I keep hearing that marriage equality is a “fringe issue,” and that people shouldn’t be fighting so hard for it. “There will always be,” they say, “another election, but this one is too important to throw away on fringe issues.” I can’t even begin to explain all of the ways in which I disagree with this logic.

Fundamentally, it comes down to this: marriage equality should not be a fringe issue because interracial marriage wasn’t a fringe issue. Because the right to choose isn’t a fringe issue. Because people’s lives, things which affect people directly, should not be tossed aside and deemed unimportant by people who do not understand what’s involved.

It’s easy for straight people to claim that they want marriage quality, and for them to write it off as, ultimately, a fringe issue, just like it’s easy for ciswomen to claim to care about trans rights, but to not actually take action. I think all of us like having causes, but when the chips are down, most people only really support the causes which personally affect them.

Call it donor fatigue, if you will.

Personally, I find it insulting to hear over and over again that marriage equality isn’t important, because it is. It’s critical, maybe not on the same level as foreign policy and the economy, but still pretty darned important. The fact that there are mature adults in this country who cannot marry each other, despite their deep and abiding love for each other…this is a problem. It’s not just a problem on the spiritual level, of course: marriage equality would also allow people to file taxes as partners, to make decisions on behalf of each other in the event of catastrophic illness, and to enjoy a lot of other benefits which are accorded to married people in this very marriage-centric society.

There are a lot of issues coming up in this election, my friends, and all of them are important. To run with the fringe metaphor for a moment, what we have here is a Mobius rug, with no clear beginning, end, top or bottom. Telling people that their lives don’t matter isn’t just counterproductive: it’s a great way to ruin chances for your candidate, and an excellent way to let people know that the fight isn’t over.

Browsing The New York Times last night, I came across “Buying into the Vineyard Lifestyle,” and because I am a masochist (and I always look for things to make fun of here), I clicked on it. As I read, my eyebrows etched higher and higher, and I kept waking up chortling in the middle of the night, so I decided that I needed to talk about, er, “the vineyard lifestyle.”

For those of you who don’t feel inclined to check out this hard-hitting piece of investigative journalism, the article is about a couple who apparently really liked Tuscany (what is it with Americans and the Tuscany obsession), so they decided to bring “Italy to Georgia.” Yeah, that’s right.

So, apparently Italy is not about the culture, the people, the unique archaeological artifacts. Italy, my friends, is about building a McMansion in rolling vineyards where you can live isolated from the rest of society. You don’t go to Italy to speak Italian, eat raw milk cheeses, and experience the countryside. You go to Italy because you want a comfortable and familiar environment which reminds you of home, sort of, with enough orange paint to be sufficiently exotic. But you don’t want to actually see Italians or anything.

And don’t even get me started on “vineyard developments” like the one where this “little piece of Italy” has been built. You know, I actually know someone who lives right next to a vineyard, and between the random spraying of God-knows-what and the fans, it’s really not, uhm, a “lifestyle.” It’s a cheap place to live, and she likes the space to exercise her dogs.

Apparently, buying a home with a vineyard is the next big thing, because people aren’t aware of how much of a pain in the ass it is to raise grapes, or of how finicky winemaking really is. I love how even farming has become commodified in this country, how suddenly a sanitized version of the rural lifestyle is the next trendy thing. Apparently these yuppie scum don’t realize that a. they are not living the “rural lifestyle” and b. they are destroying real rural life in their push for “adorable” second homes. Or third. Or fourth.

You know, there are so many things wrong with America that sometimes it’s hard to know where to begin.

I think we can all agree that Michelle Obama is a pretty awesome lady. And a very snappy dresser; that woman has some serious style, man. But, talking with Baxt the other night, I stumbled upon something about her that’s been troubling me: her hair.

I know what you’re thinking. Fretting about the hair of a candidate’s wife sounds so petty and unimportant, especially when it’s a white person talking about a black woman’s hair. Perilous ground. But Michelle O.’s hair is important, because of what she’s chosen to do with it. Now, it’s her hair, so she can do as she pleases, but I think that the decision to straighten her hair has some interesting implications, especially when you consider that a lot of black female politicians opt for straightened hair, while black men seem to go for close cuts; I can’t think of many mainstream black politicians sporting natural hair front and center, and I wonder why that is.

