#wait fuck five specific members of the US Supreme Court

[caffiend-queen]

Meanwhile, on The Onion, my favorite news source...

Yeah, this site is ostensibly complete satire but I think you will agree it reports the events of the last 48 hours with lurid accuracy. Take a look.

This is the most outrageous yet most likely accurate “article...”

WASHINGTON—In a touching moment following Friday’s Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision overruling Roe v. Wade and eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas reportedly championed the better future they’d created for the next generation of rapists. “We did it, my friend—we’ve been waiting decades for this moment,” a visibly teary-eyed Kavanaugh was overheard saying to Thomas as the two congratulated each other on their work to make the world a better and safer place for perpetrators of sexual assault. “Today, we celebrate those who will come after us, who will be able to rape to their heart’s content. No one will be able to stop them. Whether it’s spousal sexual assault, statutory rape, or simply gang-raping a stranger, future generations will have the full backing of the law. Of course, we know that the rapists who come after us may not know their history, and so may not be aware of the decades we spent in the trenches fighting for their rights, but we’ll rest easy knowing we did all we could. Ultimately, what we’ve accomplished today is a crucial step toward enshrining universal rights for rapists, as well as bringing more babies into the world to be raped, but remember that our work isn’t done. I know we’ll spend the rest of our careers fighting for those who want to sexually violate other people.” At press time, Kavanaugh and Thomas were joined by a similarly ecstatic Justice Samuel Alito, who was said to have told them his only regret in the ruling was that they couldn’t do more to punish rape victims.

God bless The Onion. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t completely accurate.

[thaliademaccuswell]

On Paths, And What They Are Not -

I think, looking back on it, I was done a disservice early on in my SCA life. A person explicitly asked what value I would add to his household before granting me admittance. It was ten years ago, and even though I had been playing for two or three years I struggled to find an answer to his question.

This struggle still plagues me.

I knit, but not always useful/period things. I sing and play recorder, but not often, and never in a household setting such as around a campfire. I'm helpful, but only with preventing dehydration/sunburn, or when prompted for something else. I take pictures sometimes, but that's not precisely a necessity.

I don't babysit, I don't cook, I don't haul heavy things, I don't run events or make awesome spreadsheets, I don't have an interest in baronial or Kingdom offices. I don't even party all that well, preferring to go to bed not too terribly long after the summer sunset hour.

The aforementioned person granted me admission to his household anyway, but clearly with reluctance, and I know now it was not without other controversies as well. I was overjoyed to be part of it, however, and the years since have largely been spent enjoying it immensely. My household have been immeasurable sources of comfort and friendship, and I consider many of them to be found family, stuck with me for life.

They have pushed me, as well, in that way good friends can and should. Because of them, four or five years ago I branched out in the SCA in two specific ways: I started doing some music, and I started doing some retinue. My full & honest intent was to do a lot of the latter and a little of the former, because that seemed the logical fit. I got myself Apprenticed to a legit vocal performance Laurel, I sorted through my sheet music, I set up a blog, I opened up my Grout.

However, truth is found in actions, sometimes regardless of intent.

---

(SCENE: behind the thrones during a tournament in fall of 2017; not much to do, retinue-wise.)

Me: I'm glad I brought my knitting, shoot.

Her: Yeah, it's hard for Service people like you and me to sit still, isn't it?

Me: (blinks) Wanna hear the funny part? I'm actually not at all on a Service path. I'm an Apprentice.

Her: (in genuine surprise) Really?

Him: Well, your Laurel's going to be awfully surprised when you're made a Pelican.

---

Retinue fits me very well, for several practical & boring reasons: I get a surprising amount of stolen knitting moments, I have explicit direction most of the time, there is a fun social aspect but no obligations once I'm off the clock, there's lots of travel and meeting people outside my bubble, and I get to take some truly gorgeous pictures.

