Lesbian Dad

The tenacity of hope

What the man said, in 1978, not long before his assasination [with some gratuitous modern editorializing]:

Without hope, not only [white] gays, but those [nongay] Blacks, and the Asians, and the disabled, the seniors — the “us’s — the “us’s” — without hope, the us’s give up.  I know that you cannot live on hope alone.  But without it, life is not worth living.  And you, and you, and you have got to give ’em hope.

Thanks to Sara at Suburban Lesbian Housewife for my first viewing of this. 

And, in related news, we also have her to thank for alerting me to a link to an amicus brief to the California Supreme Court in defense of Prop 8 by a woman who’s an “heiress of The Almighty Eternal Creator,” on behalf of the almighty G_d him/herself.  Not kidding here.  Read it and weep.  And then don’t loose grip on that hope that Brother Harvey just instilled in you.  

Because the California Council of Churches, along with the Episcopal Bishops of California & Los Angeles, the United Church of Christ’s Northern & Southern California and Nevada Synods, the Progressive Jewish Alliance, and the Unitarian Univeralist congregations and legislative ministries constitute one of the six parties or groups of parties named in the case against Prop 8.  While none of them would likely say they exclusively speak for G_d almighty, I’ll bet most of them would say they try hard to speak to her/him.  And inspire others to pause and give her/him a good deal of thought.  Letters in support of the suit have also been filed by:

 The Bar Association of San Francisco et al., along with:

Forty-Four Members of the State Legislature
Anti-Defamation League et al.
Beverly Hills Bar Association et al.
Los Angeles County Bar Association
Sacramento Lawyers for Equality of Gays and Lesbians et al.
Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez
Constitutional Law Center (Monterey College of Law)
Hastings College of the Law
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein
Richards, Watson, & Gershon
The Ecumenical Catholic Church
Donna M. Ryu (Hastings College of the Law)

CA Supreme Court page on the case here.

And while you’re in a juridical frame of mind, why not take a stroll down memory lane ( the secular social scientific alley thereof) and read even just the Table of Contents of the American Psychoanalytic Association’s 37-page amicus curiae for the original In re: marriages case.  Every subsection title is a sock in the gut.  And true (all bullet points below directly from their brief):

  • • Under California law, domestic partnership is not equal to marriage
    • • The different requirements for the formation and dissolution of domestic partnerships and marriages reflect a dramatically different attitude of the state toward the underlying relationships
    • • California courts continue to deny domestic partners legal rights and obligations that are routinely given to married people
    • • Domestic partners have a reduced ability to obtain equal rights and benefits that might otherwise be available under other laws, including those of other states, other countries, and the federal government
  • • The separation of domestic partnership and marriage negatively affects the hearts and mids of same-sex couples and their children and fosters discrimination against them
    • • The segregation of same-sex couples into a separate legal institution creates inherent inequalities
    • • The state’s segregation of same-sex couples into a separate institution of domestic partnership inherently stigmatizes their relationship as inferior
      • • The government’s choice of labels conveys substantive meaning
      • • The stigma created by the state’s differential treatment of gay men and women has severe psychological and social impacts
      • • The separation of domestic partnership and marriage fuels public prejudice against gay men and women and invites the public to discriminate against them
    • • Depriving same-sex couples of the ability to marry has adverse effects on their children [not looking forward to reading this section]
  • • The state offers no substantive justification for the segregation of same-sex couples into a distinct and inferior institution.

Well then.  Court adjourned.

back up that-away
Translate »