Or, if you prefer, the good and the bad. Because as one who loves the American system of government and respects the court, while at the same time decrying what ideological partisans are doing to the political branches (and trying their best to do to the judiciary as well), I’m all like “Yay, Supreme Court” and “Boo, ideology.”
But you knew that. Or at least you knew about me and ideology.
The burning question is, to what extent have the ideologues succeeded in their quest to make the Supreme Court as messed up and ineffective as, say, the Congress?
Others just take it for granted that the Court now consists of partisan hacks on both ends of the spectrum, with one or two swing votes. I see the things they’re seeing, but in the end I don’t reach that conclusion.
Anyway, Doug Ross started a conversation over on Facebook about the court, and with his permission I’m dragging it over here in keeping with my firm belief that all interesting conversations should take place on the blog.
Doug started the ball rolling this way:
We assume judges are going to be impartial when deciding on cases before them yet our highest court consists of at least seven of nine judges who can pretty much be guaranteed to vote a certain way on a case. If a Republican had been in office when Sotomeyer or Kagan were appointed, is there any doubt that recent cases would have had different outcomes?
I responded that there’s SOME doubt — look, for instance, at the critical moments when Roberts has helped out Obama, who voted against his confirmation — and in that doubt lies the hope for our country…
I just don’t assume anything with these people. For instance, I had been thinking that I very often agree with Roberts — and then he voted the other way on the Arizona reapportionment case that I wrote about earlier. That said, when I saw what Roberts and the other dissenters said in that case, I respected their reasoning. It doesn’t matter that I liked the outcome from the majority’s ruling — it’s not about outcomes. As I’ve said before, it should not BE about outcomes, if we respect the rule of law…
Doug said,
I put Roberts and Kennedy into the wild card group. The other seven march in lockstep with their partisan base. There’s an affirmative action case coming up. You want to lay bets on it being 5-4 or 6-3? It would seem like with “the law” that we should see more 9-0, 8-1 decisions if they only dealt with facts and precedents. We just shouldn’t pretend that the judges are impartial. They are biased.
And I responded that I don’t write justices off as “liberals” or “conservatives,” because I respect them. Yes, a certain justice may more often render judgments that the world regards as “liberal” or “conservative,” but it’s not like they’re stacking the deck. Their reasoning just happens to lead them that way, and I respect that. They don’t just come in and say, “I’m going to issue a liberal opinion on this, no matter what the facts or the law.” They work it out honestly, and that just tends to be where they end up. I don’t see any of them as hacks. I leave those insults to the partisans and ideologues, who tend to insult and dismiss justices who tend not to support their prejudices…
Back to Doug:
Pick a case, any case, that is contentious and show me where Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor disagreed or Scalia and Thomas disagreed. Take the gay marriage case… was there ANY doubt how those five would vote? Not for a second. They “work it out” according to a pre-disposed bias.
And Doug, being Doug, resorts to numbers and charts:
This chart basically shows exactly what I stated…there was a time when the views of the court were balanced across the liberal/conservative spectrum but now we basically have three groups of justices, each on the same track
Well, I can’t refute that because I don’t have a year or two to go back and study every case this court has decided and then assign quantifiable values to each judge’s position (an act from which my conscience would recoil) and come up with a chart of my own.
Because for me, it’s not about these three decisions versus those five decisions or anything like that. Here’s how I arrive at my more optimistic view of the court: I see that the court has taken this or that position on an issue before it. I think, “How on Earth could they have come to a boneheaded conclusion like that?” And then I read the arguments. And while I still might disagree, I respect the reasoning. I respect the effort to arrive at an intellectually honest conclusion. (I did this with the dissent in the Arizona case. And in fact, I sort of think the dissent may have the stronger argument, even though I liked the outcome.)
Not every time. But often enough that I still respect the justices, and the job they do. There could come a day, and I hope it doesn’t, when I write off the Court as too far gone. I’m happy to say I’m not there yet.
Related Posts
Only recent decision I’ve actually read is King, and it’s an absolute hash.