Specifically, court coordinating is an unexpected match I was gently shoved into by some keen-eyed friends. It's a combination, execution- and atmosphere-wise, of theater and church liturgy, which are my two natural habitats, so I suppose it makes sense. But I have still been surprised by my continued interest and enjoyment of it.

On another surprising note, I also had a brief and startling moment of clarity a year or so ago: If I had had access to a ladies-only or ladies-dominant fighter practice, I would have been fighting since about day 2. But the frat culture is so far outside my personality I hadn't given it anything beyond a fleeting 'wouldn't that be hilarious' thought. (I love frat boys, understand. I am just very much not one of them.) Then on a fangirl-ish whim I joined the 'SCA Women & Gender Minority Fighters' group on Facebook, and a whole other side of it was shown to me. I displayed cautious interest with a select few male fighters I trusted, took my first swings, acquired a sword and shield through an incredibly thoughtful household member, and then I've done nothing more than looking at it as I rushed to and from retinue thing after retinue thing.

And music hasn't left my life completely, but it is much the same story. Just before the beginning of the flurry of baronial & royal retinue that has been my past four years, I found a small group of people I love doing music with. Although really I should that say they found me - My first of my very few solo forays into SCA vocal performance landed them in the audience, and they metaphorically licked me (as in, 'I licked it, it's mine') directly afterwards. Despite priorities lying elsewhere, we've gotten together on and off for a couple years. It's supremely low-pressure (we've 'performed' exactly once, lol) but at a delightfully high level that leaves us all eager to do more but struggling to fit it into reality.

And that, as they say, is the rub.

---

Since the Saturday afternoon of Twelfth Night 2018, I have been, for the first time in around four years, free of retinue obligations. I had been dreaming of it for months, fantasizing about being able to get back to my Grout and my tenor recorder and my Sion bags.

Instead, I have done, to be honest, fuck all.

There have been real life circumstances, of course, as there always are. I have an intense job and an intense long-distance relationship. I have ADHD plus a nice cocktail of depression, anxiety, fatigue, & compulsive over-eating. I am in a lot of financial debt.

There have been other circumstances, as well. My household has structurally disintegrated down to a few bare threads of weft and warp. I have been privvy to the backlash of being so involved with royalty, as it can seem like a brown-nosing power-grab. The Laurel to whom I Apprenticed has not been able to be active as either of us had hoped.

But I know, had I wanted to, I could overcome these things.

---

This past weekend was the Arts & Sciences Championship competition of my Kingdom, An Tir. It was the first year where it wasn't also the Bardic Championship (though the winning entries were Bardic in nature), and the first year where it was also the Rapier Championship. It also had the odd distinction of involving five times more non-A&S peerage offers than A&S peerage offers (1 Laurel, 2 MOD, 3 Pelican). Basically, it was a really great panoply of everything the SCA has that's not heavy fighting & Crown tournaments, and at the highest levels of each discipline, culminating in a court where wonderful people were celebrated for getting to their very best.

Which is about when I realized I am laughably far from reaching that point, despite good intentions, interest, and a genuine, joyful love of the game and the Dream.

---

I was quiet at our last-stop lunch on Sunday before heading back home, and my person (a squire named Velinn) pestered me. 'I'm thinking... I shouldn't be an Apprentice anymore,' I finally explained.

We always say, when it comes down to the hard questions, that yes we care a lot about the SCA but it's a hobby, and should be (at least mostly) fun. I have been pretty good at maintaining my fun, and the fact that it's manifested merely as occasional music and one particular brand of service is very telling.

I just don't know what it's telling me.

'Well,' he replied, 'is Peerage still your goal?'

I couldn't lie. I shook my head.

'Then what is?'

---

Here's what it comes down to: The Journey, for me, seems to be accepting that I don't really have a path, unlike everyone around me. The SCA, at the level and way I play, involves shiny people with stunning dedication to Doing Things with their incredible amounts of skill and talent. But that is not me.

