California high court will hear appeal of gay marriage measure - CNN.com

(CNN) — California’s Supreme Court said Wednesday that it will hear the appeal of a challenge to Proposition 8, a voter-approved measure outlawing gay marriage.

California’s voter-approved measure banning gay marriage has sparked protests throughout the state.

In a written statement, the court said it will not block the implementation or enforcement of the law in the meantime.

Proposition 8 passed with about 52.5 percent of the vote, making California one of several states to ban gay marriage in the November 4 elections.

But unlike the other states, California had already been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples since May, after a state Supreme Court ruling legalized the unions.

The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed legal challenges to the vote, asking the high court to rule the ballot-initiative process was “improperly used” to strip away a right protected by the state constitution.

The court said arguments in the case could be heard as early as March.

In its May 15 ruling legalizing gay marriage in California, the justices seemed to signal that a ballot initiative like Proposition 8 might not be enough to change the underlying constitutional issues of the case in the court’s eyes.

The ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights “so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.”

In the hours after the proposition’s apparent passage, thousands of protesters took to the streets of Los Angeles and other cities across California in protest.

Observances in support of gay marriage were held in cities across the country Saturday.

It’s been more than two weeks since the election, and still no one has been able to tell me why the majority should be able to suppress the rights of the minority, when both the California and US Constitutions are supposed to be designed to protect the rights of all people, both majority and minority.

I think, however, that even if the California Supreme Court overturns Prop 8 as an unlawful constitutional revision, we won’t have heard the last of this issue; whether it goes back in front of the legislature to be voted on before going back on the ballot a third time, or whether it gets appealed to the US Supreme Court, this issue is not going to go away anytime soon.

And that’s a good thing. Issues like this need to remain as visible as possible until all people in the United States are affording the same rights and privileges.

The drive to defeat Prop 8 isn’t completely dead yet … seems the proponents of Prop 8 didn’t get legislative approval for a Constitutional revision before placing the prop on the ballot; so it’s possible that Prop 8 constitutes an unlawful amendment.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

Same-sex marriage ban wins; opponents sue to block measure - SF Gate

After a heated, divisive campaign fueled by a record $73 million of spending, California voters have approved Proposition 8, which would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Opponents promptly filed suit to try to block the measure from taking effect.

With 96 percent of the vote counted, Prop. 8 was winning by a decisive 400,000-vote margin, 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent. It piled up huge margins in the Central Valley and carried some Democratic strongholds such as Los Angeles County. The measure lost in every Bay Area county but Solano.

As the vote counting continued this morning, opponents of Prop. 8 filed a lawsuit directly with the state Supreme Court - whose May 15 ruling legalized same-sex marriage - asking the justices to overturn the measure.

The suit argued that Prop. 8 would change the California Constitution in such fundamental ways - taking important rights away from a minority group - that it amounted to a constitutional revision, which requires approval by the Legislature before being submitted to the voters. The case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lamda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The same groups asked the court before the election to remove Prop. 8 from the ballot on those grounds. The justices refused, but left the door open for a post-election challenge.

“A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities,” said Elizabeth Gill, an ACLU lawyer. “Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiate such revisions.”

Marriage should be for everyone … nobody has been able to give me a coherent argument based on legal (not religious) grounds as to why discrimination should be written into a state’s Constitution.

I’m tempted to say that I refuse to get married again unless/until all people have the right to get married to the person of their choice, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. I refuse to say sexual preference, because I knew several gay people in the Bay Area who would have preferred to be heterosexual rather than gay.

Well, as many of my friends used to say, “Never straight, always gaily forward!” and “It’s not over until the bulldyke sings.”

HEY ALLEN GINSBERG WHERE HAVE YOU GONE AND WHAT WOULD YOU THINK OF MY DRUGS?

A mouse went to see his mother. When his car broke down he bought a bike. When the bike wore out he bought skates. When the skates wore down he ran. He ran until his sneakers wore through. Then he walked. He walked and walked, almost walked his feet through so he bought new ones. His mother was happy to see him and said, “what nice new feet you have on.” —paraphrase of a story in Mouse Tails by Arnold Lobel

hey, listen, a bad thing happened to
my friend’s marriage, can’t tell you
only can tell my own story which
so far isn’t so bad:

“Dad” and I stay married. so far.
so good. so so.

But it felt undoable. This lucky life
every day, every day. every. day.

(all the poetry books the goddamn same
until one guys gets up and stuns the audience)

Then, Joe Wenderoth, not by a long shot
sober says, I promised my wife I wouldn’t fuck
anyone, to no one in particular and reads a poem
about how Jesus has no penis.

