, is not so much about what heterosexuals think of the morality and legality of my ability to marry the person I love, but instead with my ability to just do it. In light of the public's support of same-sex marriage and the history lessons taught to us by the Warren Court's precedent-setting opinions, I believe the federal courts today could successfully render bans on gay marriage and DOMA to be unconstitutional without fear of losing credibility, respect, or authority. | >
> | February bore witness to significant progress in marriage equality, with legislative victories in Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Perry v. Brown. A common concern amongst gay marriage advocates is deciding upon the most efficient and effective basis for achieving marriage equality and preserving it--whether by referendum, by the courts, or through our legislative bodies. I contend that while a holistic approach is necessary to reverse discriminatory attitudes, my immediate concern, as a gay man, is not so much about what heterosexuals think of the morality and legality of my ability to marry the person I love, but instead with my ability to just do it. In light of the public's support of same-sex marriage and the history lessons taught to us by the Warren Court's precedent-setting opinions, I believe the federal courts today could successfully strike down bans on gay marriage and DOMA without fear of losing credibility, respect, or authority. | | |
How Much Longer Can We Wait | |
<
< | Government officials, like Chris Christie, and advocates on both sides of the marriage equality issue often claim that as a democracy, the determination of who can get married belongs in the hands of the public. In reference to Brown v. Board, one could argue that actual integration of school districts did not happen until attitudes of the oppressors transformed--and we should wait for this to happen with respect to gay marriage. Yet, cannot and should not wait any longer. Chris Christie forgets that the cost of changing the public's mind came at the expense of dignity, respect, and lives of African-Americans and their supporters during the Civil Rights Era. But what is the alternative? What power do the courts actually have in reversing the public's opinion on a minority? In class we discussed how the law is not as powerful as the social norms that manage our daily interactions. Yet, gay marriage offers the federal courts the opportunity change this norm and its reach entirely. But some ask, at what expense could this come to the judiciary as an institution? | >
> | Government officials, like Chris Christie, and advocates on both sides of the marriage equality issue often claim that as a democracy, the determination of who can get married belongs in the hands of the public. In reference to Brown v. Board, one could argue that actual integration of school districts did not happen until attitudes of the oppressors transformed--and we should wait for this to happen with respect to gay marriage. Yet, we cannot and should not wait any longer. Chris Christie forgets that the cost of changing the public's mind came at the expense of dignity, respect, and lives of African-Americans and their supporters during the Civil Rights Era. But what is the alternative? What power do the courts actually have in reversing the public's opinion about a minority? In class we discussed how the law is not as powerful as the social norms that manage our daily interactions. However, gay marriage offers the federal courts the opportunity to change this norm and its reach entirely. But some ask, at what expense could this come to the judiciary as an institution? | | | | |
<
< | The Possible Risks Assumed by Judiciary by Ruling For Marriage Equality | >
> | The Possible Risks Assumed by the Judiciary by Ruling For Marriage Equality | | | I agree that is wise to be concerned about using the courts to implement laws that are disfavored by a large portion of the public. The judiciary's authority and credibility could be significantly undermined by such a holding--leading the American population to divest trust in the federal courts' ability to decide important issues fairly. Worse, the public could come to view the court as a moot institution, and without this respect, the federal courts would be left powerless; the federal courts cannot summon an army or interfere with state funding. | | | Evidence of Immediate Change in the Lives of the Oppressed | |
<
< | For example, the opinions in Lawrence v. Texas and Loving v. Virginia, and their short-term and long-term implications, suggest that the courts' decisions can have a drastic impact on the individuals' lives that the law was aimed towards, even if it did not necessarily change the mind of the public on the issue itself, directly. Unlike in Brown, the courts didn't need school boards and racist local governments to get on the same page before the change in the law had the effect that was intended. Gay men could start having sex whenever they wanted in the privacy of their own homes; a black man could marry a white woman. As unpopular as it may be to other people, the law actually did change the things they could or could not do in the moment. | >
> | For example, the opinions in Lawrence v. Texas and Loving v. Virginia, along with their short-term and long-term implications, suggest that the courts' decisions can have a drastic impact on the lives that the law was aimed towards, even if it did not necessarily change the mind of the public directly. Unlike in Brown, the courts didn't need school boards and racist local governments to get on the same page before the change in the law had the effect that was intended. Gay men could start having sex whenever they wanted in the privacy of their own homes; a black man could marry a white woman. As unpopular as it may be to other people, the holdings actually altered the conduct minorities could or could not do in the moment. | | |
Conclusion | |
<
< | I semi-applaud the Ninth Circuit for a strategic and narrow decision that discourages the Supreme Court from reviewing Perry v. Brown by finding the act of taking the right of marriage away from gay couples for no reason to be the basis for unconstitutionality versus the ban on gay marriage itself--limiting the decision's applicability to other states, while still allowing gay marriage in California. Ultimately, however, the most beneficial factor in prohibiting all gay marriage bans in our country today would be a decision declaring one state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on its face. Fearful of the conservative branch of the Supreme Court, I do appreciate the Ninth Circuits discretion is ensuring a move is not made too hastily that might lead to a crippling blow to marriage equality. | >