I'm a lady with a lot of fun projects I ache to finish and things I really want to learn to do. I'm a lady who will help you with your knitting any time any where. I'm a lady who wants to have more 'Drink Wine & Pretend to Sing' nights with my fabulous small ensemble. I'm a lady who wants to learn how to hit people. I'm a lady you can come to if you need a court helper or a lady-in-waiting. I'm a lady who loves hearing how excited you are about your latest project, for real. I'm a lady with a piercing laugh and a lot of sass and hugs.

That is not a path, but it has value anyway. My value. And that needs to be enough.

[avanneman]

Textualism refuted! Or Clarence Thomas lays an egg

A few posts back, I groused (loudly) over Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion in FTB v. Hyatt, overturning a previous Supreme Court decision, Nevada v. Hall regarding the immunity of states from suit in other states’ courts. In rejecting Hall, the Court found that the Constitution not only grants states an inherent immunity to suits in their own courts (as “sovereigns”), and, per the 11th amendment, suits brought in federal court, but also a similar immunity from suits in courts of other states.1 My objection, which largely echoed that of many others, was that avowed “textualist” Justice Thomas could not find specific language to justify his conclusion, finding it somehow silently “embedded” though unspoken, a trick he roundly criticized when practiced by “liberals”.

In keeping with standard textualist practice, Thomas extensively quotes from his beloved “Founders”, as he calls them (with commendable correctness), whose entire intellectual and moral universe must be grasped in order to interpret correctly the Constitution they produced. The issue of “state sovereignty” was indeed discussed at length in the runup to the actual enactment of the Constitution and, as one might guess, the good Justice fairly wallows in antiquarian delight at the banquet of riches before him—quoting from (of course) the Federalist Papers, as well as debates from the Constitutional Convention itself, and even various state documents dating from the days of the “Articles of Confederation” (the post-revolutionary, pre-Constitutional agreement that briefly governed the relationships of the 13 newly independent states)—anything and everything erudite and obscure that he and his clerks can lay their learned hands on—except, of course, for texts that contradict his position, texts that he could have found—and you can find—by consulting Nevada v. Hall, specifically footnote 17 of Justice Stevens’ majority opinion.

What an “embarrassment” (my word), then, in the first major decision of the brand new Supreme Court, Georgia v. Chisolm,2 the Court inexplicably decided, by a 4-1 margin, that the brand new Constitution substantially overwrote the sovereign immunities of the 13 states, to the extent that a citizen of one state could use the brand new federal court system to do what could not be done before—sue a state.

For poor Justice Thomas, this is a terrible embarrassment for his carefully constructed—and clearly erroneous—argument as to the near sacred importance of the doctrine of state sovereignty in the minds of the Founders. The Court “blundered”, he “explained”. Excusez-moi, but how, precisely, does a court “blunder”? “Yeah, we thought we were going north but actually we were going south so when we turned left we were turning east instead of west, so we ended up on the docks. Stoopid!”

Is that how it went down? I don’t think so. Consider, this 4-1 decision, the first major Supreme Court decision in our history, was decided by, the Founders! All five members, after all, were appointed by George Fucking Washington, the mother of all founding fathers. The Chief Justice, who voted with the majority, was John Jay, who served as president of the Second Continental Congress in the latter days of the American Revolution and was also one of the three authors of—wait for it—the Federalist Papers! Also voting with the majority was Virginian John Blair, active in Revolutionary politics in his state, helping to write both his state’s constitution and the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which influenced both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Bill of Rights. Next up was James Wilson, who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which he also helped write. Finally, there was William Cushing, who served as Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court during and after the Revolution.3

These are the men who, Justice Thomas says, “blundered”. But how could they? The whole point of the textualists’ approach is to laboriously reconstruct the Founders’ understanding of the Constitution. If Thomas’ understanding of the meaning of the Constitution conflicts with that of the Founders themselves, who is in error? Who could it be other than Thomas? Who is Clarence Thomas to tell John Jay that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? It is as if an artist should paint a portrait based, not on the living subject but rather on sketches and descriptions provided by others, and then, when confronted by the man himself in the flesh, should exclaim “No, you don’t look like yourself at all!”