Meanwhile, the psychiatrist, attractive in a fatherly
way, says libido question mark.

And your libido?
like a father, but not like mine, or my sons’—

“fix it.”

My friend’s almost written
a good novel by which I mean finished
which means I’d like to light myself
on fire, on fire
with envy, this isn’t “desire”
not what the Dr. meant
by libido?
                         I hope—

not, it’s just chemical:
             jealousy. boredom. lethargy.

Books with prominent seraphs: their feet feet feet I am
marching to the same be—

other

than the neuronic slave I thought anxiety made me
do it, made me get up and carry forth, sally
the children to school the poems dragged
by little hands on their little seraphs
to the page my marriage sustained, remaining
energy: project #1, project #2, broken
fixtures, summer plans, demand met, request
granted, bunny noodles with and without cheesy
at the same time, and the night time I insomnia
these hours penning invisible letters—

             till it stopped.

doc said: it’s a syndrome.       you’ve got it,
                                     classic.

it’s chemical,
mental

circuitry we’ve got a fix for this
classic, I’m saying I can

make it better.

Everything was the same, then,
but better.

At night I slept.
In the morning got up.

Kids to school, husband still a fool—
hardy spirit makes
me pick a monday morning fight, snipe! I’ll pay for that
later I’m still a pain in the
elbow from writing prose those shift+hold+letter,
I’m still me less sleepy, crazy, I suppose
less crazy-jealous just
ha-ha now at Jesus’ no penis his
amazed at the other poet’s kickass
friend’s novel I dream instead about
the government makes me put stickers
on my driver’s license of family members
who are Jews, and mine all are. Can they get us
all? I escape with a beautiful light-haired man,
blue-eyed day trader, gentile.

gentle, gentle, mind encased in its
blood-brain barrier from the harsh skull
sleep, sleep and sleepy wake and want
to sleep and sleep a steep dosage—

             “—chemical?”

in my dreams now every man’s mine, no-
problem, perhaps my mind’s a little plastic,
malleable, not so fatal now

the dose is engineered like that new genetic watercress
to turn from green to red when planted over buried
mines, nitrogen dioxide makes for early autumn
red marks the spot where I must
watch my step, up one half-step-dose specific—

             The psychiatrist’s lived in NY so long
             he’s of ambiguous religious—
             everyone’s Jewish sometimes—
             writes: “up the dosage.”

now,
when I’m late I just shrug
it’s my new improved style
missed the train? I tug
the two boys single file

the platform a safe aisle
between disasters, blithely
I step, step, step-lively
carefully, wisely.

I sing silly ditties
play I spy something pretty
grey-brown-metal-filthy
for a little city fun.

Just one way to enjoy life’s
trials, mile after mile, lucky
to have such dependable feet.

you see,
the rodents don’t frighten I’m
calm as can be expected to recover left to my
one devivces I was twice as fast getting everywhere but
where did that get me but there, that inevitable location
more waiting, the rats there scurry, scurry, a furry

till the next train comes

“up the dosage.”

Brown a first-cut brisket in hot Dutch oven
after dusting with paprika. Remove. Sauté
thickly sliced onions and add wine. (Sweet
is better, lasts forever, never need a new bottle).
Put the meat on onions, cover with tomato-sauce-
onion-soup-mix mixture, cover. Back in a low
oven many hours.

The house smells like meat.
My hair smells like meat.

I’m a light unto the nation.

I’m trying
to get out of Egypt.
This year,
I’ll be better.

Joseph makes sense of the big man’s dreams, is saved,
saves his brothers those jealous boys who sold him
sold them all as slaves. Seven years of plenty. Seven
years of famine. He insomnias the nights counting up
grains, storing, planning, for what? They say throw
the small boys in the river (and mothers do so). Smite
the sons (and fathers do it.) God says take off your shoes,
this holy ground this pitiful, incombustible bush.

Is God chemical?
Enzymatic of our great need to chaos?

We’re unforgivable.
People of the salted
cheeks. Slap, turn, slap.

To be chosen
is to be
unforgiving/ unforgiv-
en, always chosen:
be better.

The Zuckers are a long line of obsessives.

This served them well in war time saw it
coming in time that unseeable thing they
hoarded they ferried, schemed, paced, got the hell
out figured out at night, insomnia, how to visa—

now, if it happens again, I won’t be
ready

I’m “better.”

The husband, a country club Jew from Denver, American
intelligentsia will have to carry me out and he’s no big
man and I’m not a small girl how fast

can the doctor switch the refugee gene back on?

