academics and Prop 8

Do forgive if this entry is a bit tl;dr!

I am trying very hard not to get emotional about the fact that classes start in four weeks. I am teaching a Thursday night class, the first on September 2nd.

As a way to take constructive hold over my uneasiness, I've decided to take off work on Monday and spend a three-day weekend dissertation-focused. I plan to leave my house and go to University so I'm not distracted by cleaning, cats or cooking. pennswoods has inspired me to wear my Hogwarts robes in the graduate lounge.

I had a dream last night that one of the members of my dissertation committee said I only need to write 13 pages for the theory chapter. I gleefully replied that I once wrote 13 pages in one day. I think this was my mind's way of saying "You can do this, so get to work!"

As I briefly mentioned before, I plan to use 'social citizenship' theory to examine how people who identify as transgender or gender-non-conforming are discriminated against in housing, employment and medical care. And while I need to do a LOT more reading, essentially social citizenship looks at the relationship between politics, the economy and culture to include or exclude people from the social fabric. How institutions dehumanize people considered Other, and, well, specifically I will pull apart categories within my data set to see who gets shafted the most. Furthermore, citizenship means conferring both rights and responsibilities to people as part of inclusion. This is the justification often used, for example, in denying certain classes of people who break the law the right to vote. I will propose that subsets of people in the TLC data set are expected to uphold responsibilities without being granted concomitant rights and recognitions, particularly for employment discrimination (hence it being a poverty issue), and is profoundly unjust.

Today at work I've been reading the full text decision on the Prop 8 trial. It's a powerful document that examines specious, hateful reasoning, passionate personal experiences of victimization, a critique of a system based on sex (both in terms of gender and sexual activity), and sexual orientation, academic credentials, thinly veiled (if at all) attempts to insert particular religious views into law, and the compelling role of the State to protect - rather than discriminate against - people. Of course, in my mind I'm applying concepts of citizenship theory. A few things struck me.

(There's a lot of cut-and-paste here with a few off-the cuff remarks. Not heavily academic).

First, this line in the argument by the proponents:

( Denial of marriage . . .  )

The sheer coldness of hatred in this line makes me shudder, and I am grateful for every photographer, documentarian, Pride Parade, and ordinary folk who walk down the street hand-in-hand for the sheer fact of the power of visibility.

Second, I recall when this came up in the dailies:

( Read more... )

Counsel didn't know because, well, HATRED IS IRRATIONAL. How can one NOT snicker at such an admittance? Not to mention, there are legions of couples who are either child-free by choice, or who cannot have children for a variety of reasons. I'd like to see what would happen should the State deny a heterosexual couple the right to marry based on inability or intent to not have children.
( Read more... )

This part brought me chills:
the evidence presented at trial fatally undermines the premises underlying proponents’ proffered rationales for Proposition 8. An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough.

THIS is why sound academic research is, for me, about activism. I particularly enjoyed how they cut down the credentials of David Blankenhorn

( Read more... )

Oh but gosh does this sound like my students who try to use Wikipedia as a primary reference.

( Further dressing down of said witness: )

To the extent Blankenhorn believes that same-sex marriage is both a cause and a symptom of deinstitutionalization, his opinion is tautological.

SING IT!

Conclusions of law included:
* Due Process
* Equal Protection
* The right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender
* Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it denies plaintiffs a fundamental right without a legitimate (much less compelling) reason.

In other words, same-sex couples are humans deserving of the rights of other citizens. I can't help but wonder how this will impact DOMA, as I have no doubt this case may in fact find itself on the steps of the Supreme Court.

Food

Behold - the most ridiculous thing I have eaten all week.



That's fried green tomatoes, mozzarella, basil and soy bacon on a skillet-toasted homemade roll topped with kosher salt, sesame and poppy seeds. The only thing that wasn't fried in ghee was the basil. I may be tempted to add mayo next time.

Other ridiculous things I have eaten of late:

A cupcake with ( Snape's nose )

Snapecast's Own Chardonarry, Blood Red Elf-made Wine from Spinners End and Malfoy Merlot (I went a bit nutty making wine labels for the snapecast ( meetup) )

Ice cream from Florean ( Fortescue )

Cauldron cakes and Chocolate Frogs from ( Honeydukes )

and Butterbeer at the Hog's Head ( Inn )

fiendish_thingy Snape might suspect Hermione drank polyjuice concocted from his ( potions stores . . .  )

but I'll just don an innocent smile and neither confirm ( nor deny . . .  )

Not even Lucious Malfoy could get that out of me, ( in fact )

Oh, and I may or may not have been joined by pennswoods for a burger in paradise ( at some point )

Sorry if this entry made you hungry.