Finals Trials

I think Erie needs to go off and die in a ditch where rabid badgers would thus devour it. I think it just gave me an aneurysm. Or is that the nagging bit of Con Law at the back of my head? Yep, that's right, thanks to Con Law I also think due process (of any kind) needs to go jump off a cliff. Except for the whole abortion thing. Choice is still good there. Just sayin'.

I really don't want to study for con law. I used to love it. I had my great debates with Tim and Nick and Neal, and I miss that. Now, we hate our professor, hate the class, and hate our lives because of it. During the review she said she "Didn't want to re-teach us" con law right then. Which means that she thinks at some point she taught us something. She is sadly mistaken. Grrrrr! At least that test is first up on Thursday, and I've got a reservation to the Sam Adams open house that night.

Is there any worse feeling in the world than during finals and a message comes up saying, "Word is unable to open this document due to an unknown error. You may try to recover it by praying to the bag of potato chips on the bottom shelf at the 7-11. No, not the one across the street, the one across town. The one you've never been to. Now, once you're done with that. Go to the middle of the Zaikim bridge. There will be a man in a pink Fedora and he will give you the password to a chest that is buried on Lovell island, which you must wait until May to go to, because the ferries conveniently don't run until May. No I don't care that your exam for this class is on May 7, that's not my problem. The chest will contain the code to unlock your lost outline, but it will not be in outline format anymore, just a list of meaningless words and code. Hey, Word said it would get it back, it made no promises on format. To get format you go to City Hall."
FML

I've also noticed that finals had started to reduce my ability and desire to think very complexly outside of studying. My conversations have started going downhill. I think I'm on about an 8-year-old level, with some teen-age girl "likes" thrown in there for good measure.
I saw the phrase "yudu screenprinter" and read it as "Yoda sphincter" until I realized that made sense in no universe.
Wore a Cyclone Alley shirt Saturday, wanted to show some Iowa pride. Walked to school, etc.
Went to Starbucks to get a drink, order, hand the barrista the cash, and she asks, "So are you *from* Iowa?"
I start freaking out in my head, because I'm thinking, "I just handed her cash, there's no way she should know, and even if I gave her my debit card there's no way to tell it's from Iowa..."
Then I remember.
The shirt.
Duh.
I've also apparently gotten even more ignorant to current events than usual. Who's president again? And what's with this swine flu? Is that an actual thing or just a twitter meme?

It also seems like my parents are having retro-active control issues. I was very unworthy of control during the times I actually lived at home, I didn't go out with the bad crowd, I dated the good guys, I got good grades, I followed the rules. So they didn't really have to exert any power, I was never grounded (though that part might have had something to do with the fact I was involved in EVERYTHING and they wouldn't keep me away from school activities). But now they're trying to make me feel bad for having my own life and not staying at home longer. Wake-up call, I have my own friends and my life is no longer there. I'll always call it home-home, but even they admit things get tense after awhile, so they need to stop being so passive-aggressive when I try to make plans to move to Ames. It's pissing me off. I want my Ames life back.

On a happier note, I may go ahead and get some sort of civil (haha, very punny... you'll see why in a minute) union to my civil procedure book.(ba-dum-bum. thank you thank you I'll be here all week)(oh dear lord kill me now! I'm making civ pro jokes. At least property jokes can be sexy! "I'll take *you* by adverse possession!" omg *headdesk*) We're allowed to "annotate" it, which our professor even took the liberty to tell us we can outline in it. So I've taken the last few days to do that. It's really amazing how neat your handwriting can get when your grade and/or life may depend up it. It's gorgeous, and I think I know my stuff, and I'm just going to hold it and love it and cuddle it next Sunday night.

Also, along with stress apparently comes very loverly and vivid dreams. Now if only the events would actually come true. :-) <3

But, it's getting toward bed-time. So far this week I've gotten about 18 hours in studying, and that's only going to grow. I've never studied harder in my life.

I wonder if, for the purpose of finals, a kiss could be considered a contract?