In fact, Thomas’ reconstruction of the Founders’ thought is a mere “construct”—something he has manufactured out of his own will and desires, both unconsciously and consciously cherry-picking history to obtain the outcome he wants—this case an instance of the frequent textualist interest in glorifying state “sovereignty” at the expense of federal review.

Afterwords So many afterwords! First of all, if Thomas took the Constitution seriously, he’d realize that the Supreme Court, when interpreting the Constitution, can’t “blunder”, because the Constitution assigns that duty to the Court itself. The Constitution says what the Court says it says. Of course, Justice Thomas only believes that when he does the talking, only he sees the “true Constitution”, a looming presence in the skies that is truly there though visible to his eyes alone.4

Thomas defends the majority’s decision to reject stare decisis (that is to say, following precedent, in this case the precedent set by Nevada v. Hall) on the grounds of, stare decisis! “With the historical record and precedent against him, [says Thomas] Hyatt defends Hall on the basis of stare decisis. But stare decisis is “ ‘not an inexorable command,’ ” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 233 (2009), and we have held that it is “at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution because our interpretation can be altered only by constitutional amendment,” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 235 (1997).”

Of course, if one follows logic “inexorably”, neither Callahan nor Felton are “inexorable commands” either. I also don’t understand why the Hyatt folks don’t have “precedent” on their side, since Nevada was precedent. The whole paragraph has the flavor of the “Cretan Liar” paradox cited by St. Paul: “A man told me ‘All Cretans are liars’, and I know he spoke the truth, because he was a Cretan!” Justice Thomas seems on a verge of inventing his own judicial version of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which would prove that the law contains truths that cannot be proven and that the law cannot prove itself to be consistent. He would have been better off, I think, if he had merely pointed to the fact that the Court has often overruled itself.

Perhaps even more interesting are the two cases that Thomas cites as precedent for disregarding precedent, Callahan and Felton, which are, surprise, surprise, cases decided by majorities of which he was a member. Particularly interesting is the quotation arguing that the doctrine of stare decisis is “at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution because our interpretation can be altered only by constitutional amendment,” which appears in Justice Sarah O’Connor’s majority opinion in Felton, “explaining” why the Court was overturning precedent in order to allow the use of public funds for religious instruction. If you track down O’Connor’s language in Felton, you’ll find that she justifies that argument by citing a number of cases, all decided by, amazingly enough, the Rehnquist Court, in which she joined, and buttressing it with a quotation from a much earlier case, decided in 1936, St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States: "The doctrine of stare decisis ... has only a limited application in the field of constitutional law", taken from a concurring opinion signed by Justices Stone and Cardozo, without mentioning that they were concurring, not with the majority opinion but the result, preferring separate reasoning provided by Justice Brandeis in his concurring opinion and pointing to an earlier dissenting opinion by Brandeis providing additional arguments for deemphasizing stare decisis with regard to Constitutional issues, in Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co.

In that dissent, which of course was not controlling, Brandeis argued that “Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. This is commonly true even where the error is a matter of serious concern, provided correction can be had by legislation. But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this court has often overruled its earlier decisions. The court bows to the lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning, recognizing that the process of trial and error, so fruitful in the physical sciences, is appropriate also in the judicial function.” [citations and footnotes omitted]

Of course, Brandeis believed explicitly in “progress”, and believed the Court should overrule itself on constitutional issues whenever “the lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning” clearly indicate that a change should be made. In advocating this position, Brandeis takes “judicial notice” (and implicit judicial notice at that) of the “fact” that the Constitution is “practically impossible” to amend and thus the Court has a positive duty to alter its interpretation of the Constitution according to the “lessons of experience”.5 This is the exact opposite of Thomist textualism, which insists that we are bound hand and foot to a supposedly unchallengeable and flawless past—or at least his reconstruction of it—a theory which resolutely ignores the fact that the “Founders”, like anyone else, invariably used imprecise language, often spoke casually, often spoke to persuade, and, in the actual writing of the Constitution, used deliberately imprecise (“compromise”) language to paper over differences and included contradictory passages and provisions, confident that everything would work out because they would be in charge, and furthermore were the prisoners of their times, refusing to admit as rational creatures women, “savages”, and slaves, among others.

