Blog Archives
Will this be the argument presented to the Supreme Court?
This is the strangest argument against gay marriage that I’ve seen yet, I wish I could read it written out formally by the lawyers who said it. It’s bizarre and weak, and apparently the one that the Prop 8 crowd are taking before the Supreme Court.
Here’s the article by the LA Times, and here’s where you can read Greta Christina’s take on it, where I found the link.
“It is plainly reasonable for California to maintain a unique institution [referring to marriage] to address the unique challenges posed by the unique procreative potential of sexual relationships between men and women,” argued Washington attorney Charles J. Cooper, representing the defenders of Proposition 8. Same-sex couples need not be included in the definition of marriage, he said, because they “don’t present a threat of irresponsible procreation.”
Yeah. What puzzles me about this is that it’s by far the most demeaning description of marriage I’ve ever read. Every married couple should be offended by this, and it just gets worse the more I think about it!
Greta Speaking in San Francisco Sunday 1/13 » Greta Christinas Blog
Greta Speaking in San Francisco Sunday 1/13 » Greta Christinas Blog.
I’m thinking of going to see Greta Christina speak tomorrow, partly because she’s generally awesome, partly because the subject is interesting to me, partly because it’s an excuse to get out into San Francisco, but mostly because I want to see the famous shoes which caused so much controversy.
Something that was said in the comments was interesting to me, the idea that if a man buys an expensive pair of dress shoes, it’s a valid investment in professional attire, while if a woman does this it’s a frivolous fashion expense.
I haven’t really encountered this attitude, but it does fit perfectly into the sort of casual sexism I see pretty much everywhere. The “can’t win” part fits, certainly. Consider: A woman who buys a well-made pair of shoes for work is criticized for spending so much on fashion, while a woman buying & wearing cheap shoes will be criticized for her unprofessional appearance.
The other things that come to mind are first that I should have given those boots at the vintage clothing store more of a chance, and that considering how much I walk (and the Sam Vimes “boots” theory of economic unfairness) it may well be worthwhile for me to save up and buy a $200-$300 pair of shoes. As long as I can find something that goes well with everything, of course.
The Adventures of Leo Tarvi 