So Facebook just recommended that I "become a fan" of "Left 4 Dead." This confuses me. Nowhere in my interests does it state that I in any way enjoy video games (although I do have that horny engineer quote...). But still, it makes me wonder, am I friends with too many gamer dorks? (nah... gotta love em all...:-) )

I know, I know, I've been not posting every two days, as is my late norm, but I have to tell you, not much has been happening. Finals period is starting up, as I guess was the title of the last post, as I recall, so yeah, still going on. I have to say though, and this is going to make me sound like a complete and utter ditz and blonde, but this studying thing may have something to it. I mean, I was pretty good at school, so I never really worried about studying, and I did just enough to get decent grades at ISU, but this really studying, making outlines, doing practice quesions, it just might help. Case in point: I was doing a practice question for Criminal law the other day, and that night, when I was trying to fall asleep, the rules of murder kept going through my head. In not a creepy way, let me assure you, but it made a light go on, like: "Hey, I remember what I studied...wait..." So yeah, I'm a ditz, but I'm going to do better in finals this time around, I'm sure of it. Except for con law, which the review session today made me want to sit in a corner and rock back and forth. We'll see about that one. At least it's first.

Let me give you an example of the craziness we have to study:

You tell me, does this sentence make any sense to you?

"Feoffment with livery of seisen."

No?
Didn't think so.
Oh, what? You thought I was going to explain it? Haha, nice try.

Also, this is frustrating. The further I get on my outlines, the further I get from the end. You know what I mean. When you have to go back and review something, except you keep adding to it, so the more work you put into it, the longer it gets, so the further from the end you get. So instead of you being on page 14 of 25, you're now on page 16 of 32. Your contributions have not helped the situation except to make it seem more futile.

I did go shopping on Thursday though. I had to get out of the school after Civ Pro review, my head was spinning. So I went to this super-fun store called, actually, Funusual. They've got tons of cute and unusual stuff. I got some cookie cutters of gingerbread men with pieces "bitten" off, something I've been stalking the store for for months. Also some stuff for K's birthday, some "I <3 my penis" and other random packs of gum (I figure they'll be fun to unsettle the guys this summer), and the thing I'm really excited about, but embarrassed too... penguin salt and pepper shakers. I'm odd, I don't really care, but still.

Which brings me to my next point. I have learned, and you've probably seen it asserted here, that I'm learning to not worry about what people care so much about me. If they don't like me, that's their problem, not mine. And so I've become completely comfortable being "that friend" in a group. Not the "let's leave her behind" friend, that still pisses me off, and believe me, if you make me disposable, I make you disposable. But the quirky, odd, makes people laugh and is always up for something silly and crazy. That's me. I like it.

So as I'm getting closer to the end, I realize it's only 21 days til I will be OUT of Massachusetts!!! I'm not gonna lie, I will miss the friends I've made here, and I hope they'll still be here for me if for some reason I end up not being able to transfer, but I'm super excited to go home as well. And while home is now Ames, I now have a picture of my home home as my wallpaper to remind me:





Oh, my parents did end up buying that condo out in Arizona.

I will leave you with a thought I found somewhere (I honestly don't remember where) and thought, "yes." I think I would feel this way too.

"Today when my toast was done it popped all the way out of the toaster and I caught it midair and a little part of my soul that I didn’t know was empty suddenly became filled."

So starts finals period

So if you all haven't figured it out yet, I only use the phrase "I'm out" when I'm actually pissed or need to get over something. So yes, this weekend's "I'm out til VEISHEA's over" status... yes, I was sore over it. Fuck it. Hopefully I'll be back next year. And actually, I'm still not on FB, this is from an external blog. So ha.

Ok, so I do use "I'm out" in other situations, but unless I'm *actually* *leaving*, there's a good chance I'm using in angry irony. Take note.

