August 2010
- Warren: so, not to dissuade you from your righteous proletariat rage, but what's your take on the whole HP thing?
- me: they fucked up big time
- Warren: that's what I was thinking
- Nate: Warren, say what you will about Starship's later work, "We Built This City On Rock & Roll" was one of the best songs of the last 8 decades.
- Warren: Finally, you're making sense.
- Ryan: Warren and Nate, the next time the three of us are at poker, we'll have to pin Pat down and put that song on the evening's playlist.
- Nate: I was actually just making fun of Warren . But it's pretty awesome that you both admit to loving that terrible song. Rock on.
- Warren: Did you take me seriously? You're talking to the guy that thinks Rush are a bunch of no-talent assclowns.
- Ryan: Warren, what kind of question is that? when have i _ever_ taken you seriously? i just wanted to dirty Pat's pristine poker playlist.
- Me: look what you made me do... http://j.mp/9uSnHX
- Warren: Also: I'm back on furloughs, so when's the next time both y'all will be at poker?
- Warren: Oh, I know. I'm just saying: all of their music is terrible.
- Ryan: I may have to plead for a special weekend poker night. me getting to chico on a thursday night is like <insert Cubs futility joke>
- Nate: Pat, is it too late to request some Richard Marx? Poker is going to be unbelievable next week!
- Ryan: Get some Bruce Hornsby up in the hizzy
- Warren: Lemme know when. I've not been in a while.
- Me: Nate, keep 'em comin' tough guy http://skitch.com/pberry/dxhsj/why-god-why
- Warren: Come on, man. You got to rock some "Right Here Waiting" to _really_ bring the Marxist pain.
- Me: wow, no Bruce Hornsby in the library. I'm actually kinda shocked. #ifailatmusic
- Me: Warren, isn't Marxist pain what Lenin had?
- Warren: Pat, do an all-80's poker night. Bust out the Tina Turner and Van Halen. Just don't tell anyone, or you may wind up playing by yourself.
- Warren: I am the walrus.
- Nate: Pat, I just got a call from @sjungling . He would like to request some Asia and the 14-minute version of Brian Adams' "Everything I Do".
- Warren: Don't forget the awesome power ballad followup from the "3 Musketeers" movie. I believe the hook was "all for one, all for luv."
- Nate: Was that the one with Brian Adams, Rod Stewart, and Sting? I thought that was just a nightmare I had once...
- Warren: It was all too real. All. Too. Real.
- Warren: Also, why was Sting mostly naked for the video for that song? Or is reality blurring with the movie "Dune" again?
- Greg: he was drawing attention to the rainforest by his lack of chest hair.
- ...
- Michelle: I look at twitter and come to find that all the classic summer-night-driving songs of my youth have been grossly mistreated. *pish*
On August 4, 2010, Federal Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that California’s Proposition 8, which prohibits California from recognizing same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional. The ruling was stayed pending appeal—which means that nothing will happen until a Federal Appeals court reviews it. As you might imagine, it will be appealed. The ruling itself is 138 pages long. I’ll summarize.
The previous lawsuit challenged Proposition 8 on procedural grounds. My post on that case is here. The California Supreme Court disagreed with me. Since the California Supreme Court gets the final say on the California Constitution, it got the last word.
The new suit was brought by two same-sex couples on different grounds. And, since it was brought in Federal court, the California Supreme Court doesn’t get a say at all. Something strange happened. California’s government was sued. The Attorney General said, essentially, “I agree that this thing is unconstitutional.” The other government groups said, “I’m not going to bother defending this.” So did a number of other people, including “ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8.”
The people who brought the lawsuit (“the Plaintiffs”) claimed two things. First, they claimed that marriage is a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (There is some decent precedent on this—the only question is whether the protected marriage is the one man/one woman kind of marriage). If the 14th Amendment protects same-sex marriage, the court reviews the case using “strict scrutiny” which I’ll discuss below.