Personally, I think this is very intriguing. Now, I’m just a white girl here, so I maybe I shouldn’t be talking, but I think it’s kind of sad that Michelle’s hair is straightened. Because, the thing is, I love nappy hair. I think that there are few things as beautiful in this world as a black woman loving her natural hair, because, darn it, black is beautiful, and those stiffly coiffed straightened helmets just make me want to cry. I love the texture of natural hair, I love the way it looks, I love all of the awesome things that can be done with it, and I love to see women celebrating their hairitage (ha ha) rather than trying to fit it into a box.

Now, not being an owner of nappy hair, I am obviously not personally acquainted with issues like how to care for and style natural black hair, and maybe it’s a real pain. But it seems to me that straightened hair probably takes a lot of work too, and it feels…sort of like a betrayal, somehow. Here we have this black family that might be inhabiting the White House in a few months, which is pretty darn historic, but Michelle O. still can’t let her hair down, so to speak. I may be talking out my behind here, but I think it would be inspiring and empowering for younger black folks to see a woman in the White House with natural hair, and it would be a nice wakeup call for white folks, too.

I note that Malia and Sasha are both sporting natural dos (which change now and then, as hairstyles do); I wish their mother would follow suit!

There’s been a great deal of brouhaha over Tropic Thunder over the last few weeks, since the film apparently has some material which could be deemed offensive by some groups. I haven’t actually seen the movie, but I’ve been following the outrage with interest, because there’s a lot of ire over some parts, but not over others, and I don’t really understand why.

The main ire-evoking part of the film has to do with the characterization of people with mental disabilities. There’s a lot of mockery of “retards” in amongst the high jinks, and some people find this offensive. Offensive enough to picket the film and get interviewed on the radio and generally kick up a fuss. Other people say “relax, it’s just satire,” and argue that the whole thing is being taken too far.

As someone with a few ableist tendencies, I try to be sensitive to this kind of thing. I’ve really tried to avoid using words like “retard” and “lame” as insults, and I’m kind of stoked to see so much discussion about this. I’ve always said that getting people to talk about something is the first step, and there is definitely a lot of press, way more than I would have expected. I loved an article by an LA Times columnist who talked about the controversy; discussing the complaints that the PC police were going too far, he said “what if we replaced the word ‘retard’ with Jew? What would happen then?” And he proceeded to illustrate the word replacement in some samples of dialogue for the film, and suggested that people would generally agree that this would be deemed offensive. Personally, I thought it was a master stroke of argument, to illustrate the issue in a way that people could perhaps better understand.

However, in all the uproar over the film, I’ve seen a lot less talk about the fact that one of the characters is in blackface, and I find this deeply puzzling. Maybe I’m just not up on my PC police causes these days, but I feel like people in blackface should be a pretty hot-button issue, especially with all of the talk of race swirling in the media these days.

While I’m glad to see attention drawn to the cause of people with intellectual disabilities, and the need to treat them like human beings, not objects of mockery, why isn’t anyone riled up about the blackface? Relax, it’s just parody, one could argue, a big mockery of how far people will go for  major roles in the film industry. Yet, somehow, I am deeply disturbed by the use of blackface as a comedic plot device, just like I am disconcerted to see an entire class of people singled out for mockery because of their mental abilities.

I’m a big fan of parody, and I think that parody can be used to illustrate a lot of things in our society. But I also think that parody walks a fine line, and sometimes that line gets crossed, and we need to talk about it. If we’re going to be singling out one aspect of a parody film as particularly offensive, I think it’s reasonable to discuss other aspects, and the fact of the matter is that racism is very much alive and well in this society. It disappoints me to see so little attention being addressed to the blackface character, and I wonder if the controversy is, in a way, illustrating our inability to cope with racism just as much as it illustrates our prejudice against people with intellectual disabilities.