So starts finals period.
I tried to get out of the school to study, so I went to the Boston Public Library. It looked like a nice building, and the website touted it as a wonderfully artistic place to study. But the security guards came after me and my coffee, and in one of the more sketchy places I've been lately, there was an empty hip-flask of bottom-shelf vodka sitting on one of the tables. So I got out of that area. Found the study room I saw on the website, and am getting some decent work done. I think. But I think I need to alter my sleep schedule.
That and my roommates need to shut the fuck up.

So in preparing my outline for Civ Pro, I have run across another of our esteemed professor's unintelligible scriblings on the slides. I'm not sure it's quite that important this time around, but still, I probably should be able to come up with something to translate it to and... nothing. Well, fvpen or foopah (come on people, urban dictionary it), which, I can **guarantee** you Sorenson would never write. Or even think. Yeah. Thoughts?:



I've started to notice that we've started referring to the end of finals like I imagine the Pilgrims would have referred to the end of their voyage. Like, "I'll see the light of day and be normal when finals are over," and "Some of us may fall along the way, but if we make it to the end there will be a bright light, filled with booze and loud music." Or maybe that last one is just me.

Maybe this is an example: OMG I miss driving!!! In less than a month I get to drive for about 16 hours!!! Then 3 more, and all around Ames!!! I miss Monty, even if his backseat does smell of booze.

This will completely be my status on the day of the last final here:

"So until our tears are dried, we'll drink and drink and drink and drink and then we'll drink some more. We'll dance and sing and fight until the early morning light, then we'll throw up, pass out, wake up, and then go drinking once again!"

Anyone recognize it? It's yet another gem from my Tenacious D radio on Pandora.

Some people are really going nuts with the studying already. Yes, I've actually started buckling down, but there are people who say they don't sleep at night and study from like 7 in the morning until 11 at night, and I just can't see it. I mean, I'm sure they don't and can't study straight through, but I can't even pretend to study that long or that hard. I need to have some semblance of a normal life. Besides, it's impossible for someone to be productive for every single waking minute. You just can't do it. You'll go nuts. I hope to emerge both victorious and sane at the end of finals. Wish me luck

*Cue non-sequitur segue*

Be very glad I have a very strong force pulling me back from doing many of the impulses I would love to do. It's very good that I don't put my evil to actual use. If I were ever employed to put my evil schemes to work, the world would come burning down within weeks. Those people who have pissed me off should be particularly glad I have this certain over-ride mechanism.

One last note: It appears as though my parents have made an offer on a condo in Phoenix. This should be exciting, but I'm waiting until I get an answer on my school for next year before I start proclaiming: "Spring break 2010, anyone?"

Real life is sometimes better (and far more bizzare) than fiction

If only the stories I told here were only just stories. Instead, real life is sometimes much more interesting. I'll tell you the exciting-sounding part, then explain it. More and more of it has to do with Twitter, but still, entertaining.

1) I got threatened personally by a tv character:

I watched Krod Mandoon, a new show on Comedy Central. The guy is pretty good looking, but even I, as a straight chick, have to admit that the main chick on that show is smoking. So I tweeted: "Krod Mandoon... even I will admit that chick is utterly hot." I got an @ reply from KrodMandoon: "@ctinalk Aneka is mine!" fml.

2) The return of cockpocket.

Yep, the chick I haven't even met, but will have to eventually; dreamt about her. In the dream, she was mad at me for being passed out on the couch of her boyfriend. I really blew her off. Just like "fuck off, I am hungover. And don't you think that if I had hooked up with him, I'd be in the bed instead of on the couch? You are being irrational." And I haven't even met her. It'll be quite the scene when I actually do, I admit

.

3) Bunnyrabbitsex told me I should write.

I twittered about the dream, just "Had another dream about miss cockpocket. At least my dreams and twitter supply me with an endless supply of entertainment..." "@ctinalk you should write your dreams down and turn them into stories."

4) A cascade of alcohol!!!!