How fast can I get worse? Smart again and worse?

Better to be alive than better.

             “…listen:” says the doctor, “sleeping isn’t death.
             All children unlearn this fear you got confused
             thought thinking was the same as spinning—”            
             Writes: “up the dosage.”
             don’t think. this refugee thing part
             of a syndrome fear of medication of being better…

Truth is, the anti-obsessional medicine works
wonders and drags me through life’s course…

About this time of year but years ago the priests spread
rumors of blood libel. Jews huddled in basements accused
of using Christian babes’ blood to make unleavened bread.

signs and wonders.
Christ rises.

Blood and body and babes.
Basements and briskets
and bread of afflictions.

I am calm now with my pounds of meat
made and frozen, my party schedule, my pills
of liberation, my gentile dream-boy, American
passport, my grey haired-psychiatrist, my blue-
eyed son, my brown-eyed son, my poems on their
pretty little fleet-feet, my big shot friends, olive-skinned
husband, my right elbow on fire: fire inside deep in the nerve
from too much carrying and word-mongering, smithery, bearing
and tensing choosing to be better to live this real life this better orbit this Jack

Kerouac never loved you like you wanted.
Blake.
Buddha.
Only Jesus and that’s his shtick,
he loves

everyone: smile! that’s it,
for the camera, blood pressure
normal, better, you’re a poster child
for signs and wonders what a little chemistry
does for the brain, blood, thought, hey,

did you know that Pharaoh actually wanted
to let them go? those multitude Jews
but God hardened Pharaoh’s heart against them [Jews]
to prove his prowess show his signs, wonders, outstretched
hand, until the dosage was a perfect ten and then
some, sea closing up around those little chariots
the men and horses while women on the far shore shook
their tambourines. And then what? Forty years to get the smell
of slavery off them.

Because of this. Bloody Nile. My story one of
the lucky. Escape hatch even from my own
obsess—

             I am here because of this.
Because of what my ancestors did for me to tell this
story of the outstretched hand what it did for me this
marked door and behind this red-marked door, around
a corner a blue-eyed boy waits to love me up with his
leavened bread, his slim body, professional detachment,
medical advancements, forgive me my father’s mother’s
father was the last in a long line of Rabbis—again! with this? This
rhapsody of affliction and escape, the mind bobbing along
in its watery safe. Be like everyone. Else. Indistinguishable but
better than the other nations but that’s what got us into this, Allen,
no one writes these long-ass poems anymore. Now we’re
better, all better. All Christian. Kind.

  — Rachel Zucker (b. 1971), American Poet, from Columbia Poetry Review #18, 2005.

California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

(CNN) — In a much-anticipated 4-3 ruling issued Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional

The ruling clears the way for the state to become the second to legalize same-sex marriage.

Several gay and lesbian couples — along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups — had sued, saying they were victims of unlawful discrimination.

A lower court ruled San Francisco acted unlawfully in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but Thursday’s ruling overturned that decision.

“In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation,” the court said in the 120-page ruling, “and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.

“We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

I’ve always felt that it was just plain wrong to deny gay couples involved in a committed long-term and loving relationship the same basic rights that a violent, abusive husband has simply by virtue that his wife hasn’t yet filed for divorce.

As the Court’s Opinion states:

… an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

You know what sucks the most about not being married anymore, aside from not being able to see what was (and may still be) my best friend everyday?

Going to bed alone.

Not because of sex, but just having someone there … it’s very comforting. I don’t think I’ve had a really good night’s sleep since August or September 2006; at least not one that wasn’t drug-induced.

I think I miss that more than anything else.

Fatty, of FatCyclist.com, has a new article up at BikeRadar.com; in which he attempts to mediate the divorce between Greg LeMond and Trek Bicycle Co.

A Letter To Trek Bicycle Co. And Greg LeMond

What Trek Gets

1. Lance Armstrong’s Peace of Mind: First and foremost, Trek receives a guarantee that Mr LeMond will never ever, ever, ever use any combination of the words “Lance,” “Armstrong,” or “dope” (or any of their synonyms) within three minutes of each other. Not in public. Not in private. Not by doing charades or meaningfully-raised eyebrows. From now on, in fact, Mr LeMond promises to pretend he has simply never heard of Lance Armstrong, and will act pleasantly surprised to hear that another American has also won the Tour de France. If Mr LeMond crosses this line even once, Trek may - at its own expense - use whatever combination of shock therapy, hypnotherapy and surgery it deems necessary to literally remove any recollection of Armstrong from Mr LeMond’s memory.
2. Custody of the Children: Trek retains the rights to all licensed Trek/LeMond dealerships, except for the ones where Mr LeMond had so deeply undercut the market that Trek no longer wants those dealerships anymore, anyway.
3. Existing “Fillmore” Inventory: Trek will take custody of all 2008 (and any remaining 2007) LeMond Fillmore bikes, to be re-decaled as Gary Fisher Triton bikes or sold to be used as ballast in seagoing barges, as Trek sees fit.

