Tonight at 7PM EST – The Ashley F Miller Show Episode 2

Join me, JT Eberhard of What Would JT Do?, and Nicholas Thurkettle of his eponymous blog as we talk:

Politics: Wendy Davis

Media: World War Z and the political nature of zombies

Guest choice: the surprise success of The Heat.

You can RSVP to the “event” here and it should send you a link of the YouTube page, or just come back here at 7 and the YouTube link will be up.

This is filmed in front of a live internet audience — if you’ve got input feel free to get in touch before or during the show by commenting here, on youtube, or on the event page.

It will also be edited and released as a podcast.

Podcast website: http://ashleyfmiller.libsyn.com/webpage

Podcast RSS: http://ashleyfmiller.libsyn.com/rss

Podcast on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ashley-f-miller-show/id666564480

Partial Victory in Prop 8 and DOMA – Early Analysis

marriage-equality

My predictions have turned out to be correct — gay marriage will now be federally recognized and legal in California, but not universally legalized.

DOMA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL at least partly thanks to equal protection and not just states rights, that’s a big victory.  The opinion is here.  This is huge news for immigration and taxes and other federal jurisdiction issues.

“There is a “careful consideration” standard: In determining whether a law is motivated by improper animus or purpose, discriminations of an unusual character especially require careful consideration. DOMA cannot survive under these principles.”

Also this: “Bottom of 25-26: The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others. ”

This means that there’s some sort of heightened scrutiny now applied to gays as a class, though it does not appear to be full strict scrutiny.  This is good for any future gay marriage cases that are less complicated than Prop 8.

PROP 8 IS DISMISSED ON STANDING

The opinion is here.  What this basically means is that the lower court decision stands and Prop 8 is legalized in California, but not elsewhere.  The majority on this case is the weird combo of Roberts with Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan.  I’m guessing this means that there was a lot of negotiation behind the scenes?

I believe that this mean Judge Vaughn Walker’s amazing opinion stands, but only as it applies to California.  It’s one of the most beautifully written things I’ve ever read, so I highly recommend it.

—-

I stayed up far too late last night watching the drama unfold in the Texas senate, where Wendy Davis and several other amazing people fought for women’s rights and the GOP there tried to cheat and swindle their way to a victory, only to be stopped by the raucous crowd.  It was truly amazing.

But it was back to watching a livefeed only a few hours later — this time SCOTUSBlog in hopes of a victory in DOMA and Prop 8.  Man the internet is necessary for news these days.

Infographic here helps explain possibilities.  This is my previous analysis of possibilities.

It has been a long journey with Prop 8 — over 5 years.  I wish it had been a more robust victory, and it’s a shame it happened on the same day as DOMA.  Still, the percentage of Americans who have access to gay marriage has just grown tremendously by the inclusion of California.  That can only be good news.

It’s OK to shoot hookers in Texas — but only if it’s dark outside

texasgunsIt’s hard to imagine, without knowing the story, how someone could shoot a woman in the back of the head and then, quite literally, get away with murder.  Actually, it’s pretty hard to believe when you do know the story because that is what has just happened in Texas.

Ezekiel Gilbert hired a woman from Craigslist to be his escort and, after having spent the time he paid for in his apartment with him, she left.  But they hadn’t had sex, so Gilbert wanted his money back.  Instead, the woman got into her car and he shot her multiple times.  She was paralyzed and ultimately died from her wounds and he was charged with the murder.

His defense said that it is perfectly legal because of the “nighttime theft” rule in Texas which states that it’s OK “to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft.”  Now, he’d paid the woman she claimed for the time and he claimed for the sex, so it was really a dispute over whether he was getting what he paid for.  But instead of, say, suing or claiming fraud, he decided to shoot a woman with no weapons in the back because he didn’t get what he wanted from her escorting.  And he got away with it.

Here’s what I wonder.  Would any of this have happened if having sex for money was legal?

This is a big problem with underground, illegal economies.  When you pay for a special massage or escort service, sex isn’t clearly, necessarily in the cards.  Because, legally, it can’t be.  There’s no way that, if he’d sued her for not having sex with him, he would have won.  But, somehow, his understanding that there would be sex is enough justification for him to convince the jury that he was just trying to get money he’d been duped out of giving away because he had the expectation of getting laid.

Can you imagine a circumstance under which someone shot their dealer for not giving them the right kind of drugs?  Like the dealer sold the guy some perfectly legal version of pot, therefore the guy buying shot the dealer because he was expecting marijuana and then a court said, well, you didn’t like what you paid for, so it was fair to shoot the guy for not giving you what you really wanted.  There was an exchange of goods and services — you just thought you were getting something else for your money.

If prostitution (or drugs for that matter) was legal, there would be consumer protection, clarity in advertising, and protection for those selling the services. But apparently the only consumer protection now is to just shoot someone if they’re taking advantage of you.  Because your foolishness in falling for their scheme means that death for them is the appropriate action to take.  At least, according to juries in Texas.