I was deciding whether to get a bottle of wine for myself at Liquor World this afternoon, and a tremendous crash and sounds of glass breaking comes from the back. Bottles of wine and beer were falling down from one of the topmost shelves. It was sad and awkward and entertaining to watch. And hear. Except a mom with a stroller was near ground zero and went off on the guy and stormed out. I felt sad for him. Typical. For me to side 1) with the liquor guy and 2) against mothers.

5) My bed gives new meaning to "the motion of the ocean."

So I think I've mentioned that I have an inflatable for a bed, and since spring break I've been using 2, one on top and one for height. Well... the height one seems to have sprung a larger leak as of late, and towards daylight it's leaving me very precariously perched on the top. I'm going on a hole-hunt tonight. After I finish my con law question

This post is also about shit. For now anyway. I have a few frustrations dealing with bathrooms as of late, and I feel the compelling need to share them.*

So you know the toilets with the sensors that flush the tank when you get up at the end? Every singe one of the toilets at the school has them. And most of them work just fine. except. Except for the possessed ones. The second stall on the 5th floor, and the 1st stall in the library. Evil. They will flush *as you sit down*. As you get *closer* to them they flush. Then periodically as ya pee. Like you sit still and it thinks, "I'm going to piss this stressed off law student just a little bit more. You think you're sitting still...? I see every millimeter of movement, and will flush just to show you I'm paying attention." It's like a bad duvet. Or whatever those things are called. *edit: bidet, that's what they're called.

I also think it's kind of funny how disproportionate some of my notes are to the things we actually talked about in class. Like, there's this one case that we probably talked about for 15 minutes, which is a decent amount of time for Con law, that was about how Iowa used to limit the length of trucks that could travel across the state. So naturally I should be all over it, right? My notes say, an I quote:

"ii.Kassel v. Consolidated 1.Limit lengths of trucks in Iowa."

I'm gonna do *awesome* in Con Law.

*By "share them," I mean, "do anything and everything to get out of studying." This is a last-ditch procrastination attempt.

It's been awhile since I've been called sane, I'll admit

There are many things I should do in the next month, but on the "what I *want* to do" scale, setting myself on fire is somewhere below going on a month-long drinking binge and yet above studying for finals. This might not end well.

Welcome to yet another meandering post. Try to keep up.

I think Facebook has officially taken it too far when I can take a quiz entitled "What kind of librarian are you?" Apparently I'm "Librarian 2.0." Apparently I'm *also* Hitler, according to the "Which world leader are you?" quiz.

Woohoo!!! I really am losing it. I never thought I'd get to the day where I'd say, "Yay, rape!" But you have to remember, this is now a law school brain. In my mind, that thought is succeeded by, "That means I'm getting towards the end of my criminal law outline!" So in this case, rape is a good thing. As twisted as that sounds.

I'm a freaky brat with amazing eyes who ran shirtless with a condom because I have amazing boobs. Hmmm... yeah, this was a little chainletter type thing... ask if you really want to see it. It's pretty entertaining.

Why do I beat myself up over things that the other person probably doesn't even care about!? I can't go back and change it, and it only matters in my mind, so why? It's only distracting me from the studying I should be doing.

OOOHHHH guess what? Guess who's back? It's the amazing fighting couple. Veronica's boyfriend is back, I didn't even know he was over, and already I can hear their voices escalating over my new South Park. And they're fighting. I can't wait for summer.

Best bumper sticker I've seen lately: "Twilight made me cry because I could feel a part of my brain dying."

It's great. I think. Or at least a bit funny. My first cold call of the entire year has come back to give me a horrible nickname. "Douche." As in Hannan v. Dusch. fml. I suppose it's appropriate, my language has been changing to fit it. Lately my usual reaction has been either "sweet," or "mother-fucker!"

Yeah, a lot of this has to do with the final countdown of law school, I'll admit, but really there's only a month left until I will no longer be in Massachusetts!!! No, seriously, on May 15th, at about this time, I assume I'll be somewhere in the western New York/Pennsylvania/Ohio area. I have a lot of studying/outlining/writing/drinking to do before then, but at the end of it all, I get to move in with a couple of great friends, and will be only a few blocks from my summer boys again. Not that I think it will be the same, but to have some continuity after this year will be fantabulous.

