As you may know, the San Diego Padres play at Petco Park, which is right next to the convention center where the Comic-Con is held. They put it there because they thought the traffic and parking weren't quite bad enough when we're in town. (But hey, it would be worse in L.A., next door to the Staples Center.)
The Padres are away from S.D. the week of Comic-Con. They'll be in Atlanta and Pittsburgh, which should be about where the nearest vacant hotel rooms will be available. However, the Friday night before the con — July 16 — the Padres are playing the Arizona Diamondbacks at Petco Park and they're advertising it's Comic-Con Night. Douglass Abramson, a devout reader of this site, told me about it and he doesn't know what it means, either. Maybe all the players on one team will be dressed as Klingons and all the ones on the other will be dressed as The Joker and for the seventh-inning stretch, I'll go down onto the field and host a panel.
If you're going to read the transcript from the Proposition 8 trial, you might like to take a look at the fine work of courtroom sketch artist Norman Quebedeau. I've worked with Norman on animation projects featuring goofy characters and impossible scenarios and I'm glad to see they've prepared him for this job.
Mark is swamped with deadlines the next few days. Expect postings and e-mail responses to be light through about Tuesday evening. And while I'm gone, ponder this: Why is that Time-Warner Cable, from whom I get my Internet and phone service, will allow me to go "paperless" and help the environment by no longer receiving one little bill per month...but they will not allow me to cancel the seventeen paper ads they mail me each week to try to get me to subscribe to Time-Warner Cable services I either already have or have told them I absolutely do not want?
As many of you may have forgotten, and as I did for a while, there's currently a big court challenge going on to California's Proposition 8 which by a narrow margin banned Gay Marriage in this state. I'm all for letting any pair of consenting adults of any sex marry and think it's inevitable that it will become the norm...but as I said here, I'm not sure this is the best route to get there. If someone made enough of an effort (i.e., raised enough cash) to get the question on the ballot again here, I think Same-Sex Wedlock would win and it would be a more decisive and widely-accepted way for it to become a law of the land. My fear is that if a court undoes Prop 8, there will be an anger, not so much at the decision but at the fact that "The Will of the Voters" has been nullified by one guy in a black robe.
Looks like we may soon see if that happens. Closing arguments were argued the other day in the Prop 8 trail and a decision is expected in a month or so. If you'd like to read a very long PDF file of those closing arguments, you can get it from this link. If you don't have the time or inclination, let me summarize...
The lawyer saying that we have to ban Gay Marriage said marriage is all about procreation and since gays can't procreate, they have no right to marry. The lawyer saying we have to overturn Proposition 8 pointed out that some straight couples cannot procreate and others choose not to...but we still allow those couples to marry.
The lawyer saying that we have to ban Gay Marriage pointed out that there is a long tradition in this country of banning Gay Marriage because it might destroy society. The lawyer saying we have to overturn Proposition 8 pointed out that we once had a long tradition in this country of banning Interracial Marriage because it might destroy society and that was overturned. Somehow, society has survived.
The lawyer saying that we have to ban Gay Marriage admitted that he had no real proof that it would destroy society since it's never really been tried. The lawyer saying we have to overturn Proposition 8 reminded the Judge over and over again of this admission and also argued that the right to marry is a human right and that the state has no right to discriminate against a group of individuals and deny them that right.
Now, there was more to it than that but really not a lot more. You can never be sure about these things, and of course I'm the layest of all laymen...but if there's a place I can wager on this, I think I'll go slap a few bucks down saying that the judge will at least partially overturn Proposition 8. His Honor might decide to chicken out and either say no or somehow pass the buck to others...but the "uphold Prop 8" guy almost looks like someone paid him to throw the game. I'd also bet that those who will be furious about this will begin screaming about "activist judges" who put themselves above The People of California, when a more likely explanation is that their side simply put forth a lousy case. I'm not sure there is a strong case against Gay Marriage but I'll bet there's a better one than this.
June 19, 2010