While ambling across the Internet yesterday afternoon, I came across this article, discussing the feminist criticisms of the Twlight Saga. Sort of; it’s more about the movie, and it musters some very odd arguments and refutes them in very weak ways. Stringing together random plot points and trotting out your decision to keep your last name after marriage as your feminist credential is not really a very well-constructed, thoughtful consideration of the feminist issues surrounding the books, but at least it’s a try. The end conclusion: Twilight isn’t antifeminist. The article itself is nothing special, but what is interesting is the comments, if one wants to take the time to sift through them, and that’s why I brought the article up. You don’t actually need to read it, in other words.

Some commenters actually tried to engage with the material and to address some of the feminist critiques of the books. Others were just apologist, some didn’t make sense…and others all, more or less, said “relax, it’s just fiction!” These comments usually went on to say that people were making too much of a fuss, and that fiction isn’t very important, and that people’s lives aren’t shaped by fiction. “If you don’t like the books,” people say, “don’t read them.” Fair enough, but I think people are missing the point; criticism, in my opinion, is always valid, and it should be welcome, because critics aren’t trying to ban something or stop people from having fun, they are trying to raise important issues.

I totally disagree with the sentiment that fiction is not worthy of attention. I think that fiction is actually hugely important, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete fool. Fiction is never “just fiction,” because fiction is about what we know, and it’s about how we are, and it’s about what we do with our lives. Fiction has fractured friendships, brought down empires, sparked dialogue which has lasted for centuries. To say that fiction has no meaning is simply straight up wrong.

Thinking about some of my favourite books, I can’t help but think of their influence on me, and I’m willing to bet that most of you probably have some favourite works of fiction which have had an impact on you, if not changed your life. The Sparrow taught me that everyone has the capacity for courage to stand up for what they believe in, and that standing up for what is right is the most important thing you can do. The Chronicles of Narnia taught me to believe in the possibilities of the imagination. Watership Down taught me compassion and respect for other living beings. This is the Way the World Ends pushed me to wonder about what I would do if, you know. The world ended. I can think of countless more examples of works of fiction which have influenced me in huge, earthshaking ways.

Why else would classics remain in print? Classics of fiction are still considered relevant enough for inclusion on college syllabi, and for lively discussions and scholarly papers which continuously uncover new reads of old stories. If fiction isn’t important, why has Robinson Crusoe been in print for almost 300 years? The Tale of Genji has been read since the twelfth century. Tell Daniel Defoe and Murasaki Shikibu that fiction isn’t important.

I realize that people are reading fewer books these days, and that the total annual output of books is actually shrinking, per capita (says my father the English professor), but surely people should be able to recognize the power and importance of fiction. Hell, the wild popularity of the Harry Potter series and the Twilight Saga kind of speaks for itself; it’s funny, to me, to hear fans of these series telling me that fiction isn’t important, just because they don’t like seeing their favourite books criticized.

The very fact that people are criticizing these books and looking at the characters and the roles they play means that fiction is still very much relevant, and still very important. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be having such passionate discussions. Twilight fans losing their heads over suggestions that the series is perhaps not very favorable to women illustrates my point so very elegantly I almost don’t feel the need to belabour it.

Unless you’ve been under a rock or something for the last week, you are probably aware that the Summer Olympics are in full progress in Beijing (and Hong Kong, for the equestrian sports). Now, as we all know, I have very mixed feelings about the Olympics, especially this year’s. But I really like the idea of the Olympic Movement. I love the concept of setting aside national differences for a few weeks every four years and competing against the best athletes in the world. (Although I wish they had sports I could compete in, like speed etymology and cat wrasslin’.)

So I’ve kind of loosely been following the Olympics news, which is kind of hard not to do if you read any news at all right now, and I have noticed a disturbing trend.

Here in the States, all any news outlet can talk about is Team USA. Team USA did this, Team USA did that, look at all these medals we are getting, isn’t Team USA just the best! We are so awesome!

And the thing is, a lot of the athletes competing for the United States are pretty darn awesome. They are talented athletes, and really interesting people. And I’ve met a few Olympic athletes in my time, so I feel pretty confident saying this. And I’m proud of them and their accomplishments, and I am glad that they are getting the honor of participating in the Olympics.

But I am also proud of athletes from other nations, and I want to hear more about them. Even when a news article does feature a foreign athlete, the news source manages to slip in some reference to Team USA. Usually a reference which points out that we are better. Like, “her training regimin, unlike that employed by Team USA, involved…” or “ultimately the whatever country national team doesn’t stand a chance against Team USA, but it sure is nice to see them try!”