One of the biggest problems in Roberts’ opinion in King is that it’s just a massive power grab. The entire case was supposed to be about Chevron deference, and what happens when Congress passes poorly written laws. Suffice it to say, that Chevron deference is well-settled law that allows an administrative agency to interpret a poorly written law that’s open to interpretation in a way that is “reasonable”.
Congress passes a law, and the executive agency gets to administer it in a reasonable way, subject to review of that reasonableness by the judiciary. See, it all balances and it works, and it’s logical.
But Roberts just totally threw out the ordinary rules because it’s a question of serious “economic and political significance”. Seriously, that’s essentially his entire reasoning for chucking Chevron deference out the window — which is ludicrous.
Instead of applying standard Chevron deference, he basically just says “We’ll decide this ambiguity on our own.” and boy did they.
So now, SCOTUS has basically said the Chevron deference doesn’t apply, which means that the IRS couldn’t rescind the regulation even if it wanted to. That means President Caskey in 2017 can’t just tell the IRS to interpret the ACA the other way, which I could have been able to do if SCOTUS had applied Chevron deference in any form or fashion.
In saying that Chevron doesn’t apply, SCOTUS has taken that power of interpreting poorly written laws from the executive agency tasked with implementing them. — which is a huge power grab by SCOTUS from the Executive Branch and contrary to decades of precedent.
Studying Chevron deference is a big part of Con Law in law school. Maybe it won’t be so important in the future.
I haven’t had time to read the gay-marriage decision, but apparently, the right to gay marry was created in 1868, and we just figured that out in 2015. Oh well…
It’s weird that it took us so long to notice.
Hey, I’m not saying they’re all gems, but mostly I see good legal minds at work — sincerely at work.
What I don’t see enough of these days, I’ll admit, is justices saying, “Yeah, that would be nice, but it’s not the law.” I think maybe that was what Roberts was trying to say in his dissent to the same-sex ruling, but I haven’t read it all — just seen excerpts…
If I understand the Chevron procedure, it’s (1) “Is this ambiguous? and if so, then (2) “Is the agency interpretation reasonable?”
I think Scalia’s dissent makes a pretty good argument that the case should have stopped at step 1, with an answer of, “no, it’s not”.
But just stipulating for the moment that the language is ambiguous, I think there was something to Roberts’ argument that under “normal” Chevron, this particular piece of “ambiguous” text would imply a hugely significant delegation of legislative power to the IRS. So, rather than “a huge power grab by SCOTUS from the Executive Branch”, I think of it as “a huge power grab by SCOTUS from the Legislative Branch”. It was sort of like chasing down a guy who stole your friend’s wallet, and then keeping the wallet for yourself as your reward, without consulting your friend.
Bryan I’m sure that you’re very well versed on Chevron deference but for the rest of we can simply apply a tad of common sense to the ACA. It’s crystal clear what the authors of the bill intended. There is zero doubt, zero that the intent of the law was to provide subsidies to EVERYONE who buys health insurance through all the exchanges. Can anybody say with a straight face that that was NOT the intent.
The reasons there is zero doubt is because (1) any reading of the law in it’s entirety makes it clear what they meant. And (2) the authors testified before the SCOTUS and said what they intended. Therefore the whole ambiguity argument does not even apply. It was a fishing expedition by conservatives that should have never even come before the court. And 6 of the justices include 2 appointed by Republicans agree.
“It’s crystal clear what the authors of the bill intended. There is zero doubt, zero that the intent of the law was to provide subsidies to EVERYONE who buys health insurance through all the exchanges. Can anybody say with a straight face that that was NOT the intent.”
Yeah, but except for the part where the actual text of the law says otherwise. You know, some of the people on the blog here are “word people”. I’m in that group. Words mean things. It’s important to use the right words. We are a country ruled by laws. Laws are written down in words, so we all know what they are, because we all know what the words mean.
Here, Roberts has said that Yeah, yeah, those idiots in Congress didn’t really mean what it says when they wrote that part, so I’m just going to totally ignore what they wrote.
That’s not calling balls and strikes. That’s saying: Yeah, yeah. I know you got hit with the pitch, but look, we all know the pitcher really didn’t mean to hit you in the arm with that curveball, so I’m not awarding you first base. In fact, I’m actually gonna call that a strike. Roberts really opened the door for states to get the hell out of the whole business of running the exchanges. Why would they, at this point? Make the feds do it.