While we’re on the topic of slavery, we might end with a quotation on the subject of constitutional interpretation given by William Cushing when he was chief justice of Massachusetts, pronouncing on the legality of slavery under the new, revolutionary constitution of that state. After acknowledging that slavery had been recognized as legal by the British statute and common law of the past, Cushing remarked as follows:

But whatever sentiments have formerly prevailed in this particular or slid in upon us by the example of others, a different idea has taken place with the people of America, more favorable to the natural rights of mankind, and to that natural, innate desire of Liberty, with which Heaven (without regard to color, complexion, or shape of noses/features) has inspired all the human race. And upon this ground our Constitution of Government, by which the people of this Commonwealth have solemnly bound themselves, sets out with declaring that all men are born free and equal – and that every subject is entitled to liberty, and to have it guarded by the laws, as well as life and property – and in short is totally repugnant to the idea of being born slaves. This being the case, I think the idea of slavery is inconsistent with our own conduct and Constitution; and there can be no such thing as perpetual servitude of a rational creature, unless his liberty is forfeited by some criminal conduct or given up by personal consent or contract,

Yes, I could do without that last “unless”, but there is no reason for us to be bound by whatever is “slid in upon us by the example of others”, including the “Founders”, without the permission and assent of our reason.

States have the power, of course, to limit their immunity if they wish. ↩︎

Full text of Georgia v. Chisolm is here. Early decisions of the Court lacked the explanatory paraphernalia of today. In addition, there is no majority decision. Instead, each justice wrote his own. The actual text begins with the one “dissenting” opinion—i.e., the one holding that states could not be sued in federal court, written by Justice James Iredell. Wikipedia’s discussion of the case is here. ↩︎

In fairness, it must be said that the original 13 states felt that the Court had “blundered”. They were so infuriated that they rallied together with their representatives in Congress to protect themselves from such indignities via the 11th Amendment, which states that “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” Whether they are protected from the “Judicial power” of another state is another question. In any event, the 11th Amendment did not “correct” the Court, but rather changed the Constitution. ↩︎

Has a single justice, for a single term of the Court, ever agreed with Thomas’ reasoning in every case? If not, why not? The “looming presence” language refers to a gibe by Oliver Wendell Holmes, not the textualists’ favorite, who was criticizing metaphysical theories of law based on German “Idealistic” philosophy based largely on Kant and Hegel. ↩︎

O'Connor "explains" that stare decisis must give way to the "development of constitutional law", said development seen to occur with particular rapidity after O'Connor joined the Court. ↩︎

[treehugginglibrarian]

Love in the Land of Political Pawns

In a couple of days, I am getting married. While this word may conjure an image of white dresses, tuxedos, photographers, and fancy food, that's not what my marriage will look like. My marriage won't involve a wedding. It will barely involve a ceremony. It will involve a couple of close friends and the signing of some paperwork, overseen by a justice of the peace who happens to be married to a woman I work with. The rings we're exchanging are made of silicone, because it's practical (we're both pretty active people) and because they're cheap. We can't afford a real wedding right now. We can barely afford what it's going to cost us to attend someone else's wedding in a couple months! Thankfully, neither of us come from large families and neither of us have a lot of friends, which means the number of people who will be disappointed not to have participated in our "big day" will be relatively small.  

By now you are, undoubtedly, either amused, confused, or both. Are we having a small wedding because we can't afford a large one? Or are we having a small wedding because it's what we want, and it's pure dumb luck that it fits in our budget? The answer lies somewhere in between these two, and simultaneously outside of them both completely. We're having a small wedding because we're queer and we will shortly live in Donald Trump's America, where being so is going to come far closer to being a crime than it has been in at least the last 15 years. 