Baxt, who watched the opening ceremonies, said that the commentary was making her writhe in her chair. “This country only just became a country! They’re so small! They are much smaller than the United States!  They won’t make it through the first round, so you probably won’t see them competing against Team USA, but their costumes sure are nice!” And, of course, when the American athletes stepped out, the commentator went into spasms of delight.

Here’s the thing. I thought that the Olympics was all about international cooperation. I understand that American news sources feel the need to report on the American athletes, because obviously Americans are interested in how their national team are doing. But would it kill the media to at least feature some information about athletes from other countries, and other teams? All the headlines are “Team USA Does This!” “Team USA Does That!” Team USA Creams Some Athletes From a Country You Have Never Heard Of!” “Oh My God Michael Phelps is So Cool!” “Team USA Rocks!” “Here’s Another Article About Team USA In Which Nothing Really Happens!”

When we aren’t talking about how awesome Team USA is, we’re posting “exposes” of all the stuff the Chinese faked at the opening ceremonies, just to emphasize the fact that they may have more medals than we do (since obviously the medal count is the only way to judge merit), but we’re still better, because Americans would never fake things at the opening ceremonies. Apparently it’s not enough to manipulate the schedule of events to fit things in with our prime time schedule.

I contrasted this with the Olympics coverage at The Age, an Australian news source, and I found a pretty fair mix of news. A lot of news about Aussie athletes, of course, but also some news about athletes from other countries, and matches between other national teams. The Age is talking about some of the political issues in the games, like a friendly exchange of hugs between a Russian athlete and a Georgian one, which kind of embodies the spirit of the games, and an inquiry into an Iranian athlete who may (or may not) have withdrawn from a match to avoid going up against an Israeli (not in the spirit of the games). The content is interesting, balanced, and informative. Sure there’s some Australian pride going on, but it’s nothing like the coverage in American papers, where you might be hard pressed to believe that any nation other than the United States is really competing.

Likewise with the Guardian, a British paper. There’s commentary about the Olympics, along with coverage of major events (and not so major ones). Unsurprisingly, the paper is keeping close tabs on British athletes, which is entirely reasonable, but again, news about athletes from other countries is also very present. I find the content at the Guardian far more dynamic and interesting than the “Americans first” coverage at sources like the New York Times.

If the Olympics is supposed to be all about International cooperation and friendship, why can’t American newspapers look beyond the American athletes for news? I’m feeling rather more ashamed than usual of our national media at the moment.

In 2004, roughly 20% of 17 year olds read for fun, claims this New York Times article discussing literacy in the digital age. That statistic grabbed me, right there at the bottom of the first page, and then I read the rest of the article, increasingly quivering in horror as I proceeded. The article is basically a discussion of how new media is affecting literacy, and whether or not this is a good or bad thing, but, in a way, it reads like a tragic tale of decline. And I think it’s well worth taking the time to check out.

Literacy, in my mind, is extremely important. It’s a powerful tool which can be taken in a huge assortment of directions, and used in a range of ways. I’d take literacy over pretty much anything else, because I have the ability to do anything with the right books in my hand. And, while the data still needs to be gathered, there seem to be some strong indicators that the Internet may be slowly killing literacy as we know it.

While one could argue that Internet literacy is a different, new kind of literacy, I still think that old-fashioned book literacy has an important place in society, and I would hope that many people agree with me. Yes, the Internet can be a powerful tool, but, as the article points out, it also has some serious flaws.

Like the fact that Internet users are far less capable of being able to evaluate sources than book readers. I’ve always suspected this, and talking with my father about his students, this suspicion has been supported by observation, but researchers actually studied this issue, and found it to be true.

And then there’s this:

Nadia also writes her own stories. She posted “Dieing Isn’t Always Bad,” about a girl who comes back to life as half cat, half human, on both fanfiction.net and quizilla.com.

Nadia said she wanted to major in English at college and someday hopes to be published. She does not see a problem with reading few books. “No one’s ever said you should read more books to get into college,” she said.

