OK, it’s actually Prop 8 day, but that doesn’t roll off the tongue as well. Anyhow, with DOMA and Prop 8 being very much in the news lately, I’ve heard a lot about the “LGBT” Community. But then I heard somebody refer to “LGBTQ” and I thought, “what the hell is the Q for. Quadrasexual? Turns out, the Q is for Queer. Really? Isn’t that a bit redundant? Are there Qs that aren’t covered by the LG (and possibly B) part? I mean, I have to admit, I always thought the L was kind of redundant, too. I thought that Ls were a subset of Gs (kind of how all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are square). But I could be wrong, since I don’t really pay all that much attention. <\/p>\n
The smart money seems to be on SCOTUS ruling both DOMA and Prop 8 unconstitutional, which to me is a no-brainer. I mean, no matter what letter we are, we’re all just a subset of P – people. And if you have a law that applies to some people, it has to apply to all the people. I believe that’s known as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. While I’m glad that NY legalized Of course, the other big news is that the Italian Supreme Court (or whatever it is they call their highest court over there – La Corte Suprema or something) has ordered a retrial in the Amanda KNox murder case. Apparently over there they can just keep retrying you until they get the verdict they want. If I was her, I wouldn’t be planning a trip to Rome anytime soon (unless it’s Rome, NY). I find it hard to believe that the US would actually extradite her, but who knows? Maybe they can get her on armed robbery of sports memorabilia or something instead. <\/p>\n Oh, cool, a huge flock (actually, more like 20 huge flocks) of Snow Geese just flew over. Actually, I believe a flock of geese in flight is called a skein (on the ground, they’re a gaggle). Very impressive, and appropriate, since it’s snowing rather heavily at the moment. I think they may want to hold off on heading to Canada for a few more days. <\/p>\ngay<\/del> same sex marriage, it doesn’t really seem like it should have been necessary. If a person can marry a person then it shouldn’t matter what gender (or color or ethnicity or height or whatever) either one of those persons happens to be. Duh. It seems pretty simple to me, but I’m not a great legal scholar like Fat Tony Scalia and Clarence the Clown Thomas.<\/p>\n