“(1) any reading of the law in it’s entirety makes it clear what they meant.”
Please direct me to the portion of the PPACA that makes it clear that the provision “established by the States” means “established by the Federal government” I’ll wait.
“(2) the authors testified before the SCOTUS and said what they intended.”
They did? First, I’m not aware that SCOTUS took any testimony in this matter. (I think you mean they filed a brief.) Also, is that what we do now? Congress passes a law that says one thing in actual words that mean things then Congress realizes that their words have an unintended consequence, so they just mail SCOTUS a letter and tell it to ignore the words in the actual text of the law? Is this what you are arguing for? ‘Cause all sorts of laws have unintended consequences. We could do away with the whole idea of amending laws. Just have SCOTUS rule that the words are irrelevant, and that Congress didn’t intend for this consequence to result, they only had the best intentions when they passed the law — problem solved.
Look, I know you’re happy with the outcome. That’s cool. I understand. That’s totally fine. Just don’t try to argue that the reasoning behind the decision is sound. As my Uncle would say, the reasoning…it’s a soup-sandwich.
Bryan we just simply do not agree on this and that’s fine. But to show I’m not a complete partisan blowhard there is another SCOTUS decision that went my way (sort of) but seems to go against the wording of the law. That’s the Arizona congressional re-districting decision. It seems clear that congress alone should do the re-districting and not some arbitrarily selected panel. I would like to see a constitutional amendment on that one.
And finally, the very worst case of all, the Oklahoma capital punishment drug decision. Let’s just get rid of the 8th amendment altogether. Why bother? Since words mean something let’s take a look at the text:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The bail/fines part of this is certainly open to interpretation. But if what they’re doing in OK and other places is not cruel AND unusual I don’t know what is. Again, I’d like to see a constitutional amendment abolishing the death penalty. But if we’re going to have it at least make it somewhat merciful and somewhat common. Can’t we do what we do to animals when they need to be euthanized? And aren’t there drugs in places like Oregon that people use in assisted suicides?
Okay, so Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan are liberals appointed by Dems. Scalia and Thomas and Alito are conservatives appointed by Republicans. Kennedy is the real wild card, then Roberts.
As Lindsey Graham says, “Elections have consequences.”
The Supreme Court has and will always be biased.They’re humans.You’re angry cause the faggots won.It wasn’t that long ago when you wrote the dumb op ed supporting the ban on gay marriage in SC,and Warren Bolton’s ridiculously bigoted columns should have gotten him fired.Get over it and join the 21st century,like NYPD
Wow, dude–that’s awfully nasty. Tone it down–we try to be civil here. I have supported same sex marriage from day one–my best friend growing up is gay, but you don’t have to be nasty. We won! Yay!
Not nasty,just honest,and I was holding back.Brad has continually veiled his bigotry and hatred in ‘civility’. That makes it more deplorable.Excuse me for saying what I think.You and Brad can have your blog back.
I rest my case, your honor.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/24/upshot/24up-scotus-agreement-rates.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
Aha! YOU may rest your case, but I call your last witness to the stand.
First, that chart shows NO 100 percent agreements — showing that these ideological tendencies are not absolute. Justices merely have a very strong tendency to vote with certain other justices.
This is even more telling. NO justice disagreed with ANY other justice a majority of the time. For instance, take Clarence Thomas, regarded as the most conservative justice. The justice he agreed with the LEAST was Ginsburg, and he agreed with her 66 percent of the time!
So basically, despite all of this talk about these highly ideological left and right wings of the court, the two justices who are MOST ideologically separated only disagreed 34 percent of the time! And that was the greatest percentage of disagreement between any two justices on the court!
In other words, there is very, VERY broad agreement among the judges as to what the law says, and they rule according to that understanding of the law, so the agree MOST of the time.
If I had guessed at the percentages, even I would have put them farther away from each other than that. So in other words, I was more right than even I thought I was…
In fact, those numbers support my conclusion so strongly that I’m suspicious of them. Surely there is more disagreement than THAT…
How can you say that when two sets of three judges vote exactly the same more than 90% of the time that it supports your belief?
