Blogging about all sorts of things--governance in higher education, in businesses, and in law firms; bankruptcy ethics; popular culture & the law; Enron & other corporate fiascos; professional responsibility generally; movies; ballroom dancing; and anything else that gets my attention.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Dear Chantix and all other annoying spam commenters
CUT IT OUT. I don't want you posting your ads on my blog. Had I wanted ads, I would've put them on my blog. I don't want advertising in general, and I don't want YOUR advertising in particular.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
I like BOTH Pete Wentzes (Petes Wentz?)
Here's a recent post from Pete Wentz (here), of Fall Out Boy -- and son of Pete Wentz of Apco Worldwide (here). I'm really impressed with Pete Wentz (the dad)'s abilities in terms of strategic planning, and I really love the music of Pete Wentz (the son) and Fall Out Boy. Check both of them out....
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Thomas Sowell's op-ed about the gay marriage bans
After reading Thomas Sowell's op-ed about the recent election and the success of such measures as Proposition 8 in California (see here for his op-ed), I thought for a while about why I disagreed with him on this issue (see here).
For one thing, marriage can't just be about protecting the ability of a man and a woman to have children. My marriage doesn't include children, so either my husband and I don't deserve to have the protections afforded to married people, or something else must be going on in the institution of marriage to justify protecting people like us (childless by choice) as well as protecting people who want to have children, but can't. I suppose that one could argue that we could always decide to have children, so marriage is there to protect our "children potential" or that we could adopt children--but then, unless a state chooses to ban adoption by lesbians and gay men, the "children potential" of gay marriages is just as possible as our own "children potential" in my marriage.
The other argument--that banning gay marriage is different from banning inter-racial marriage--rests on the assumption, I think, that being a member of a particular race is immutable but that being gay or lesbian (or transgendered) isn't immutable. That argument doesn't work for me, either, based on what I've read about being homosexual and based on my own experiences with my lesbian and gay friends. The whole "where do you draw the line" argument--that allowing gay marriage will lead inexorably to allowing, say, person-canine marriage (yep, I've heard that one) ignores the fact that states limit man-woman marriages on line-drawing reasons all the time. For example, there are limits on marrying under-age opposite-sex people.
My hope is that, in a few short years, this debate will go the way of the debate on inter-racial marriage. In the meantime, though, a whole lot of people whom I love are going through some serious hurt as they listen to some of the rhetoric being lobbed their way. Their hurt is my hurt, too.
For one thing, marriage can't just be about protecting the ability of a man and a woman to have children. My marriage doesn't include children, so either my husband and I don't deserve to have the protections afforded to married people, or something else must be going on in the institution of marriage to justify protecting people like us (childless by choice) as well as protecting people who want to have children, but can't. I suppose that one could argue that we could always decide to have children, so marriage is there to protect our "children potential" or that we could adopt children--but then, unless a state chooses to ban adoption by lesbians and gay men, the "children potential" of gay marriages is just as possible as our own "children potential" in my marriage.
The other argument--that banning gay marriage is different from banning inter-racial marriage--rests on the assumption, I think, that being a member of a particular race is immutable but that being gay or lesbian (or transgendered) isn't immutable. That argument doesn't work for me, either, based on what I've read about being homosexual and based on my own experiences with my lesbian and gay friends. The whole "where do you draw the line" argument--that allowing gay marriage will lead inexorably to allowing, say, person-canine marriage (yep, I've heard that one) ignores the fact that states limit man-woman marriages on line-drawing reasons all the time. For example, there are limits on marrying under-age opposite-sex people.
My hope is that, in a few short years, this debate will go the way of the debate on inter-racial marriage. In the meantime, though, a whole lot of people whom I love are going through some serious hurt as they listen to some of the rhetoric being lobbed their way. Their hurt is my hurt, too.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
I'll bite--what IS it about other people's marriages that so bother the "Yes on Prop. 8" people?
I just found out that Prop. 8 passed in California. That's the proposition banning same-sex marriages.
I don't get it. Just what is so hard about letting two people in love get the same civil rights that I've had for the past 12 years? Does a same-sex marriage threaten my marriage in any way? Is giving same-sex couples certain legal rights going to somehow threaten opposite-sex couples (including, BTW, those who have taken their marriage vows and then gotten divorced--which is, of course, legal and "doesn't" threaten the sanctity of marriage)?
I hear that the SF City Attorney is going to file suit, claiming that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional (see here). Good.
I understand that a lot of people are uncomfortable with same-sex marriage, for a variety of reasons, and I don't want to marginalize any good-hearted opposition to my own views. But I believe that denying same-sex couples these civil rights smacks of the same popular hesitation that accompanied mixed-race marriage not that long ago. Too many of my friends have had to resort to a variety of legal machinations just to get the right to visit their partners in hospitals, or to have survivorship rights, or to enjoy any of the myriad rights that I get to take for granted as a married woman. I know that times will change, and I foresee a time when this hot-button issue will be of only historical interest, but I sure wish that times were changing a bit faster.
I don't get it. Just what is so hard about letting two people in love get the same civil rights that I've had for the past 12 years? Does a same-sex marriage threaten my marriage in any way? Is giving same-sex couples certain legal rights going to somehow threaten opposite-sex couples (including, BTW, those who have taken their marriage vows and then gotten divorced--which is, of course, legal and "doesn't" threaten the sanctity of marriage)?
I hear that the SF City Attorney is going to file suit, claiming that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional (see here). Good.
I understand that a lot of people are uncomfortable with same-sex marriage, for a variety of reasons, and I don't want to marginalize any good-hearted opposition to my own views. But I believe that denying same-sex couples these civil rights smacks of the same popular hesitation that accompanied mixed-race marriage not that long ago. Too many of my friends have had to resort to a variety of legal machinations just to get the right to visit their partners in hospitals, or to have survivorship rights, or to enjoy any of the myriad rights that I get to take for granted as a married woman. I know that times will change, and I foresee a time when this hot-button issue will be of only historical interest, but I sure wish that times were changing a bit faster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)