> | I semi-applaud the Ninth Circuit for a strategic and narrow decision that discourages the Supreme Court from reviewing Perry v. Brown by finding the act of taking the right of marriage away from gay couples without reason to be the basis for unconstitutionality versus the ban on gay marriage itself--limiting the decision's applicability to other states, while still allowing gay marriage in California. Ultimately, however, the most helpful weapon in striking down all gay marriage bans would be a precedent-setting decision declaring one state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on its face. Fearful of the conservative branch of the Supreme Court, I do appreciate the Ninth Circuit's caution in ensuring a move is not made too hastily that might lead to a crippling blow to marriage equality. | | | | |
<
< | Yet, in light of these arguments I've put forward, I contend that the federal courts are in a position to ban anti-gay marriage laws without losing respect, authority, and credibility so many fear it could--leading LGBTQ individuals to have a life filled with hope, dignity, and equality while sacrificing nothing in return to our heterosexual counterparts. (941 words) | >
> | Yet, in light of these arguments I've put forward, I contend that the federal courts are in a position to ban anti-gay marriage laws without losing respect, authority, and credibility so many fear it could--leading LGBTQ individuals to have a life filled with hope, dignity, and equality while sacrificing nothing in return to our heterosexual counterparts. (926 words) | | |
|
|
|
AjGarciaFirstPaper 2 - 16 Feb 2012 - Main.AjGarcia
|
|
<
< | Revision 1 is unreadable | >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Perry v. Brown: What Could have Been
-- By AjGarcia - 15 Feb 2012
Introduction
February bore witness to significant progress in marriage equality, with legislative victories in Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Perry v. Brown. A common concern amongst gay marriage advocates is deciding upon the most efficient and effective basis for achieving marriage equality and preserving it--whether by referendum, by the courts, or through our legislative bodies. I contend that while a holistic approach is necessary to reverse discriminatory attitudes, my immediate concern, as a gay man, is not so much about what heterosexuals think of the morality and legality of my ability to marry the person I love, but instead with my ability to just do it. In light of the public's support of same-sex marriage and the history lessons taught to us by the Warren Court's precedent-setting opinions, I believe the federal courts today could successfully render bans on gay marriage and DOMA to be unconstitutional without fear of losing credibility, respect, or authority.
How Much Longer Can We Wait
Government officials, like Chris Christie, and advocates on both sides of the marriage equality issue often claim that as a democracy, the determination of who can get married belongs in the hands of the public. In reference to Brown v. Board, one could argue that actual integration of school districts did not happen until attitudes of the oppressors transformed--and we should wait for this to happen with respect to gay marriage. Yet, cannot and should not wait any longer. Chris Christie forgets that the cost of changing the public's mind came at the expense of dignity, respect, and lives of African-Americans and their supporters during the Civil Rights Era. But what is the alternative? What power do the courts actually have in reversing the public's opinion on a minority? In class we discussed how the law is not as powerful as the social norms that manage our daily interactions. Yet, gay marriage offers the federal courts the opportunity change this norm and its reach entirely. But some ask, at what expense could this come to the judiciary as an institution?
The Possible Risks Assumed by Judiciary by Ruling For Marriage Equality
I agree that is wise to be concerned about using the courts to implement laws that are disfavored by a large portion of the public. The judiciary's authority and credibility could be significantly undermined by such a holding--leading the American population to divest trust in the federal courts' ability to decide important issues fairly. Worse, the public could come to view the court as a moot institution, and without this respect, the federal courts would be left powerless; the federal courts cannot summon an army or interfere with state funding.
Examining Our Respect For the Court as an Institution
Yet, this puerile view of federal courts insults the history and reputation they have built. The Warren Court illustrated that it is possible to look past legal formalism riddled with logic for the sake of logic and take a step back to consider the prudential implications its decisions could have--especially with regard to minority classes that are unable to convey their political message to the majority absent protection. From Miranda to Griswold to Gideon to New York Times v. Sullivan amongst many other precedent-setting opinions, the Court demonstrated that it could lead and support a minority that was not in the position to support itself, by relying on its "judgment as to the relative worth and importance of competing legislative grounds, often an inarticulate and unconscious judgment . . . and yet the very root and nerve of the whole proceeding."
Evidence of Immediate Change in the Lives of the Oppressed
For example, the opinions in Lawrence v. Texas and Loving v. Virginia, and their short-term and long-term implications, suggest that the courts' decisions can have a drastic impact on the individuals' lives that the law was aimed towards, even if it did not necessarily change the mind of the public on the issue itself, directly. Unlike in Brown, the courts didn't need school boards and racist local governments to get on the same page before the change in the law had the effect that was intended. Gay men could start having sex whenever they wanted in the privacy of their own homes; a black man could marry a white woman. As unpopular as it may be to other people, the law actually did change the things they could or could not do in the moment.
Conclusion
I semi-applaud the Ninth Circuit for a strategic and narrow decision that discourages the Supreme Court from reviewing Perry v. Brown by finding the act of taking the right of marriage away from gay couples for no reason to be the basis for unconstitutionality versus the ban on gay marriage itself--limiting the decision's applicability to other states, while still allowing gay marriage in California. Ultimately, however, the most beneficial factor in prohibiting all gay marriage bans in our country today would be a decision declaring one state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on its face. Fearful of the conservative branch of the Supreme Court, I do appreciate the Ninth Circuits discretion is ensuring a move is not made too hastily that might lead to a crippling blow to marriage equality.
Yet, in light of these arguments I've put forward, I contend that the federal courts are in a position to ban anti-gay marriage laws without losing respect, authority, and credibility so many fear it could--leading LGBTQ individuals to have a life filled with hope, dignity, and equality while sacrificing nothing in return to our heterosexual counterparts. (941 words)
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|