If you were to remove the 9-0 and 8-1 results and only counted the 5-4, 6-3, and 7-2 results the numbers would be even higher. Just because two judges voted the same on a 9-0 case doesn’t mean that they aren’t partisan, it only means the cases were uncontroversial or likely just technical interpretations.
I found a dataset showing all results going back to 1946. Want to bet that on 5-4 decisions, the two “gangs of three” voted the same 98% or more?
I can say it easily. So what if there were some who agreed 90 percent of the time. ALL of them agreed at least 66 of the time.
And so what if there lots of 9-0, 8-1 and 7-2 cases? That, too, supports my case. They ruled according to the law, and the law was that clear to the consensus. It’s not that these were easy cases, or they wouldn’t have been before this court. It’s that when the top 9 jurists in the country all applied their legal expertise to the cases, they agreed most of the time.
This proves that they are not ideological automatons, going for the “liberal” or “conservative” result regardless of the law. Proves it rather conclusively.
I’ll throw you a bone. I can think of ONE argument that, while not vindicating your conclusion, at least opens the door to it slightly: Some cases are just more ideological than others. And on the more ideological ones, the decisions are closer.
I’m sure that’s the case. But in my experience, real ideologues can pick a left-right fight over almost anything. And we’re still left with the fact that these justices don’t just agree here and there; they clearly agree MOST of the time.
I have to ask our attorneys: Would y’all have thought that the very most philosophically opposed justices on the court would agree 66 percent of the time? I certainly didn’t…
That rate of agreement is what jumped out at me, too. What it means is, if I were a gambling man, I could bet on Thomas agreeing with Ginsburg, and I would win most of the time. Do they offer lines on this in Vegas?
It’s because most cases are not that politically charged, so we aren’t paying attention. Remember your anecdote about interviewing the lawyer and him telling you that it’s mostly really boring? Yeah, same thing here.
There’s only a few cases each term (if that) that really get everyone riled up. We see the divisions in those cases, and we think that the divisions extrapolate into all the other cases.
They don’t.
Yes, what Bryan said, precisely.
Absolutely. Thank you, counselors…
Nina Totenberg did a bang-up job on this report:
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/06/420289254/liberal-minority-won-over-conservatives-in-historic-supreme-court-term
Kathryn shares with me this NPR piece, in which she says “Nina Totenberg knocked it out of the park”…
And I’ll share with you something I said to Kathryn…
I just cringe every time I see or hear justices of the Supreme Court referred to as “liberals” or “conservatives.” I realize it’s a prejudice that not everyone will share, but not everyone is as sick of this choosing-up-sides stuff as I am. It insults them, and insults the office. Makes them sound like some hack who works at Democratic or Republican headquarters, instead of what they are, which is distinguished jurists on our highest court.
Let’s see if you can get someone to agree that they respect both Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg equally. Bryan? Katherine?
All we learned this session was that Roberts swings both ways. One man had the power to end Obamacare and I’m not convinced his decision was based purely on the law.
I haven’t seen anything yet that refutes my belief that we have two gangs of three on each end and three swing votes in the middle.
Aw, Doug, you make it too hard. Nobody respects Clarence Thomas. Make it Scalia and Ginsburg–I do respect Scalia–very smart, deep thinker. Would have been great to have on the bench in, say, 1800.
Actually, I think the Obamacare decision this term was 6-3, so Roberts joining the majority only padded the win. The three dissenters here are pretty predictable based on political philosophy more than judicial philosophy.
Right. And the three liberals voted as a bloc. We really only have a three person Supreme Court.
“The three dissenters here are pretty predictable based on political philosophy more than judicial philosophy.”
I could say the same thing about the six justices in the majority. No one has yet explained to me how “established by the States” = “established by the Federal government”. Roberts just waves off the text and five other justices are okey-dokey to go along with that because their prime directive is “Do no harm to the ACA.”
I respect the office, so I respect them all.
My favorite may be Roberts, but that is SUCH a subjective impression that I have no idea whom I would respect the most if I took off a few months to read a few hundred opinions…
And I find myself enjoying something things Scalia says now and then, but I can’t recall specifics.
