in which i judge the people who are judging judges
Lately my reaction to politics and life can be summed up a la Amy Poehler and Seth Myers: really? Really? The latest installment is the pro-Prop. 8/anti-gay marriage camp’s claim that Judge Walker’s overturning of Prop. 8 (which overturned the court’s overturning of previous anti-gay marriage laws; diamonds, or in my case green amethysts, are forever, but apparently everything else lasts about ten minutes) should be…overturned. Why? Because he’s in a gay relationship and would therefore stand to benefit from legalized gay marriage.
Yes. He would. But if the H8ers’ core argument is also true, a straight judge’s heterosexual marriage would be threatened by the legalization of gay marriage. So he would stand to benefit from not overturning Prop. 8. Of course I, and all sane straight people, totally disagree with the notion that gay marriage threatens straight relationships, but see how I’m using the H8ers’ argument against them? Ha! I should be a lawyer!
I know that mostly they’re just using every flimsy tool at their disposal, which is the job of any legal team. But there’s also an undercurrent of something more unsavory (unsavory-ness from the separate-but-equal folks? Shocking, I know). It’s this notion that being gay is a particular, active, opinion-instilling experience, while being straight is just a factory setting. And it can feel that way to gay and straight people too, just as you’re more likely to find white people who claim that they don’t see race because they have never left the factory where their race was the default.
Up in heaven or wherever, gay and black and deaf and telepathic are also factory settings, and if we were plopped into a world where everyone was telepathic, etc., we wouldn’t assume that telepathic judges had some freak-o condition that required them to recuse themselves on account of said freakiness.
Does that make sense? I’ve had a lot of caffeine today.
Yes. He would. But if the H8ers’ core argument is also true, a straight judge’s heterosexual marriage would be threatened by the legalization of gay marriage. So he would stand to benefit from not overturning Prop. 8. Of course I, and all sane straight people, totally disagree with the notion that gay marriage threatens straight relationships, but see how I’m using the H8ers’ argument against them? Ha! I should be a lawyer!
I know that mostly they’re just using every flimsy tool at their disposal, which is the job of any legal team. But there’s also an undercurrent of something more unsavory (unsavory-ness from the separate-but-equal folks? Shocking, I know). It’s this notion that being gay is a particular, active, opinion-instilling experience, while being straight is just a factory setting. And it can feel that way to gay and straight people too, just as you’re more likely to find white people who claim that they don’t see race because they have never left the factory where their race was the default.
Up in heaven or wherever, gay and black and deaf and telepathic are also factory settings, and if we were plopped into a world where everyone was telepathic, etc., we wouldn’t assume that telepathic judges had some freak-o condition that required them to recuse themselves on account of said freakiness.
Does that make sense? I’ve had a lot of caffeine today.
Comments
I had a similar thought when I read about this issue online: they almost seem to be implying that an asexual judge would be the only REAL impartial and appropriate person to decide on this, ultimately. :-p
And green amethysts are way more everlasting than the marriages among my heterosexual family members.
K: Grr indeed.