What LeMond Gets

1. Personal Freedom, Within Limits: As long as he pretends Armstrong doesn’t exist, Mr LeMond is welcome to rant about anyone else he wants. Except for people at Trek. They’re off-limits, too. And so is everyone at Astana. But he should feel free to hammer on Floyd Landis whenever he feels like it.
2. eBay: While Trek retains the traditional distribution channels, Mr LeMond receives a non-compete guarantee from Trek in the eBay channel. Also, Trek promises that it will not start selling bikes to Mr LeMond’s friends.
3. Employee Pricing: Mr LeMond will continue to get employee pricing on up to $2500 worth of Bontrager components per year.
4. Visitation Rights with Gary Fisher (Conditional): If Mr LeMond abides by the conditions thus far laid out for six contiguous months, he will be allowed to talk with Gary Fisher and begin to gather advice on how it’s possible to be completely insane, yet be regarded as an eccentric, beloved icon.
5. A Yellow Jersey, Autographed by Lance Armstrong: Oh, come on. We all know that this is what it’s really all about. You could have just asked for one, you know.

How typical! Siding with the cheating husband! Shame on you, Fatty … I would have expected more from a resident of Utah County. Shouldn’t this divorce reflect the reality of an actual divorce?

As such I propose the following:

As the aggrieved first wife in this marriage (even if she is a bit of a shrew), Fat Greggie should get it all … the rights to his bikes and name back, as well as the right to bash Armstrong (that hussy who stole Trek’s affections) and Trek in perpetuity.

And then there’s the alimony … Trek needs to make sure that Greggie can continue to live the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed by providing a generous alimony settlement; to continue for at least 15 years, even IF Greggie finds a new husband.

And while we’re at it, Greggie gets the house, too … this includes the Trek factory in Waterloo, Wisconsin AND all of the Trek Concept stores throughout the United States, where she can (if she so chooses), systematically cut hussy Lancey-poo’s face out of all pictures documenting their previous friendship.

After all, Trek flaunted its relationship with Lancey-poo in front of Greggie … didn’t even try to hide it like a good husband should, not to mention that you know from the beginning Lancey-poo was out to break-up the marriage. She was “surgically-enhanced”, after all, to lose that crucial weight that was required to win the Tour de France seven consecutive times.

No; instead Trek attempted to take a page from the gospel of Warren Steed Jeffs and build a polygamist community! And we all know that polygamy just doesn’t work. It’s too hard to ride in the flannel plaid shirts, jeans and boots.

I’ve said it before; if not on this blog, then elsewhere …

I love chick flicks, especially of the romantic comedy sort. Perhaps it comes from being raised by women; or perhaps I just have a keenly defined sense of the aesthetic and am not afraid to let my self experience emotion (except in terms of my own relationships, in which I’m deathly afraid to do so).

I just finished watching The Jane Austen Book Club. The Netflix blurb has this to say about the film:

Six book club members find their lives resemble a modern-day version of Jane Austen’s novels in this drama. Sylvia’s (Amy Brenneman) husband of 20-plus years has walked out; Jocelyn (Maria Bello) breeds dogs to escape loneliness; Prudie (Emily Blunt) dreams of other men; Bernadette (Kathy Baker) hopes to find Mr. Right; Allegra (Maggie Grace) has issues with her girlfriend; and Grigg (Hugh Dancy), the only man, wonders why he’s even in the club.

It’s so much more, actually … for one, it’s not truly a drama, although it has a few dramatic moments, the film is presented with much more of a light note, showing the humor that can be found in even the most difficult of situations.

It’s a complex exploration of relationships, not only romantically, but betwixt the characters of the film itself. The sole male member of the club cannot make the first move on the woman with whom he is in love, even though she (in complete denial of her own feelings towards him) pushes him towards another member. A teacher, whose own marriage is falling apart, finds herself falling for a student … will she be able to resist the temptation?

Perhaps I should pick up one or two (or all six) of Miss Austen’s novels to find out what so captivated the characters in the film, as well as the novel on which it was based.