I can't wait.

Give me summer, I demand it. NOW!!!!

Huh.

Huh.

I don't know exactly how to start this one. It's kind of like having a crisis of self, but not caring enough to really dig deep and figure it out because it's not that bad, but also knowing that something hit a chord that didn't feel right. I don't know how to explain it, but I'll try to put thoughts down.

Oh, and there'll be a rant at the end. yeah.

So Friday we went to the Tam again for drinks. The weird guy that was there before spring break was there again, just as weird. I had a couple vodka:vodka:cranberries (I had vodka in there twice because the bartender makes them really strong. But after the first one you don't taste the vodka anymore. Lucky me.) and was fine, thanks for asking. Went to Con Law, I think. Yeah. Pretty sure.
But after class I was typing up my notes from the last 3 weeks, and L came in to check in for a break. But as she was leaving she said, "We are shadows of our former selves. We should be drunk right now." And of course I laughed and agreed.
But I got to thinking. Yes, I do like to have the alcohol, and every once in a while I do go overboard, but in general, I feel like I'm reverting to my old self, my introverted, freshman self. Maybe it's good, because that means I don't have the crappy feeling the morning after so it doesn't interrupt my studying, if studying is what I'm doing. But at the same time, I feel like I've come so much further than that. I like who I was last summer, and I want to maintain that. Maybe I just need to get back to Ames.

And that's only like 40 days away! Woohoo!!! Which means finals and such are much closer than I would like to think.
But I'm gearing up. I took a lot of this week off, but I did get some criminal law outlining done. But I took Thursday afternoon off, went shopping and down to Long Wharf. Sigh. The last time I was there, things were much different, both with people and the way I was feeling about Boston. Things change, it just takes time to realize how much they do change.
Then I went to Demetri Martin that night. He is ***gorgeous***. I would have his babies in a second. His hair (yes, I'm a hair girl) is perfect for me, and he's hilarious and can play the piano and guitar... me perfect man. He went to law school too... like me! I'm off to Bo Burnham tonight, looking forward to it, but I'm putting off leaving because it's raining hobos and tramps again.

***

So for the rant. This one pisses me off so much I've even decided to include a diagram. This is a section of the subway to and from school, between a set of doors. It goes: 2 seats, pole, 3 seats, pole, 3 seats, pole, 2 seats. So it would seem like second nature to pick the seats next to the pole to allow a second person to easily sit in the same section, thus allowing more people to ride seated during non-peak hours without majorly intruding into their personal space. Not the case. Some douchebags choose to ride like the guy on the left, as such:



The proper way to situate yourself is like the two loverly people on the right.

I find myself doing a poll in my head, and upwards of 95% of people who do this are either younger/middle-aged guys or foreign. And the guys ALWAYS, ALWAYS splay their legs so wide so it would be impossible to sit next to them without asking them to move their legs. Yes, I know you think you're the man, but what you're doing makes you look like an asshole, and I bet that's why you never get passed second base, I can only assume you have to spread them that wide because you have some horrible STD that requires you to allow your tiny dick and balls access to air at all times, I hope it's syphilis, and I'm sure your mother never loved you as a child. Or now. There is a special circle of hell reserved for people like you.

Just because I kiss the prettiest boys and I drive Monty too fast...

Why does everybody want to kick my ass?
Yes, yes I did in fact just ad lib to Big and Rich.

I cannot wait for the day when I can legitimately RT this post: It's Monday. A day where I probably won't leave my house.

I'm slightly confused. This entire week was supposed to be rain, rain, rain. But it's been pretty gorgeous most days. Except for Monday. It was raining hobos and tramps (it rains hobos and tramps in Massachusetts instead of cats and dogs, for those of you wondering). But I guess I get to go shopping today, I've got loads of time to kill before I have to walk the 300 feet down to the Wilbur Theatre to see my future husband (future ex-husband?) Demetri Martin perform.