And saying someone would have been good to have on the court in 1800 is actually praise in my book. We had a lot of pretty deep thinkers in public office in those days. I don’t accept the notion that individuals are better or wiser because they happen to live in 2015.
Yes, because 1800 was a great time for your demo. For most of the rest of us, not so much.
Brad, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to call Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer liberals. It’s just where they fall on the political continuum. Their beliefs seem to be of a piece: we all should care for the poor and weak, and even people who aren’t white cis-hetero males deserve full rights and privileges. Scalia, Thomas and Alito believe that the world was perfect in, say, 1900 or 1950 and want to keep it that way. Roberts and Kennedy are the pragmatists who fall closer to the middle.
It’s the way the system works–as Lindsey Graham says, “Elections have consequences.”
“we all should care for the poor and weak”
Then DO it! Don’t abdicate that responsibility to the tax code. If all the liberals in the world were as generous with THEIR money as they are with everyone else’s, we wouldn’t have to bring these issues to the Supreme Court to decide.
You want single payer healthcare? Elect people who support it and not this bastardized version of free lunch combined with insurance company bureaucracy. You want more spending on social programs and less on military? Then elect people who will do that instead of a “hopey-changey” guy who talked a great game and did little different than the moron who preceded him. And STOP VOTING FOR LINDSEY F’ING GRAHAM because he is sorta kinda sometimes nice to Democrats.
Doug, you continue to puzzle me.
If a person believes in doing a certain thing, you’re all for him doing so through private institutions. But you don’t want that same person to advocate and vote for doing that same thing he believes in through public means.
But why would a citizen NOT want his government to address the same social needs that his church does? It’s a matter of being consistent. And effective. If you’re talking about big issues that can ONLY be dealt with on a national level — and which individual churches can only pick at around the edges — such as, say, providing universal health care, then of COURSE you want to pursue that goal through the federal government.
The citizen who wants to do that has just as legitimate a claim on federal priorities as you do. We all participate in the conversation, we all vote, and the decision is made. Sometimes you side wins; sometimes your side loses. But just because the decisions of what taxes to raise and how to spend them doesn’t agree with YOUR priorities doesn’t render those decisions illegitimate.
Very simple: Accountability and Performance.
When it’s someone else’s money, the accountability and efficiency are not the same as when people have a direct vested interest. Ignorance and apathy go a long way toward maintaining the current system. Add to that people at both ends of the government trough who become dependent on the money continuing to flow and you get what we’ve got – liberals trade tax dollars spent on an excessive military for tax dollars spent on providing handouts from cradle to grave. A person who contributes little to the government (either through not paying taxes or through loopholes) has the same vote as I do. Why would either end of the trough want to give up anything?
If your church did some charitable work and you neither contributed money to the cause nor participated directly in the effort, should you feel good about yourself because you think it’s a good idea? That’s how liberals respond. They hate the people who actually pay the vast majority of the taxes to get the things they want. HATE THEM. Or, at best, just call them lucky, privileged, blah blah blah. Meanwhile, it’s those lucky, privileged people who are paying the lion’s share for Obamcare, paying for Social Security, paying for Medicare, paying for food stamps, paying for public education. They should be thanking their godless Gods every day that people exist who can carry the load.
I don’t hate anybody, not even Nikki Haley any more. That’s how we liberals roll. We can see the good in everybody and have compassion and empathy for the walk they walk.
Good one! You almost had me going there.
I have never voted for Lindsey Graham.
Had to look up “cis-hetero.” Having done so, I don’t feel much wiser…
I was somewhat reassured to see that almost half of the search results for the term have to do with some variant of “What does THAT mean?”
Must be on the daily jargon list distributed by Salon, DailyKos, and MSNBC.
Brad – please report the the emasculation reeducation camp at 0700 hours tomorrow. Castration will be followed by a marathon Judy Garland retrospective and skin grafts from African American corpses.
(A.K.A. “The Michael Jackson Experience”)
It’s someone who is heterosexual, and born into the gender he or she has.
It’s a requirement that you label everyone these days. Invent a label if one doesn’t exist to help make sure we’re all aware we’re special snowflakes.
