It's a slow week for the kids. Because it's Passover week and next week is a vacation week, there's been little homework. They polished off their homework in 30 minutes, and we ran around outside for a while. (God, I'm out of shape.)
It was a slow evening for me, too. For once, dinner was all prepared and I'm not feeling pressured to pump out an article. So, I sat on the sofa listening to NPR's coverage of the Supreme Court's review of DOMA.
I'm not really the best person to write about this case. There are some first class, Supreme Court specialists who blog and write articles for mainstream papers. I love listening to the discussion, but I am not an expert.
The debate is fascinating. Great discussion about federalism and the role of marriage in society. I'll link to the best commentary as I find it.
Also, I just don't understand the arguments against same-sex marriage. If you're going to write great analysis of an issue, you have to have some empathy for both sides of the topic. In this case, I just cannot understand why anybody would care that gay people want official state recognition of their long term relationships.
Is gay marriage really going to degrade the institution of marriage? The institution of marriage has taken far more hits from celebrities who rotate spouses like a new spring wardrobe. Kim Kardashian's 72 day marriage to Kris Humphries is hardly a model for long-term commitment.
Loving, long-term relationships are good things. It's good financially. It's good for family life. It's good for one's own health. Right now, the benefits of marriage are siloed up in middle class and upper middle class families. I figure the more people who model the benefits of marriage, we're all better off.