Before anyone gets their panties in a damn twist, I know how the Supreme Court works. I am very much aware that we are completely unlikely to find ourselves in a situation wherein the Supreme Court verdict of June 26, 2015 will be overturned. For that to happen, someone would have to bring another case to the court that managed to show, conclusively, that queers getting married was somehow a violation of their Constitutional rights. Even hate-cakery owners and bigoted photogs can't prove that, the best they may be able to prove is that forced participation in our big days is a violation of their rights. Our being married, however, violates absolutely no one's rights. It never has. We could, absolutely, wait another five years to do this, until we could afford the big wedding with the fancy rings and the pretty white gown, and it would still be legal. 

But a lot of other things might not be. 

From basic decency to basic rights, a fair amount stands to fly out the window on January 20th of this year. I'm lucky in that I live in a relatively isolated bubble. Cleveland, at least my neck of those woods, is either completely oblivious to the existence of gay people in its city limits, or simply doesn't care that we're here. I'm thinking it's the latter. I work someplace where my coworkers are accepting and affirming and the organization's director is, though mildly homophobic, not enough of a bigot to risk firing me over my personal life (as 'not ideal' as that description sounds, I'm actually very lucky compared to a lot of queer individuals. Sad, given that we're supposed to be the modern, progressive, world). I have made a wise choice in my gym selection, and have coaches who don't care that we're queer and heavy-object-lifting partners-in-crime who are equally ambivalent, or smart enough to keep their mouths closed about their disgust. We're not the only queer people at the gym, so I'm thinking it's the former, actually. 

The world outside of my bubble is not so rosy, however. Transgender individuals are still dying at ridiculous and tragic rates, with murder being the primary cause. A fact that is unlikely to change, at all, under a Trump Presidency. Queer teens are still the largest contingent of homeless youth in the country. A fact that is, again, unlikely to change under a Trump Presidency. Homelessness rates, suicide rates, depression rates, and joblessness rates are all higher among queer adults, and none of this is liable to change under a Trump Presidency. In fact, much of it stands to get much worse. 

Trump's election vindicates a fair number of people's feelings about the "social justice" concept and the direction this country is going morally. For many of his supporters, the fact that I want to spend my life with a woman is not a personal choice that I'm making, it's a public choice that they're being forced to bear witness to. My love life, though not something they'll ever see personally, is an affront to their religiously backed morals and, as such, should be outlawed or something akin to such. While a demand for political correctness may have kept some of them quiet in the past (hint: no. It didn't. It really didn't), even more of them are wildly willing to let us know precisely how they feel about us now. Thankfully, my encounters with these people are relatively few and far between. I figure, as long as I avoid basically all of rural America for the rest of my life I should be safe. Sucks to be you, farm towns, lesbians are taking their tourism dollars elsewhere! And here conservative talk show hosts had you worried Obama was paying us to move there and take over. Fucking idiots... 

For those who are confused as to why we're getting married earlier because of assholes who may call us names, fret not, it's not just uneducated, illiterate, rural white trash we're worried about (aw shucks, that wasn't very politically correct of me, now was it. Lucky for me, the new President says being PC is killing the country. I'd hate to be unpatriotic. Just gotta call it like I see it, right?). Our actual concern stems from a lovely law in proposition called the First Amendment Defense Act. If you're of the social justice ilk, you've probably heard of it in passing, at the very least. If you're hanging out on the liberal boards on Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit, you haven't heard a damn thing about it yet because social media is too busy freaking out about the fact that people-of-color still exist, and that they still get treated like shit, to notice that the largest piece of impending doomsday legislation on the docket has nothing to do with people-of-color. Unbelievable, I know. Our government actually wants to hate people for reasons not related to their race. I wasn't aware that this ever happened *eye roll so large my eyes are on the floor behind me right now.*