I’m a age excessive vertically privileged follically challenged flamboyantly heterosexual self-selected male Caucasian (born, not chosen) libertarian cis-genius.
It’s a way of distinguishing people who aren’t gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, queer, etc.. It’s the sexuality equivalent of dealing with the fact that the default pronoun is male in English, and when no race is specified, white is assumed.
Why do I even bother….
What percent of the US population is “cis-hetero”? Like, a lot, I think.
Yes, and your point is?
Just honestly curious, no point. I very often don’t have a point — it’s part of my charm.
Thanks for telling us, because we were wondering. 🙂
Deft deflection there, for a cis-hetero…
I’m glad you agree that the default pronoun is masculine, because it makes it a LOT easier to write.
But it’s not just English. Other languages employ this device to a greater degree.
In Spanish, one of those languages in which nouns have gender (and they don’t get to choose what gender they are, either), it’s used pretty much across the board.
For instance, Spanish lacks a gender-neutral word that translates directly from the English word “parents.” If you want to express that concept in Spanish, you say, “padres” — which would usually translate literally as “fathers.” But it’s understood that mothers are included, according to the context.
Ditto with “child.” A male child is a “niño,” a female child is a “niña.” But a mixed group of children are “niños”…
It doesn’t seem to cause any problems…
But y’all probably knew all that before, it occurs to me. Y’all are pretty cosmopolitan…
Hmmmmm. Seems like you might need to check your privilegio, Señor.
Que no haya novedad — or for you gringos, May no new thing arise.
New things being, by their nature, bad. From an Iberian cultural frame of reference…
Please explain the concept of splitting sexuality and gender? Really. Like a male who is attracted to females is heterosexual. And a woman attracted to men is heterosexual. And then a man attracted to men but who identifies as female is not gay but is instead a non cys- heterosexual?
Sorry, my mind spins. Would we not be talking about a homosexual?
Since we have rightly passed same-sex marriage, it might be time to reflect upon the danger of seeing normalcy everywhere; what is more widespread than gender disphoria is straight up mental illness. That is a seriously unaddressed aspect of this debate. At some point, we as a society need to recognize that respecting people and their choices does not mean we should automatically agree with the veracity of their outlook. Sometimes their trumpeting is a cry for help. This is all tricky ground, but mental health is truly the last frontier. It’s just so complicated… Way more than sex.
Sexuality is which sex you are attracted to. If it is a different one from yours, you are hetero. If it’s the same, homo.
If you believe you were born into the correct gender, you are cisgender. If you believe you were assigned/born into the wrong gender, you are trans.
I’m not sure how trans people prefer to describe their sexuality, but I assume that a transwoman attracted to women is lesbian, and one attracted to men is hetero.
If you think it’s tough for us cis/hetero people who don’t know any transpeople, try being a transperson or someone who loves him/her.
It’s only tough if you find it necessary to explain your sexuality and gender choice to other people. That’s not normally a conversation that is required…
Unless you are Bruce Jenner and feel the need to make some money.
Thanks, Kathryn. I really don’t get this cis thing.
Gender is gender. It is a physical thing. It is real. If someone wants/needs to rebel against the equipment they were given, then we are talking about a mental condition about how they conceive of themselves and how they wish to be perceived by others. But as spectators, we see the gender that they possess. This doesn’t make their struggles any easier or less “real” to themselves but it is very different than “simple” sexual attraction. That, too, is a mental response, but it is not one that rejects one’s own gender.
Life is messy. And people have a tendency to make it harder than it otherwise would be.
I do agree with Doug that there is a bit of a “look at me!” aspect to all of this struggling and hashing out.
Well, some people don’t have such clear cut equipment, for one thing. Also, there are chromosomal anomalies.
I think it’s not unreasonable for people to want to be known for who/what they are. We don’t marry in secret, for example. We wear rings to signify status. We choose clothing, other adornments.
I don’t relate to being transgender except inasmuch as I know *I* feel like a girl and always have. The closest I can come is that I know I always have been attracted to boys, not girls, but there are clearly women/girls who have not. I also recall the author of the book Highly Sensitive People who says that 20% are Highly Sensitive, 20% are somewhat sensitive, and the rest have no idea what you are talking about.