Which just broke my heart. And my mind. I defy you to read that, to consider it, and not cry on the inside. Or possibly on the outside, if you’re the emotionally demonstrative type.

Some people suggest that reading on the Internet is better than not reading at all, and they are totally right. Furthermore, brains work in different ways, and some brains probably are better-suited to digital media, which means that people who would have fallen through the cracks are now getting a fighting chance. This is an excellent thing.

At least people who are reading on the Internet are showing some kind of interest in world affairs, and in creativity, and that is a good thing. I’m not going to argue with that. But an inability to evaluate sources sets up a dangerous situation where people take everything they read on the Internet for granted, and this is not a good thing. And, it appears that Internet/digital reading cultivates different kind of reading skills than physical reading, which means that people who read a high concentration of material online may have trouble reading printed text. How is the MySpace generation going to cope with the reality of printed material in, say, the workplace?

It’s all about the balance. I read a lot online. I read all of my news online, for example. I work online. I read short fiction and other blogs and all sorts of things on the Internet. There are some definite advantages to reading materials online, like access to news sources I wouldn’t otherwise see, and the ability to have my mind actually melted by trolls on feminist websites. But I also read books (for pleasure, even), and I try to maintain a healthy balance between reading on the screen and reading elsewhere.

Because I do notice that my reading habits on the screen differ from the ones I use to read books. And if I read online too much, my tendency to skim tends to transfer to my book reading, which makes books much less enjoyable.

I wouldn’t argue that reading online “isn’t reading,” but it is most certainly a different kind of reading, and I think it’s going to reshape the way we think about reading and printed materials, as a society. I doubt that books are going to vanish entirely, at least not in my lifetime, but if this article is any indicator, the printed word might be in for some woeful neglect pretty soon.

…don’t have one.

I’ve found myself repeating this line a lot lately, so often that it’s becoming almost like a personal philosophy or perhaps even a tagline. And it seems like a pretty good philosophy to live by; I wish others would follow it, because it would make everyone’s life a great deal simpler.

When I was a small child (or perhaps not that small), my father and I were invited to some friends of his for dinner. They weren’t very familiar with children, not having any of their own, and I think they invited me mainly as a courtesy, not really realizing the full implications of the decision. They had just returned from some exotic locale, so they made food from the region they had just visited.

Being a child faced with the unknown, I promptly kicked up a huge fuss, and undoubtedly ruined the event for everyone. (Faced with the same scene now, of course, I would dive headlong into the spread and relish every bite, but I guess that illustrates how people grow and change.) On the way home from the spoiled dinner party, my father pointed out that my behaviour wasn’t really very appropriate or called-for.

“If you don’t like it,” he said, “don’t eat any.”

That lesson stuck in my head, and it became one of the watchwords for my personal system of ethics and manners. His words pop up into my mind when I read bigoted comments about gay marriage from people who rail against “infertile godless atheists.” If you don’t like gay marriage, I want to say, then don’t have one. No one’s forcing you into anything. And, furthermore, I want to argue, I know plenty of straight married couples without children; should they not be married because they don’t have children? When two ladies marry, how does this concern anyone but the ladies themselves?

And then I see abortion protesters holding up horrid signs of dismembered babies, and I want to say “hey, I support your personal dislike of abortion. If you don’t like one, then don’t have one. No one is ever going to force you to have an abortion, because it’s an intensely personal decision.” I can see plenty of good reasons to be opposed to abortion, and I am totally ok with the choice to not have one; I’m even willing to put my money where my mouth is and pay higher taxes to ensure that all those children that are born have a fighting chance at life, which is more than most anti-abortion people are willing to do.

I don’t like marriage. So I’m not having one. But I know plenty of other people who do like marriage, so I’m happy for them when they accomplish their goals. I certainly don’t need to picket their weddings or tell them that they are horrible people for getting married. I also, personally, don’t like pickled pig’s feet, so I don’t eat them. But I adore sea urchin roe, and I would fight for the death to defend it against anyone who tried to take it from me because they didn’t like it. I think you see where I am going with this; all of the above activities are essentially victimless (except for the pigs and the urchins), so the thought of banning any of them starts to seem a little ludicrous, doesn’t it?

