Suckage has been avoided.
May 16th, 2009
May 2nd, 2009
So, California is having a special election to consider six propositions. Unlike last November, when I had a mix of ones that I felt strongly about and ones I wasn't sure on (or was ambivalent about), this time I pretty much have no clue on any of them. I'm going to give my capsule thoughts on each, but I'm really writing this in the hope of triggering a discussion and getting other people's feedback more than out of any belief that I've figured out the right way to vote on any of these.
( Read more... )
( Read more... )
October 13th, 2008
There are also four local propositions on my ballot. Since I got some very useful feedback on the California props, I figured I'd post about these as well, even though I'm not sure any of my readers except Orichalcum can vote on them.
( Read more... )
( Read more... )
October 11th, 2008
I just got my ballot in the mail, so I figure it’s time to start seriously thinking about the votes that aren’t obvious. Since I’m in California, that mostly means a whole lot of propositions. Here are my thoughts; I’d welcome comments, especially on the Props that I mention low confidence on.
( Read more... )
( Read more... )
October 10th, 2008
The Connecticut Supreme Court struck down Connecticut's definition of marriage as limited to a man and a woman today in Kerrigan v. Department of Health by a 4-3 vote. As I did with regard to the California marriage equality decision, I thought that I would give a quick response to this decision. I have only read the majority opinion, not the dissents.
Kerrigan is a substantially better decision than the California In re Marriage Cases decision. Both decisions dealt with states that had "separate but equal" statutory systems for same-sex couples (domestic partnerships in the case of CA, civil unions in CT). So in both cases, the step forward is important, but relatively small-- as notable for what it will do to the overall debate as for the direct legal effect today. Kerrigan is also based solely on the state constitution, and thus cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Kerrigan focuses almost all of its analysis of whether sexuality is a "suspect" class. The court concluded that sexuality is at least a "quasi-suspect" class, and that therefore intermediate scrutiny applies. These are standard terms in constitutional law, and Kerrigan's analysis of what level of scrutiny applies is very thorough and by the book. Importantly, Kerrigan does not foreclose the possibility that homosexuality should be considered a suspect classification, like race or (under CT state law but not federal law) sex. Rather, it holds that homosexuality is at least quasi-suspect (like sex under federal law or illegitimacy) and that there is no need to determine whether it is suspect because the ban on same-sex marriage fails intermediate scrutiny. Kerrigan also did not reach my preferred way of analyzing laws banning same-sex marriage, as discrimination on the basis of sex. It thus avoided In re Marriage Cases mistake of producing bad law at the same time as it produced a good result. Also, by carefully and forcefully arguing for quasi-suspect classification, Kerrigan produced a precedent that may be more likely to influence future decisions than In re Marriage Cases's more haphazard approach.
Kerrigan is a very long opinion, which I consider unfortunate, but it is also a careful and well-written opinion. It focuses on a small number of questions and then addresses those each thoroughly. All told, I consider it both a very good result and a good opinion that will hopefully produce a lot of good in future litigation.
Kerrigan is a substantially better decision than the California In re Marriage Cases decision. Both decisions dealt with states that had "separate but equal" statutory systems for same-sex couples (domestic partnerships in the case of CA, civil unions in CT). So in both cases, the step forward is important, but relatively small-- as notable for what it will do to the overall debate as for the direct legal effect today. Kerrigan is also based solely on the state constitution, and thus cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Kerrigan focuses almost all of its analysis of whether sexuality is a "suspect" class. The court concluded that sexuality is at least a "quasi-suspect" class, and that therefore intermediate scrutiny applies. These are standard terms in constitutional law, and Kerrigan's analysis of what level of scrutiny applies is very thorough and by the book. Importantly, Kerrigan does not foreclose the possibility that homosexuality should be considered a suspect classification, like race or (under CT state law but not federal law) sex. Rather, it holds that homosexuality is at least quasi-suspect (like sex under federal law or illegitimacy) and that there is no need to determine whether it is suspect because the ban on same-sex marriage fails intermediate scrutiny. Kerrigan also did not reach my preferred way of analyzing laws banning same-sex marriage, as discrimination on the basis of sex. It thus avoided In re Marriage Cases mistake of producing bad law at the same time as it produced a good result. Also, by carefully and forcefully arguing for quasi-suspect classification, Kerrigan produced a precedent that may be more likely to influence future decisions than In re Marriage Cases's more haphazard approach.
Kerrigan is a very long opinion, which I consider unfortunate, but it is also a careful and well-written opinion. It focuses on a small number of questions and then addresses those each thoroughly. All told, I consider it both a very good result and a good opinion that will hopefully produce a lot of good in future litigation.
June 16th, 2008
Dungeons and Dragons Fourth Edition (“4E”) (actually more like the tenth edition of a D&D game, depending on how you count, but who’s counting?) came out a little over a week ago. I followed the reports about 4E pretty closely, and my expectation was that it would be a very good game for people whose interests in RPGs were different from my own. Nonetheless, I’ll inevitably play a fair amount of 4E because of friends’ preferences and at conventions and so forth, and I figured I might run a 4E campaign at some point, so I picked up the “gift set” of Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual as soon as it came out. Since then, I’ve DMed two games—a session of WotC’s “Into the Shadowhaunt” scenario for Worldwide D&D Game Day and a game for 11th level pregenerated characters that I wrote. I figured that I would share my thoughts about 4E.
Overall, I don’t like it. This is significantly a matter of taste, but I also think that the game was badly underplaytested and that it has some significant flaws even for its core purpose. I also found that some of my objections were stronger than I expected. This is based on a small sample set of games, one of those games was a lousy module, and I haven’t been a player in any 4E games—a crucial step in reaching a fair overall conclusion. But so far, I’m not impressed.
( Much, much more below the cut )
Overall, I don’t like it. This is significantly a matter of taste, but I also think that the game was badly underplaytested and that it has some significant flaws even for its core purpose. I also found that some of my objections were stronger than I expected. This is based on a small sample set of games, one of those games was a lousy module, and I haven’t been a player in any 4E games—a crucial step in reaching a fair overall conclusion. But so far, I’m not impressed.
( Much, much more below the cut )
May 16th, 2008
As most people probably know, the California Supreme Court struck down the state ban on same-sex marriages yesterday, in a decision referred to as In Re Marriage Cases. Because the decision clearly and explicitly relies solely upon state law grounds, it cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (contrary to at least some media coverage that suggested that an appeal was likely). I thought I would post some quick thoughts from the perspective of a lawyer.
February 4th, 2008
I'm not going to post often on this account, but I wrote an e-mail to some of my Democratic friends encouraging them to vote for Obama. I thought I would repost it here.
January 12th, 2008
Cerebral Paladin is a lawyer, father, husband (of ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
orichalcum), writer, and gamer, among many other activities. His ENWorld Story Hours can be found here at Aphonion Tales, or Journals of a Licensed Diabolist.
orichalcum), writer, and gamer, among many other activities. His ENWorld Story Hours can be found here at Aphonion Tales, or Journals of a Licensed Diabolist.