Why can’t we just accept people for how they choose to present themselves? Brad can wear bowties, and Caitlyn can wear a bustier…
“the author of the book Highly Sensitive People who says that 20% are Highly Sensitive, 20% are somewhat sensitive, and the rest have no idea what you are talking about.”
Ha! Widely applicable in life…
Yeah… actually… I haven’t worn a ring in about three years now. Not as a statement or strategy or anything, just procrastination.
It was feeling uncomfortably tight, and I got to where I couldn’t get it off. Then one night I was lying in bed and couldn’t get to sleep for the sensation of blood throbbing in that finger. So I held my left hand up over my head for about five minutes, and resolved that I would get it off no matter how much it hurt — and did it.
Then I put it into a drawer, and haven’t yet taken it to a jeweler, partly because I can put off any errand like that indefinitely, and partly because I dread what it might cost.
But you know the weird part about this story? I’m really not having to fight the babes off with a stick. This is hard to explain…
Doug says: “It’s only tough if you find it necessary to explain your sexuality and gender choice to other people. That’s not normally a conversation that is required.”
YES! Absolutely. Speaking of those things at such an assembly as this would be insupportable.
Well, yes it is. If you are privileged enough to be cis and hetero, you pass without comment all the time, but for people who are not, the assumption must at least sometimes be countered. We will no longer be able to assume that a spouse is opposite sex. Why should we assume that someone who presents as female was born that way? What does it cost us to be inclusive?
I’ve encountered two transgender people (that I know of) in the workplace over the past 30 years. The first was way back in the 80’s when a software engineer came into work one day wearing a dress. Up til that point, he had dressed like a typical male software engineer at that time. Jeans/t-shirt. I didn’t know him and I was just a young punk at the time so all I did was observe the situation. The hardest part to reconcile was that he had a full, dark, bushy black fu manchu moustache. Which was kind of off-putting when matched with the green sundress. I don’t recall there being much, if any, open animosity toward him. The attitude was more like “whatever, dude”.
The second time was back in the late 90’s when we added a new contractor to our team. She was entered the project as a woman and never made any reference that I know of to her gender situation despite the fact that she had obviously been born a man and was in some stage of transition. The fact that she had the same first name as my daughter was a little odd but no more so than her giant adams apple or her crushing handshake. She did her job, nobody said anything, and she left some time later.
Maybe it’s just the Youtube generation that has decided that any and all private decisions/thoughts must be put out there for everyone else to accept.
New drinking game: Every time Kathryn uses the word “privileged”, take a drink. Every time bud writes “lucky”, chug a beer.
We’d all have to be someplace where we don’t have to drive home…
I’ll say this: I HAVE been guilty of saying things that betrayed my sexual leanings at times. Things of the, “Wow, look at HER!” variety.
But I think it’s wrong to do that. I don’t hold it up as proper social behavior. I’m embarrassed and ashamed of myself. It’s a definite faux pas. Insupportable.
I think we’ve gone past the point where people with alternative gender/sexual identities wanted acceptance to where they now want validation, affirmation, and recognition.
I might be tempted to believe it all started with when they began handing out participation trophies in youth sports.
I don’t know about the trophies, but yes — in the course of a generation we went from where the liberal, ideologically correct position was tolerance, to a point at which now, the only acceptable attitude is affirmation. And whatever you think about it, that’s a huge shift.
I think the affirmation is optional, but a nice thing to do for people who have had little of it to date.
Well, that’s what marriage is.
Marriage isn’t about the relationship between the two people. It’s about the relationship between them and the rest of society. It’s about society affirming the union, placing its imprimatur upon it.
If two people, of whatever gender, are shipwrecked together on a desert isle, there’s no need for marriage. Marriage is about how the rest of society views the relationship.
And from what I’ve seen, supporting same sex marriage is NOT considered “optional.” It’s either that, or you’re a “bigot,” a term that in the past was reserved for the people who were actually intolerant. Which, as I say, is a whole other thing.
Well, I just cannot understand why two adults with no other impediments to consent should not be allowed to get married just because they are the same sex. I do think one is bigoted when one does not grant same sex couples the same respect as opposite sex couples.