In harm's way
Ug. I was reading about the controversy over "King & King" in New York and just read about the Harper v. Poway School District case. I don't know why or where people find the time to discriminate against gay people. Is it really so necessary? And what's the point, its unlikely that they are going to change any minds. Are they so desperate for a beating? The "King & King" book involves some prince who avoids other princesses until he finds another prince to kiss at the end of the book and they live happily ever after. I guess some parents were upset about the "sexual content." If so, we should get rid of any book where anyone kisses or lives happily ever after. I guess we would still have Batman.
What's that I was reading earlier today about Lot? Oh yeah, his two daughters seduced him. (That happens). There's another book for the bonfire, I guess.
And the Harper case was about some schmuck who decided to wear an anti-gay T-shirt to a day of tolerance (for LBGT) at his school. I'll defend his right to wear the shirt. On the other hand, I don't think I'd go too hard on someone who ripped it right off him, mitigating circumstances and all.
The Findlaw article linked it to that nutter who is disrupting the funerals of soldiers arguing that their deaths are punishment for the US accepting homosexuality. Seriously, protesting at soldier's funerals? Aren't those often populated by other soldiers and ex-military? Not too bright.
I remember talking in law school about battered women who kill their abusive spouses and the ticking time bomb defense. It works sometimes but not always. And you have to basically argue that the woman was crazy, insane, in the heat of passion. I was so angry. I just kept thinking, why not tell the jury, yeah she knew what she was doing. She knew exactly what she was doing, that guy deserved what he got. Frankly, she has had long talks with a psychologist and me, and she would take 20 or 40 years in jail over having that guy stay alive any day. We've told you why. Better to be free in jail than keep taking a beating from a guy that tracked her down anywhere, anytime. If you want to put her in jail, go for it. Maybe it will make you feel better, maybe it's the right thing to do. But if you think you are punishing her by doing so, you couldn't be further from the truth.
What's that I was reading earlier today about Lot? Oh yeah, his two daughters seduced him. (That happens). There's another book for the bonfire, I guess.
And the Harper case was about some schmuck who decided to wear an anti-gay T-shirt to a day of tolerance (for LBGT) at his school. I'll defend his right to wear the shirt. On the other hand, I don't think I'd go too hard on someone who ripped it right off him, mitigating circumstances and all.
The Findlaw article linked it to that nutter who is disrupting the funerals of soldiers arguing that their deaths are punishment for the US accepting homosexuality. Seriously, protesting at soldier's funerals? Aren't those often populated by other soldiers and ex-military? Not too bright.
I remember talking in law school about battered women who kill their abusive spouses and the ticking time bomb defense. It works sometimes but not always. And you have to basically argue that the woman was crazy, insane, in the heat of passion. I was so angry. I just kept thinking, why not tell the jury, yeah she knew what she was doing. She knew exactly what she was doing, that guy deserved what he got. Frankly, she has had long talks with a psychologist and me, and she would take 20 or 40 years in jail over having that guy stay alive any day. We've told you why. Better to be free in jail than keep taking a beating from a guy that tracked her down anywhere, anytime. If you want to put her in jail, go for it. Maybe it will make you feel better, maybe it's the right thing to do. But if you think you are punishing her by doing so, you couldn't be further from the truth.
posted by Ranger | 5:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home