There are a few things which we can agree on collectively as a society as being generally bad things. Like, say, rape and child molestation. While some people obviously do like these things, because they do them, my “don’t like it…don’t have one” rule simply doesn’t apply here, because these things involve, inherently, a violation of the victim. Unlike, say, gay marriage, which has no victims.The abortion issue, I admit, is a bit stickier; I believe that it has no victims, but other people, just as fervently, believe that life begins at conception. And I respect that view, although I disagree with it, and it cuts to the heart of the abortion argument.

I know that we all have to draw a line somewhere, and that this line seems to be highly flexible, depending on personal beliefs, but I wish to Pete that people would stop interfering with things that don’t concern them, like other people’s bodies and relationships, and that they would start focusing on more serious problems, like the vilification of Michelle Obama by the media, or the fact that the rate of sex crime in the United States is rising, or that the idiots someone else elected to government want to DRILL FOR OIL off pristine coastlines, all for the sake of cheaper gas in 30 or 40 years. These things do have victims, and they do matter, and they are way more important than what Adam and Steve or Eve and Eva or Adam and Eve or Adam, Eve, and Steve or whoever want to do in their bedrooms, with their bodies, or in their kitchens.

My father once called gay marriage a “fringe issue,” which is something I disagree with. For the numerous gays and lesbians I know and love, it is not a fringe issue, and it’s insulting to say that it is. But it is definitely being utilized as a distraction while far more nefarious things are going on. So, I say, I again: if you don’t like it, don’t have it, and for Pete’s sake, shut up about it already.

There are a lot of things about this war that I am definitely not ok with, but one of the things which irritates me most of all is the rampant abuse of veterans and service members at the hands of the government. As I’ve said on numerous occasions, I really do feel like the DOD has an obligation to take care of people who enlist in the military, not least because they are contractually obligated to do so. I don’t think that we should be having armed forces in Iraq, but as long as they’re going to be there, I think that they should be cared for appropriately.

Numerous reports are seeping out about improperly equipped soldiers who lack the basic tools they need to do their jobs, let alone niceties like showers and food. Thanks to the proliferation of IEDs in Iraq, needs like body armor and properly armored vehicles have been brought to public attention, but combat personnel are also lacking things ranging from gun lubricant to uniforms. I happen to think that’s pretty poopy, myself.

Assuming one makes it out of Iraq after multiple return tours courtesy of the backdoor draft, the situation at home isn’t always better, thanks to routine denials of VA benefits for things like brain injuries and PTSD. Now the government is trying to dismantle the GI bill, attacking reservists’ benefits first, because they are viewed as a soft target. Given the historically strong support for the military in this country, I don’t know how the government thinks that it is going to get away with this.

I think that all of these issues are starting to come to the attention of the public, and most people, like me, think that this is not acceptable. Some people (like me) are even taking the additional step of making their displeasure known to elected officials; my Congressman is on the Armed Services Committee, and he knows exactly what I think about the current condition of the American military. If you’re feeling especially motivated, you can also volunteer to assist veterans as they navigate the VA system, and in rural areas, veterans often need drivers to get to VA service centers.

The Isthmus published a great article last week about brain injuries, which are being called the “signature injury” of the Iraq War. Anyone who’s been reading anything resembling a newspaper is probably aware of the fact that brain injuries are a growing problem, and the VA is even sinking some serious funding into researching brain injuries. The bulk of such injuries, incidentally, are caused by being in close proximity to IED explosions, so they are pretty clearly combat-related, no matter how one chooses to define that sort of thing.

The thing is, when soldiers die in Iraq or in military hospitals as a result of brain injuries, they are hailed as heroes. But when a soldier dies months or even years after discharge as a result of what is very obviously a brain injury, the death is basically written off. In fact, the military is making a conscious effort to pretend that men and women in their 20s drop dead mysteriously all the time, rather than facing the fact that these deaths are the result of complications associated with brain injuries acquired in combat.

The thing is, when you die from a combat injury, your family is entitled to certain benefits. So the VA has a very clear reason for trying to minimize the official reporting of such injuries. In addition, they probably think it’s bad for PR when returning vets drop dead six months after their tours, because people are already riled up about the casualty rate as it is.

