I have nothing of consequence to say today. I could say more to clarify what I said yesterday, but I'm working that out. Many of the anecdotes I would use are personal and I'd have to do some serious editing. Maybe tomorrow.
In the meantime, I had a good day today. Good teaching, good marking, good colleagues. I meant to go to bed early, yet here I am. Mostly because I'm kind of hooked on this show, Shark. I should probably watch it on the internets, but it's on right now. It's not all that great, really, but James Woods is really good. He's worth watching.
Also, I guess I need to watch Spiderman 2 because the trailer for Spiderman 3 looks pretty good. Not as good as Casino Royale but good enough. In the meantime, I really want to see The Prestige and the other magician movie -- the Illusionist, isn't it?
I did have one thought, though. Why is it that people always challenge measures that discriminate against gay people on civil rights grounds? I'm asking this because for me, it seems like a clear question of the establishment clause. As far as I can see, all the grounds for discriminating against homosexuals are grounded in religious teachings.* Yet not all religions teach the same thing about homosexuality. In fact, there are religions that bless unions between gay people, and others allow actual marriage ceremonies. So it seems that any law that allows discrimination based on sexual preference, including banning marriage (a contractual legal union -- I think that we should do what countries like Germany do, by the way -- a civil ceremony is the legal one, and if people want benefit of clergy, they can go to their clergyman), privileges some religious groups above others. To me, that seems to go against the establishment clause. But maybe I'm wrong. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
*OK, there's the cynical argument that the insurance companies don't want to allow spousal benefits to anyone they can ...