Tuesday, December 23, 2008
In recent news of California's Proposition 8, a controversy has erupted regarding whether the proposition invalidates same-sex marriages that have occurred in the past. Proposition 8's proponents have stated that they believe the language of the proposition is clear, but I disagree, and not in the way you might think. In fact, I claim that Proposition 8 doesn't state—in any way—what its proponents wanted it to state. Let's take a closer look.
Proposition 8 states:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
The proposition could be interepreted as though between any man and any woman only marriage is valid or recognized. In this interpretation, the word "only" modifies only the word "marriage." In other words, any other kind of relationship between a man and a woman in California is not valid and not recognized by the state. For example, a landlord-tenant relationship would be recognized by the state only if both landlord and tenant were male or if both landlord and tenant were female or if the landlord were a man and the tenant was a male or female child (i.e., not a woman). For governmental positions, men could hire only other men, and women could hire only other women. To do otherwise would mean that you are creating a man-woman relationship that is recognized by the state and that is other than marriage. By this interpretation, Proposition 8 says you cannot do that.
The proposition could also be interpreted as though the California government may recognize and deem valid only marriage between a man and a woman—nothing else may be recognized or deemed valid by California. In other words, California no longer exists to govern the state—it exists solely to validate and recognize marriage between a man and a woman. For if it cannot recognize and validate anything but marriage between a man and a woman, then clearly it cannot conduct the business of governing the state. The key argument of this interpretation is that "only" modifies the entire clause "marriage between a man and a woman." For example, as it is written, one can interpret it to say that people could commit crimes of any nature, and the state is bound by Proposition 8 to not recognize them. And if it cannot recognize them, then certainly it may not act on them.
The writers of Proposition 8 probably meant to say:
"California shall recognize and deem valid a marriage only if it is between a man and a woman."
But the proposition doesn't say this at all.
The problem lies primarily in where the word "only" is placed. The proponents intend for "only" to apply to "a man and a woman," but they neglected to place "only" as close as possible to that phrase to make that clear.
I believe that due to poor sentence structure, Proposition 8 can be correctly interpreted only in the two nonsensical ways described above.
Proposition 8 ought to be invalidated not necessarily because it's a constitutional revision rather than an amendment and not necessarily because it conflicts with the state constitution's guarantee of inalienable rights and the state's ability to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. I think Proposition 8 should be invalidated because (a) it really doesn't say what its writers meant it to say and (b) it results in nonsensical and completely unworkable scenarios for the government.
Usual oatmeal breakfast. Winter office cleaning—dusted and vacuumed crevices and corners, reorganized cables, swapped UPSes so that the Mac Pro is using the RS 800 and the spare UPS is the RS 500. Today I installed a SATA drive into my Mac Pro, and when I got done I felt like I should have been hearing a chorus of angels. The process was so fast and simple, unlike the experience with a Windows computer, even modern Dell machines. One latch, 4 screws, no cables, about 3 minutes. Anyone who can operate a latch and a screwdriver can do it. Simply amazing. It's experiences like this that make many computer professionals who try Mac never go back to PC. Set up Time Machine on the new drive. Lunch: pizza party with Lucia, Eric D, Eric V, and Joel. I ordered from Pasquale's (415-661-2140, 700 Irving Street, San Francisco, California, USA) and got 1 large house special, 1 large veggie, 5 salads, 3 root beers. They asked me to come to Moffitt Circle because it's hard to find parking around UCSF—I agreed. A few seconds after I picked everything up from the driver, I realized that something wet was dripping all over the front of my clothes. I couldn't do anything about it, so I took everything upstairs to the office. There, I discovered that the Italian salad dressing on many of the salads had somehow leaked out of the containers and the bag and spread all across the top of the top pizza box and down the front of my clothes. It was awful. Pasquale's did not put the dressing in small containers with lids like other places—the salads were already dressed. Also, they used brown paper food containers that had no waxy lining or coating, so even upon opening all the bags the dressing was seeping through their containers and staining everything. I'm all in favor of environment-friendly packaging, but the container isn't supposed to disintegrate before I have started eating! On top of all that, both pizzas were partially burnt. What a horrible experience! No more Pasquale's for me for at least 1 year. Next time, I plan on ordering from nearby Milano's instead. Archived websites. Posted final winter schedules for Lucia. Set up Boot Camp with Windows XP SP2 and some applications on the new MacBook. Began other new computer setup activities (e.g., joining it to the domain). Patrick picked me up in the car. Dinner: leftover pizza. Dessert: Nathan's cookies—yum! Helped Patrick do another warm alcohol treatment on his neck. He watched Ab Fab episodes on owned DVD while waiting for the treatment to work.