Critical Exponent

A great transcript-linked video of the debate, with a timeline, is available courtesy of the New York Times.

My impressions:

• Gov. Palin rose from seeming completely out of her element to acting like the typical politician who sticks to the talking points and tries to spin/avoid facts.

• Both of them seemed more articulate and fluid than their respective principals.

• Gay rights: Biden seemed to issue a strong statement on gay rights, though he did not support same-sex civil marriage. It seemed to me he left the door open, though, by saying there should not be a constitutional distinction. If they make all the federal benefits available to same-sex couples, then they’re effectively creating a civil marriage institution (and I don’t care what they call it, as long as it’s the same for everyone!).

Obama mentioned gay rights in his acceptance speech even more than Kennedy did (emphasis mine):

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America’s promise – the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

But then the convention closed with a closing benediction by a Christian pastor. What about other faiths? What about atheists? Why did they have to inject religion into a political event?

Our marriage is less than a month away. Life feels full, as we try to juggle wedding tasks (the meeting of the parents went well), errands we want to get done beforehand (the picket fence is still an abstraction), and relaxation (hah!)

Obviously, I have marriage on the brain, but it seems like I’m not the only one. The New York Times has a retrospective on four years of gay marriage in Massachusetts, complete with a multimedia feature. Then, same-sex marriages are held up as examples of more equitable and non-gender-based power dynamics. And finally, in a shocking development, it seems that heterosexuals themselves are discovering equitable marriage roles.

These last two leave me shaking my head. Obviously in a same-sex marriage gender is not part of the power dynamics, but why should the power dynamics be affected by gender in the first place? And is it really that novel that some straight couples eschew gender roles? I certainly grew up with the expectation that both partners in a marriage share responsibilities equally, and that’s the norm among my friends, too.

The California Supreme Court, that’s who.

By now you’ve heard of the historic decision allowing same-sex marriage. Lambda Legal has a brief analysis of the decision, where they highlight the signficance of the ruling.

What this means personally is that Knox and I need could get legally married in California, though Vancouver remains closer. That’s in principle; it turns out that the ruling is not final unless no appeals or motions are filed within 30 days.

The decision caught me by surprise. Not because I expected the court to rule one way or the other, but rather because the case wasn’t even on my radar. Yes, I knew some cases were winding their way through the courts, but I wasn’t following.

This is a big change from the days of the Massachusetts legal victory and the rallies to defend the state constitution. Or even from more recent tracking of gay issues in the news. Why is this?

Part of this is political fatigue. Eight years of the national nightmare that is George W. Bush have taken their toll. I feel like I’m tuned out of the political process. Even in this presidential campaign, I’m tired of the posturing and plain-folksiness, the moralizing, the hyperbole.

Part of my encroaching apathy, too, is the volume and insignificance of the blogosphere. I’m not saying anything that hasn’t been said before, nor am I reaching masses of people. It’s just a fraction of my friends who bother to check my blog or RSS feed. And face-to-face debates? Much the same. No new points are brought up. Yes, talking to friends and neighbors about issues is a good way to effect change, but it is slow, laborious, and not scalable.

I care about the issues. I don’t care about the noise. More and more I seek refuge in the determinism of computer code, or the plainness of physical activity.

But I’m excited about the marriage victory.

We had some friends over for dinner tonight. They told us about a friend of their son’s (they are both in eighth grade) who come out to him recently, by SMS. The son texted back: “Congratulations! That’s awesome.”

It’s a whole new world.

You can look up studies on the genetics of homosexuality using the OMIM website. What jumps out of this collection of studies is that, for males, the genetic link appears to come through the mother (X chromosome) and that boys with older siblings are more likely to be gay. Interesting.

I learned about this through the NY Times Tierney lab. As seems to be the case every time I bother to look (is it sampling bias?), reader comments on newspaper blogs degenerate into the tangential, irrelevant, and specious. Sigh.

U.S. Ambassador resigns over discrimination.

In an emotional statement, the mayor of San Diego reversed his stance against same-sex unions because his daughter is gay.

I have mixed feelings about this.

First of all, I applaud a politician for having the guts to say “I was wrong” and reverse himself. I admire him for putting family above dogma and for refusing to be a hypocrite.

Second, I applaud his daughter for being open, establishing dialog, and not giving up on the bond with her father.

But, third, I feel that this shows how self-serving we are even we pretend otherwise. Supposedly one holds convictions on fundamental or controversial issues such as this because one is convinced those convictions are correct. Whether that belief comes from rational thought, from humanist principles, from religious belief, from historical tradition, the presumption in politics is that those beliefs are held and professed not because of personal gain but because they’re good for society at large. That’s certainly the way the gay marriage debate has been framed.

But if a change in your personal circumstances makes you reverse your position, what does that say about your convictions? Your arguments, your talking points, your invective now change, not because you know more about the issue, but because being suddenly associated with the victims of discrimination now puts you at a disadvantage.

Will your new position survive new changes in your circumstances?

To me, you see, a good litmus test as to whether positions are worth holding is whether, indeed, I’d continue to hold them if my circumstances changed. If I wouldn’t advocate tax cuts for the rich when I’m poor, then advocating them when I’m rich is simply selfishness. If I wouldn’t advocate more social services if I were rich, then advocating them when I’m poor is purely self-serving. And similarly, suddenly supporting gay rights only because my daughter is gay means I care about me and my own but couldn’t be bothered with those whose plight did not affect me.

I was ecstatic to hear that the anti-marriage amendment was defeated in Massachusetts. Marriage equality will continue there! Way to go!

Now, when do we get it in my new home, Washington? We can’t even travel to MA to get married because the state chose to enforce a 1913 law (intended to put the brakes on interracial marriage) that MA will not perform marriages that are not recognized in one’s state of residence. That means that Knox and I have to get legally married in Canada, where there are no residency requirements. As I understand it, the marriage will then be recognized not only in countries that allow gay marriage (Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, and South Africa), but also in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York (these last two don’t yet perform gay marriages but recognize out-of-state marriages).

To be sure, today marks a major milestone, but until equality becomes a non-issue and couples like us do not have to deal with this crazy patchwork of laws and second-class status, the fight will continue.

From The New York Times, an article on how society is slowly learning to support gender-variant children:

[A]s advocates gain ground for what they call gender-identity rights, evidenced most recently by New York City’s decision to let people alter the sex listed on their birth certificates, a major change is taking place among schools and families. Children as young as 5 who display predispositions to dress like the opposite sex are being supported by a growing number of young parents, educators and mental health professionals.

Doctors, some of them from the top pediatric hospitals, have begun to advise families to let these children be “who they are” to foster a sense of security and self-esteem. They are motivated, in part, by the high incidence of depression, suicidal feelings and self-mutilation that has been common in past generations of transgender children. Legal trends suggest that schools are now required to respect parents’ decisions.