If FADA was yet another broadly worded bill attempting to give religious bigots the right to discriminate by simply making religion even more protected than it already is, I might not care so much. In fact, we could probably have fun with that shit. "What's that, you hate gay people? I'm sorry, my religion precludes from assisting hateful assholes in their quest for information. You'll have to find a new library now." (Note if my boss is reading this: I would NEVER do that. I might walk away and let a cooler head deal with them, though). FADA is not even remotely vaguely worded, however. FADA is specifically worded to allow businesses and individuals to discriminate on the basis of their beliefs regarding marriage. If they believe marriage is a religious union between a man and a woman, they are no longer required to treat queer people with the same dignity and respect they are required to treat straight people. 

I don't care about the hate-cakeries that don't want to make rainbow-themed wedding cakes. I have friends who are bakers, some professionally, I can give my business to them. I don't care about the photographers who think my love is icky and don't want to have to stare at it all day. I already have a photographer and she loves me dearly and thinks my soon-to-be-wife and I are wonderful. I don't care about the florists, or the designers, or the wedding hall owners, or any of it. This isn't about the fucking wedding. This is about life as a queer person in an America that thinks we are, legally, supposed to be second class citizens. This is about landlords and doctors and dentists and hospitals and business owners and bosses and all the people who have the ability to make your life impossible, now having the ability to do just that simply because they disagree with the way you are living your life. 

This is about car accidents in which you are transported to the nearest hospital, and the nearest hospital happens to be Catholic, which means we now aren't granted access to one another because the hospital isn't required to abide by our wedding certificate. They don't agree with it. This about a young couple in a big city trying to find an apartment, and the only one they like that is truly affordable they can't have, because the landlord doesn't like that they're gay. This is about a couple in their thirties attempting to adopt, and being told that it's not authorized not because the state won't let them, but because that particular agency won't let them. This is about any long time service provider (dentist, optometrist, even your hair dresser) recoiling in disgust and telling you that they can't have you as a patron anymore after you've told them about your recent nuptials. This is about the fact that their religious views will now be given more weight in a court of law than a queer person's right to affordable housing, right to medical treatment, right to work, or even their right to have their spouse by their side in a time of distress.

This is what it's like to be queer in America. We don't get to get married the same way straight people do, because no matter how political or apolitical we are, our love is completely political. Even when there are big weddings, there will be empty seats because of the family members who just "don't agree." There will be people who RSVP with "terribly sorry, this goes against my faith." There will be people who you don't bother inviting because you know what they'll say while they're there, and you don't want that toxicity present. My mother and I were talking the other day about her ability to be friends with some of the people she used to work with, despite their intense conservatism, simply by not talking about... anything. I can't do that. The type of dislike that accompanies homophobia and the notion that queer people aren't entitled to the same type of lifestyle as straight people isn't something I'll force myself to abide by just to "get along." The legal sphere has already made my love completely political. I refuse to let it be treated with such gloves by those in my personal life, as well. 

My fiancee and I want to get married. We're very excited about the signing of our marriage contract and the prospect of being "stuck with each other" for the rest of our lives. But, no, this is not how we wanted to do this. We wanted a long engagement followed by a wedding/ceremony/party of our choice that was planned how we wanted. Instead we got handed a shit show of a political situation that may well make it so that even making our relationship completely legal doesn't provide us the same level of protection that it would a straight couple. We have to try, though. 

Unfortunately, in America, trying means accepting that our love is not just "love," it is an act of political defiance. To that end, we will defy the haters, the homophobes, and the nay sayers, and we will do EVERYTHING in our power to make sure we are safe from whatever the next administration brings our way. In the eyes of the Supreme Court we will be just as legal as any straight couple in this country. If we can make it just a little bit harder for them to discriminate against us, the expedited time line will be well worth it.

At the very least, it guarantees that when they start rounding up the gays, labeling them with purple triangles, and tossing them into "work camps," neither of us will get left behind!

Also, tax breaks.