I seem to be having the *best* luck lately. No, seriously, other than the stress of classes which is kinda making me shut down, everything seems to be going right.

Shall I start?

Well, I sent an email out... Tuesday, I think it was, to the Ames City, Story County and Boone County attorneys, trying to put feelers out to figure out if internships at any of those places would be feasible. Guess what? Later that day, get an email from the Ames guy, saying I'd probably be able to work there part time during the summer!! Now I still want the job with Iowa Concern, but they don't decide that until May, so I kind of need to figure out a way to stall. I'm good at procrastinating though, it shouldn't be a problem.

Then, my random trolling of the internet paid off Tuesday night, when I stayed logged on to Bo Burnhams live blog site. Apparently, while I was off folding laundry or doing some prelim packing, he showed up for about 15 seconds and gave all of us on there permanent operator status. For those of you who don't get it, blogtv only allows 150 people in the main room to chat directly with the blogger at a time. Now, thanks to perma-ops, I get automatic main room! It's really a cool celebrity run-in for me.

Then, Wednesday morning, I roll out of bed, get online, register for classes at New England (because I'm not guaranteed that I'll be able to transfer back), then climb back into bed. It was wonderful, easy, a little bit more awkward and slower than ISU (but what do you expect? I'd hope a leading technology school would have a perfected online registration system, so I've been completely and utterly spoiled both by the system and the fact that I always got to register early because I was head and shoulders above everyone else in my "class" in terms of credit numbers, so I was registering with the seniors in the spring of my sophomore year or something crazy like that), but I got all the classes I wanted. I figured most others did as well. hahahahahahha nope. Apparently lots of people got NONE of the classes they wanted, some didn't even get into the REQUIRED class.
Ok, let me emphasize. This is a class we are REQUIRED to take next fall, and the school didn't have enough seats open. Utterly ridiculous.
Oh, and my process took all of about 8 minutes. 8:08, back in bed. Some people's took upwards of an HOUR. I'd be super pissed.

But, I'm counting my lucky ducks only after they hatch. But this week has been pretty great. Easy, tiring, but easy. I've been taking it easy on purpose too, because the bum rush of finals shall be upon me soon enough. So I've got Demetri Martin Thursday and Bo Burnham on Saturday, which I actually have a date for. legit. But I'm leaving. He knows. Whatevs. Not making that mistake again.

I wanna go hooommmmeeeee. Home to Ames. 40 days til Ames. Or some ridiculously small number like that.

Varnum v. Brien: my summary

So, in an effort to make sure I know the case, I’m going to spend my Friday night (which turned into Saturday and Sunday afternoons) perusing Varnum v. Brien and setting out what I would state the summary to be.

(A note before you begin, this ended up being 9 and a half pages in word. That's a lot longer than I thought it was going to be, but I still think it’s good. This is not meant to be a legal analysis, by any means, and is simply meant to put the ruling into a more concise and focused format. But I by no means think it was a poorly written opinion. On the contrary, I think it is pure poetry, (indeed, as you'll see, I started out not wanting to quote a lot, but many times the court said it better than I ever could, hence the reason they're the Supremes) whether you agree with the ruling or not. I also hope I’ve presented it in as balanced a voice as possible, even with my comments inserted.)

If you're not a law student and want a toned-down version, just ask.

So enjoy, comment, and if you want to repost, just ask permission.

Some background to begin with: I was too young and naïve to remember or care when this whole thing started back in 1998, but the legislature passed the Defense of Marriage act, which added to state code that “only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.” In time, six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses by the Polk County Recorder’s office brought this suit against the Polk County Recorder. (Des Moines, state capital of Iowa, is located in Polk County) The couples brought the suit in the form of a summary judgment motion, using many arguments which the court addresses in its opinion, and the Polk County District Court concluded the statute was unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses in the Iowa Constitution.

