May 26th, 2009

beer

All You Need Is Love... and Wine...

I have to say that I am crazy overwhelmed by the awesome response to the whole wine gig. The number of people reposting and sharing it with their friends is astonishing, truly. Thank you SO much.

That said, right now I'm in 5th place at 494 votes, which puts me well ahead of 4th place at 419. But I won't assume that someone can't catch up to me. :)

4th place is still a ways away at 578 votes, but again... happy to be in the top 10 at all, here. :)

http://www.areallygoodejob.com/video-view.aspx?vid=bnSrYIyfXBc

I apologize for reposting about this so much. I just want to be sure that as many people see it as possible.

me
woo!!
duh

18,000 Couples: Yay You! - Supreme Court: Booooo!

The news copters are hovering over my house. Today the Supreme Court of California said "Yep, it's totally okay for y'all to discriminate against folks."

At least they didn't retroactively apply the ban to the folks who already got married, they only stopped new marriages. This, of course, shines a HUGE spotlight on the "discrimination" part of all this. Yes, your marriages are legal, but no one else like you can have them because slightly over half of California's voters are afraid.

Looks like it's time to start working on some new PSAs.

me
Never give up, Never Surrender


Bohica

Bits of Justice Moreno's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion

Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment to all. Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment. Granting a disfavored minority only some of the rights enjoyed by the majority is fundamentally different from recognizing, as a constitutional imperative, that they must be granted all of those rights. Granting same-sex couples all of the rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, except the right to call their “ ‘officially recognized, and protected family relationship’ ” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 7) a marriage, still denies them equal treatment.

As discussed, there is no “underlying” principle more basic to our Constitution than that the equal protection clause protects the fundamental rights of minorities from the will of the majority. Accordingly, Proposition 8’s withdrawal of any of those rights from gays and lesbians cannot be accomplished through constitutional amendment.

The majority concludes that in order to constitute a revision, a change in the Constitution must effect a “fundamental change in the basic governmental plan or framework established by the preexisting provisions of the California Constitution ― that is ‘in [the government’s] fundamental structure or the foundational powers of its branches.’ [Citation.]” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 86.) The cases cited by the majority do indeed hold that a change to the Constitution that alters the structure or framework of government is a revision, but these cases do not, as the majority erroneously concludes, also stand for the inverse of this proposition: that a change to the Constitution that does not alter the structure or framework of the Constitution cannot constitute a revision and, thus, necessarily must be an amendment. The reason is simple. None of the cases cited by the majority considered this issue, because it was not raised.

Proposition 8 represents an unprecedented instance of a majority of voters altering the meaning of the equal protection clause by modifying the California Constitution to require deprivation of a fundamental right on the basis of a suspect classification. The majority’s holding is not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

This could not have been the intent of those who devised and enacted the initiative process. In my view, the aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution.


LINK
beer

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd... we're done...

Phone interview is over. It was pretty stress free. I talked alot. I never have good questions to ask, though. :)

Angie, who did the interview was really nice. I feel bad that she had to type so much while I blathered on about my thoughts on Social Media. Now, I won't hear from them again until the top 50 are announced one month from today. Now I've got to start working on the 500 word essay on why I'm awesome that will have to be submitted if I make the top 50.

So I'll try not to continually spam you with "I'VE GOT 539 VOTES! WOO!" updates as much as I have been in the last week.

Again, thank you for all the support and love. Keep telling your friends!!

me
http://www.areallygoodejob.com/video-view.aspx?vid=bnSrYIyfXBc