academics and Prop 8
Aug. 6th, 2010 03:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gina_r_snapeDo 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.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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 to same-sex couples allows gays and lesbians to live privately without requiring others, including (perhaps especially) children, to recognize or acknowledge the existence of same-sex couples; (emphasis mine)
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:
At oral argument on proponents’ motion for summary judgment, the court posed to proponents’ counsel the assumption that “the state’s interest in marriage is procreative” and inquired how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects that interest.Counsel replied that the inquiry was “not the legally relevant question,” id, but when pressed for an answer, counsel replied: “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.”
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.
In the conclusion, the Judge writes "Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples."
In my mind, marriage is, on a legal level, about property and decision-making. Not religion. Not personal inclinations toward commitment. It was interesting to note that:
Perhaps recognizing that Proposition 8 must advance a secular purpose to be constitutional, proponents abandoned previous arguments from the campaign that had asserted the moral superiority of opposite-sex couples. (i.e. religious arguments)
What pains me is knowing loads of people who do consider themselves spiritual or religious but who are not homophobic. These people are ruining it for them, and indeed compromising the State in staying out of religious affairs.
Framing the question is of vital importance in policy research. Framing the problem is important in policy advancement. So it was interesting to read this:
Although the evidence covered a range of issues, the direct and cross-examinations focused on the following broad questions:
* WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX;
*WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS; and
*WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST.
Following this was a powerful summary of research and history by LGBT scholars. (I am quite pleased to note I was offered Ilan Meyer's dataset for my dissertation, but I just couldn't ferret out good research questions from it for a secondary analysis. He's a great guy and a terrific scholar).
Even Blankenhorn, witness for the haters, agreed that there would be benefits to individuals and children in overturning Prop 8. Yet:
The testimony of several witnesses disclosed that a primary purpose of Proposition 8 was to ensure that California confer a policy preference for opposite-sex couples over same-sex couples based on a belief that same-sex pairings are immoral and should not be encouraged in California.
Uh-huh.
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
Plaintiffs challenge Blankenhorn’s qualifications as an expert because none of his relevant publications has been subject to a traditional peer-review process, he has no degree in sociology, psychology or anthropology despite the importance of those fields to the subjects of marriage, fatherhood and family structure, and his study of the effects of same-sex marriage involved “read[ing] articles and ha[ving] conversations with people, and tr[ying] to be an informed person about it,”
Oh but gosh does this sound like my students who try to use Wikipedia as a primary reference.
Further dressing down of said witness:
Plaintiffs argue that Blankenhorn’s conclusions are not based on “objective data or discernible methodology,” and that Blankenhorn’s conclusions are instead based on his interpretation of selected quotations from articles and reports
We are then treated to several pages of his contradictory statements on the meaning, purpose and historical significance of marriage, and the fact that he relied on others' statements in his own writings. The judge truly channeled Snape here. I could see spiky script aaaall over the page, critiquing his work.
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.
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 to same-sex couples allows gays and lesbians to live privately without requiring others, including (perhaps especially) children, to recognize or acknowledge the existence of same-sex couples; (emphasis mine)
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:
At oral argument on proponents’ motion for summary judgment, the court posed to proponents’ counsel the assumption that “the state’s interest in marriage is procreative” and inquired how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects that interest.Counsel replied that the inquiry was “not the legally relevant question,” id, but when pressed for an answer, counsel replied: “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.”
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.
In the conclusion, the Judge writes "Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples."
In my mind, marriage is, on a legal level, about property and decision-making. Not religion. Not personal inclinations toward commitment. It was interesting to note that:
Perhaps recognizing that Proposition 8 must advance a secular purpose to be constitutional, proponents abandoned previous arguments from the campaign that had asserted the moral superiority of opposite-sex couples. (i.e. religious arguments)
What pains me is knowing loads of people who do consider themselves spiritual or religious but who are not homophobic. These people are ruining it for them, and indeed compromising the State in staying out of religious affairs.
Although the evidence covered a range of issues, the direct and cross-examinations focused on the following broad questions:
* WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX;
*WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS; and
*WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST.
Following this was a powerful summary of research and history by LGBT scholars. (I am quite pleased to note I was offered Ilan Meyer's dataset for my dissertation, but I just couldn't ferret out good research questions from it for a secondary analysis. He's a great guy and a terrific scholar).
Even Blankenhorn, witness for the haters, agreed that there would be benefits to individuals and children in overturning Prop 8. Yet:
The testimony of several witnesses disclosed that a primary purpose of Proposition 8 was to ensure that California confer a policy preference for opposite-sex couples over same-sex couples based on a belief that same-sex pairings are immoral and should not be encouraged in California.
Uh-huh.
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
Plaintiffs challenge Blankenhorn’s qualifications as an expert because none of his relevant publications has been subject to a traditional peer-review process, he has no degree in sociology, psychology or anthropology despite the importance of those fields to the subjects of marriage, fatherhood and family structure, and his study of the effects of same-sex marriage involved “read[ing] articles and ha[ving] conversations with people, and tr[ying] to be an informed person about it,”
Oh but gosh does this sound like my students who try to use Wikipedia as a primary reference.
Further dressing down of said witness:
Plaintiffs argue that Blankenhorn’s conclusions are not based on “objective data or discernible methodology,” and that Blankenhorn’s conclusions are instead based on his interpretation of selected quotations from articles and reports
We are then treated to several pages of his contradictory statements on the meaning, purpose and historical significance of marriage, and the fact that he relied on others' statements in his own writings. The judge truly channeled Snape here. I could see spiky script aaaall over the page, critiquing his work.
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.
