Mashup

Today's going to be a bit of a mashup because I have several things I want to talk about. Marriage equality and a bit of SB 1070 related news out of Arizona. I had one other thing but it's escaped me. Let's start with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, SB 1070 (the Papers Please Law), and the Corrections Corporation of America.

First, the facts. It is not actually against the law to be in America without documentation. From the way the media talks about undocumented immigrants I know that that may surprise some of you. So that means that Paper Please isn't just some new law seeking to crack down on illegal behavior, it's seeking to make a behavior that isn't against the law now illegal. And what usually happens when you break the law? You go to jail. Here's where this article comes in from Phoenix's CBS 5 news. That article is really ancillary to the one I was searching for but can't find. It contains the most important bits though. Here's the quote.

A recent CBS 5 News investigation found that two of Brewer's top advisers have ties to the private prison industry. One is a current lobbyist for Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA. The second is a former lobbyist for the same company.

The second one mentioned also has a wife who is still lobbying for CCA. In short, by passing SB 1070 and making being in Arizona without documentation (or, honestly, looking like you might need documentation that you don't have on you right now) illegal you would be sending thousands of prisoners into the heavily used private prison system in Arizona which is not exactly run by, but certainly dominated by CCA. It's all a big corporate scheme to net her friends in the private prison-industrial complex as much money as possible at the expense of all those nasty brown people she doesn't care about. When asked about the lobbying connections by two of her senior advisors Governor Brewer consistently refuses to answer and even pulls a Sharron Angle and runs away. She knows what she's doing, she's been caught, and she doesn't want to admit it to the people of Arizona. Because she wants her own term as their Governor one day (she was elevated to the top spot when Janet Napolitano, a democrat, accepted the directorship of the Department of Homeland Security from then newly elected President Obama).  That's about all on 1070. On to Marriage Equality.

You know what I hate about the fight for Gay Marriage? That it's called Gay Marriage. And that it's viewed as the most important fucking thing on the "gay agenda". You know, right there at the top of the list in big bold letters. Everything else is secondary.

Queer people are fighting for the right to get married. Not the right to get "gay married" and as long as we, straight people, and the media keep talking about "Gay Marriage" it's going to be viewed as something separate and different from the institution of marriage that straight people are used to. When you're married you do all those things that married people do. When you're gay married somehow being tied to the bed doing it up the ass while wearing skin-tight leather outfits becomes mandatory in peoples minds. It's just another way to make those of us who are restricted from marriage currently seem weird, alien, and not at all deserving or the right to get married. It's just damned othering!

Let's not even talk about how all the energy put into marriage equality by organizations like the Human Rights Campaign is that much less energy that is used to work on issues that affect all queer people regardless of whether they're partnered, poly, or ever interested in marriage at all like ENDA, housing issues, and general acceptance. I would be much more supported right now if we were to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA than if Congress were to make marriage equality a reality as much as I might cheer for it. And what about those of us who are romantically involved with more than one person. Oh damn! That's right, I said it. Some of us crazy queer liberals might actually WANT to be married to more than one person. We might want all our relationships sanctioned. I know that's one of the BIG SCARY things that conservatives continue to talk about. That if we make gay marriage legal suddenly people will want to marry more than one person. And that would affect you in what ways that letting just two strangers you've never met be married doesn't?

So in short, my rant is that we're viewing this as a Big Freaking Deal when it really shouldn't be, we're talking about it in ways that are unproductive, and we aren't thinking about everyone. Still!

Sorry for all that.

Marriage Issues

I'm a bit behind the times as far as reporting on the Proposition 8 ruling in California. I've been at work, so forgive me. I'd skip it, but I'm queer and so this is sort of a big deal. More than just break down the ruling, which I'll be doing a bit of, I hope to talk about this issue more broadly.

So, yes, Wednesday afternoon Judge Walker in California District Court ruled that Proposition 8 which passed in California on the same night as President Obama's election in 2008 is unconstitutional. He ruled that it violates both the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Section 1 reads:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [bolding mine]

The bold section there is the particularly important part. States, like California, cannot make laws that violated that bolded section. By saying that straight couples (and individuals by extension) are able to marry and gay couples cannot it sets up two unequal groups in direct violation of that last section about "equal protection of the laws". Less talked about, but I think no less important is Section 5:

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Seems to me that Congress should be getting along about now to make sure our equality is protected by law. Good luck getting them to do that one.

Now I'm going to dissect the ruling for a bit. It's downloadable online but it's 136 pages so this is by no means a thorough job.

Reading through, the first bit of text that really strikes my fancy is this.

...proponents in their trial brief promised to “demonstrate that redefining marriage to encompass same-sex relationships” would effect some twenty-three specific harmful consequences. At trial, however, proponents presented only one witness, David Blankenhorn, to address the government interest in marriage.  Blankenhorn’s testimony is addressed at length hereafter; suffice it to say that he provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.

Mr. Blankenhorn was, in fact viewed by the judge as pretty much non-important. He has no credentials to suggest that he's an actual expert on relationships, marriage, or the government. All the things he was claiming to be an "expert witness" on. Continuing. In a section entitled "Credibility Determinations" the judge had this to say about Mr. Blankenhorn.

David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, testified on marriage, fatherhood and family structure.  Plaintiffs objected to Blankenhorn’s qualification 

as an expert.  For the reasons explained hereafter, Blankenhorn lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponents’ factual assertions.

I think that speaks for itself. But it continues.

The court permitted Blankenhorn to testify but reserved the question of the appropriate weight to give to Blankenhorn’s opinions.  Tr 2741:24-2742:3.  The court now determines that Blankenhorn’s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight. [bolding mine]

Moving on. Later in the document come what is referred to as "findings of fact". As it has been explained to me, these facts must be considered by any appeals court and the Supreme Court should the case be appealed that far. Among these findings are tidbits such as these.

19. Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage.  Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.  

21. California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate.   

There are quite a few interesting findings of fact included in the ruling so I suggest you download it if you want to read up on a few more of them. I'm going to stretch this out into two posts so look for a broader discussion of the topic sometime soon!