Maybe if the DOD would perform recommended screenings for returning veterans, people wouldn’t be dying from brain injuries months after their service in Iraq. This is perhaps one of the most depressing things of all about the brain injury issue, because with screening, some of these deaths could have been entirely preventable. Instead, soldiers are being given a clean bill of health and allowed to return to normal life, despite the fact that many are very obviously not healthy, since healthy people don’t generally die in their living rooms bleeding from the mouth, ears, and nose at 25.

What the Isthmus article pointed out was that aside from the obvious crappiness of missing out on benefits, surviving family members are also really frustrated by the refusal to acknowledge brain injuries. For parents especially, this unstated policy can feel like a slap in the face. While having a child die is probably unimaginably shitty, knowing that your kid died for a cause must make the situation marginally better, and to deny that a death is combat-related is to deny that someone was a hero. Giving your life for your country, even in a shitty war that everyone including you hates, is markedly different from mysteriously dropping dead for no known reason.

And it sounds like parents are starting to fight back, trying to force the military to reclassify such deaths, which is good to hear. I would really like to see some serious pressure in general on the DOD and the VA to deal with returning service members more effectively, because I see no reason to let them fall through the cracks, no matter how expensive it is.

Ok, can I just say how awesome it is that the Republican dominated California supreme court gave the thumbs up to gay marriage? Sure, it was four to three, but still, I am excited beyond words that the court affirmed the constitutional right to marry for California gays and lesbians. It is not every day that the stodgy halls of the legal community strike a blow for civil rights, after all.

I was going to write about it yesterday, but I was too hot to move, let alone use the keyboard. I don’t know what the deal was, but it was seriously, seriously hot yesterday. I had all these grand plans of doing the laundry and going to the library, but instead I lay around the house in a desperate torpor, pushing cats away when they got too close because they were like little furry furnaces. And even the cats seemed to lack the will to move; Loki stayed in one position for nine hours, which may be a Loki world record.

One thing in the 172 page decision that I was really pleased about was the comparison of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage. The fact of the matter is that interracial marriage was one illegal in California, not that long ago, and as the decision rightly pointed out, history is not always the best measurement to use when considering whether or not something is constitutional. Overturning the ban on interracial marriage was a good thing for California to do, and I believe that overturning the ban on same-sex marriage is also a very good thing for us to do.

I also loved the repeated mentions in the decision about the right to have one’s relationship recognized and respected, and I especially enjoyed the little gibe which suggested that we should ban all marriage in the interests of equality. Perhaps I’m just a California hippie, but I seriously do believe that families come in a wide variety of configurations, and I would never presume to dictate which configuration is acceptable and which isn’t.

There was also a nice little bit about the fact that same-sex marriage in no way detracts from opposite-sex marriage, and that no religious organizations or officials are going to be forced to adjust their beliefs; if you don’t want to officiate at a gay marriage, then don’t, basically. The goal is not to cheapen opposite-sex marriage, and I’m sorry that some people feel that way, because the goal is to recognize and respect partnerships between couples of the same sex.

Of course, this means that there is now going to be a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage on the November ballot; and good on the governor for coming out strongly in opposition to any such thing. I’m hoping that this ends up backfiring on the conservatives, because I suspect we’re going to see record liberal turnout at this election, with voters fired up by the prolonged popularity contest and pissed at the conservatives. I swear to Pete, if that amendment gets on the ballot and passes, I am going to be seriously disappointed in my fellow Californians.

Apparently, the 2004 weddings in San Francisco were a major factor in the decision to support same-sex marriage in California, which is awesome. I think that as an act of protest, the decision to offer marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples in San Francisco was brilliant, and I hope to see a lot more of the same happening in the near future. Nice of them to overturn the ban just in time for a stack of June weddings.

As Andrew Sullivan pointed out in The Daily Dish, if thousands of same-sex couples marry in California between 15 June (when the decision takes effect) and November, any proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage would result in the simultaneous annulment of thousands of marriages. For those who claim to value the sanctity of marriage, I hope this creates room for pause; I imagine that straights would be pretty infuriated if their marriages were annulled at the polls, don’t you think?