Two Things That Fill Me With Joy

[dr_pretentious]

Hundred-year-old color photographs from Russia--many thanks to rednikki for the link.

New Jersey's Supreme Court got it right, as we all thought they probably would. I have seen the future of America, and it is New Jersey!

Comments

[elphaba-of-oz.livejournal.com]

Go New Jersey! Woo hoo!

[tokeiwakamidesu.livejournal.com]

I did a little dance around my room when I heard the decision.

Does this make New Jersey acceptable?

[dr-pretentious.livejournal.com]

Considering the boneheaded basis on which New York's supreme court ruled against gay marriage, I would say that the balance is shifting. New Yorkers can still cling to their cultural cachet, but we're starting to make you guys look politically retrograde.

Considering how much of the cultural cachet New York has, it has because it attracts so many creative queer people from the flat parts of the country, I predict that some of that cultural cachet is going to start migrating south to where the creative queer people can marry each other if they want to.

[twoeleven.livejournal.com]

hm. the future of america is endless traffic jams? i guess that's probably true. i don't think we needed a court to see that, tho. or one to reform the marriage laws.

[dr-pretentious.livejournal.com]

Hm. I think we'll probably both be happier if we don't delve into that disagreement at length.

[kistha.livejournal.com]

I hope it sticks.

But it is indeed good news.

[dr-pretentious.livejournal.com]

Because the question at issue was a question of state law and the state constitution, there is no higher court with jurisdiction, so the decision cannot be appealed. It would take an amendment to the US Constitution to invalidate the state supreme court's decision, and if a federal amendment to do that couldn't get traction last time it was proposed, I don't think it's likely to get traction in our lifetimes.

The remaining open questions are:
1) Which of the two options the court will accept as remedies will the state legislature put in place--marriage that's called marriage, or marriage that's not called marriage? In either case, the court's opinion notes that the couples themselves are free to call their relationships anything they want to.

2)Will other states recognize the relationships that are solemnized in New Jersey? Nothing in the supreme court's decision suggests that New Jersey same-sex marriages or civil unions shouldn't be portable, although they could have chosen to put in place something like the executive order the governor of Massachusetts issued, whereby only those queer couples who can prove that they live in Massachusetts can get marriage licenses there.

The majority of New Jerseyans favor civil unions. A slight majority don't want to call them by the name of marriage. We have 179 days left to change the minds of enough of them to get the right thing done in the state house. I think we can do it.

Hooray! ... but-

[leapfaith.livejournal.com]

I don't want to live in New Jersey again! I like living where people don't tell me that I'm crazy for wanting access to a swimming pool, and I should go to the "Jersey Shore," and then look at me funny for wanting to go swimming there, because almost nobody actually goes swimming at the shore, you know, you just sunbathe and walk on the beach. I like living where I can go cross country skiing, and sledding in the winter, and where nobody assumes I'm from another country because I'm polite. I'm warning you, if I have to move to Canada to escape New Jersey, I will!

In spite of that, I'm very happy that their courts got it right. :-)

Re: Hooray! ... but-

[dr-pretentious.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that would be weird. Usually when I go to the shore, I go with a friend who's a marine biologist, and her immediate response to almost all substantial bodies of water is to get in them, so I didn't realize so many locals were averse to swimming.

As to Canada, well, I have seen the future of New Jersey, and it looks kind of like Canada, now that you mention it.

[happy-dr-friend.livejournal.com]

The NJ court got it nearly right. They seem to have gone the Vermont civil union route rather than the Massachusetts full equal protection including the name route. But given the recent boneheaded (to be polite about it) NY decision, yeah, I suppose I don't have much room to quibble. In NYC's defense, it was the state government that rejected gay marriage, though. And the state government is ruled by upstaters. Maybe if Elliot Spitzer gets in as gov we'll have a chance of making NY state a little more progressive.

If I may whine about only semi-related issues...The number of cars in NYC has really been depressing me lately. Plus I seem to be developing either a low grade panic reaction or asthma: my breathing gets shaky when I bike too near cars. I want to move to Zermatt. Or maybe Zuerich, except that we'd never be able to afford to live in the car-free zone.

[dr-pretentious.livejournal.com]

My upstate relatives from Rochester and Forestport were all appalled by that NY decision too--we had occasion to discuss it at the commitment ceremony in which my cousin and her wife got not-quite-married. New York, as a state, might not be as close to the tipping point as Jersey is, but the hinterlands are getting more complex than most people realize. I'm looking forward to seeing what Governor Spitzer can get done.

Well, if you guys head to Switzerland, that would be an excuse to see the Alps again, but we'd miss those hiking expeditions. Panic sucks. Be well.