Justice Kennedy and the Evergreen State College professor

[MillCreek]

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/how-an-evergreen-state-prof-guided-the-supreme-court/

Dr. Stephanie Cootnz has written scholarly studies on marriage that have apparently caught the eye of Justice Kennedy. I should try to find some of her works.

[roo_ster]

She will have to work hard to outshine Evergreen State's most famous product:
http://www.seattleactivism.org/events/event6522.htm

[MillCreek]

^^^No, no, no!  Evergreen is best known for Speedy the Geoduck:  http://evergreen.edu/geoduck/home.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVmXDe9o9w4

http://everything2.com/title/Geoduck+Fight+Song

[Tallpine]

once heterosexual marriage became less focused on fixed gender roles, you can’t then logically deny it to same-sex couples

See!  We never should have let the women wear shoes and leave the kitchen 

[Perd Hapley]

once heterosexual marriage became less focused on fixed gender roles, you can’t then logically deny it to same-sex couples

See!  We never should have let the women wear shoes and leave the kitchen 

Yup. That's the kind of thing I would have thought social conservatives were saying about fifty years ago, and she seems to be saying that they were right. Except that she probably thinks it's a good thing. Given the way our social mores have changed so rapidly, I have lately been wondering whether we should be so quick to dismiss what seem like exaggerated doom and gloom pronouncements from conservatives.

My main example here is that I didn't believe Lawrence v. Texas would bring us any closer to same-sex marriage, as so many said it would. And we're now arguing about whether Obergefell will lead to (further) persecution of Christian churches and businesses. Another example would be the upset over Elvis Presley's music and the way he danced on stage. Didn't the old fogies say he was a bad role model, and would make our good girls into hussies? And don't we bring them up for ridicule every time someone goes vapor-lock about Lady Gaga, or whoever? Yet a few decades later, and we have the moral decay (or we might call it the liberating social change) which they warned us about. I still don't think that's because of Elvis Presley, or the Gaga, but I'm not sure I can say that the old fogies were wrong about how one thing leads to another. If we loosen our stodgy, crusty old morality a little here, we open the door to things that are unimaginable today, but commonplace tomorrow. Does it have to happen that way? I don't think so. But it does seem to happen.

[Tallpine]

^^^ I was mostly joking, you know ... 


But since marriage is a patriarchal institution to oppress women, then how does it apply to same sex couples   

If there's no oppression, then there's no marriage, right...?   

[roo_ster]

But since marriage is a patriarchal institution to oppress women, then how does it apply to same sex couples   

The lefty/liberal brain does not work in straight lines, picking up evidence and cataloging it.  It is a mess of urges and fits and impulses all disconnected from one another. 


Think on these lefty articles of faith:
1. Sexual preference is inborn or genetic and immutable.
2. Sexual identity is mutable.
3. Bruce/"Caitlyn" Jenner is fabulous!

Problem here:
1. When Bruce identified as a man, he was a man.
2. When Caitlyn identifies as a women, she is a woman.
3. When Bruce was a man, he preferred sex with women.
4. As Caitlyn, she prefers sex with women
5. So, Bruce's sexual preference switched from heterosexual to homosexual.

I am reminded of this movie interaction:

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

[Perd Hapley]

roo, that's not really how they think it works, though. They believe Bruce was always a woman, forced by an evil, fact-based, fantasy-phobic society to identify as man, just because she actually was a man.

So, for them, Bruce reifies the old joke about a lesbian trapped in a man's body.