What resulted was an uproar, in the fall of my senior year at Iowa State, in late October 2007. For something less than 27 hours, gay marriage was allowed in Iowa. Because of the large amount of paperwork required to obtain a marriage license, only one couple was legally married in that limited amount of time, Sean Fritz and Timothy McQuillan, two students also at Iowa State at the time. (The article which followed this event in the student newspaper can be found here. An interesting quote from the article: “"The voters [need to decide] if they want Iowa to become the Massachusetts of the Midwest," McDowell said.”)

But the day after the ruling from the District Court handed down this ruling and ordered the recorder’s office to start processing same-sex marriage licenses, it stayed the order, pending the appeals process to the Iowa Supreme Court.
So comes this case. In the case, per our LRW classes, the court uses a basic outline form, which I shall follow.

II. Standard of Review
Pretty basic, the court will review the facts of the case under a summary judgment standard.

III. Constitutional Separation of Powers
The court goes into a declaration stating the Constitution is the upmost law of the state and when individuals seek an upholding of their rights, the separation of powers must be strictly observed. The constitution also creates certain rights, of which equal protection and due process are two, which the government cannot infringe upon.
At this point I have to point out that either the Supreme Court has been writing excellent opinions that I fail to read, or Justice Cady knew this opinion would have a nationwide and varied population reading Varnum, because he goes to great lengths to explain the history, notion, and process of the 3-tiered system of government. It also seems to know the outcome of this case may be unpopular to some, but must be decided this way, because it points out that “[a] statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion,” (pg 13) and the point of the courts is to “to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts” (pg 14), and “[j]udges ought not to be partisans, and be influenced by partisan control. Their duty is to interpret and apply the law, to the end that the liberty, and the rights and property, of the people may be secured.” (pg 14)

IV. Equal Protection.

A. Background Principles
In both the separation of powers and this section the court recognized that the standards of the public changes as time progresses, so the fabric of society must be decided in the context of each generation, not sticking to outdated social norms. They use the progression of cases, such as race, where discrimination was once an accepted practice, but society has since seen that it is inherently contrary to the notion of equal protection.
In my favorite part of the opinion, the court goes into the history of cases in Iowa, and how progressive the state had been. A few examples include it struck down denying slaves equal protection and prohibiting women from being admitted to the bar, ironically, in both cases, prior to the US Supreme court upheld laws allowing these practices. It also “struck blows” at segregation as early as 1868, long before the US Supreme Court decided the Brown cases.

B. Legal Tests to Gauge Equal Protection
According to the court, in quoting precedent in Iowa, the equal protection clause in the Iowa Constitution is similar to that of the US Constitution in that it ‘is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.’ (pg 19) But in looking at the actions of the legislative branch of government, in keeping with the separation of powers, the judiciary “must give respect to the legislative process and presume its enactments are constitutional.” (pg 19-20) But the level of deference paid to the legislature is determined by the level of scrutiny used to determine equal protection cases.
Cady then goes into a very explicit explanation of the levels of scrutiny. When I said that I learned more about equal protection and levels of scrutiny from Varnum than from a semester of Con Law, this is where it started.
Under the rational basis test, the courts are highly deferential to the legislature, and it requires “only a plausible policy justification, mere rationality of the facts underlying the decision and, again, a merely rational relationship between the classification and the policy justification.” (pg 21)
However, “courts apply a heightened level of scrutiny under equal protection analysis when reasons exist to suspect “prejudice against discrete and insular minorities . . . which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities.” (pg 21-22, citing Carolene Prods.) “Under this approach, classifications based on race, alienage, or national origin and those affecting fundamental rights are evaluated according to a standard known as “strict scrutiny.” Classifications subject to strict scrutiny are presumptively invalid and must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.” (pg 22, citations omitted)

[NESL classmates: I should note, however, in contrast to what Prof Garza was saying on Friday, Cady specifically says in note 8 on page 22 that “References to “heightened” scrutiny in this opinion are meant to be general; heightened scrutiny includes any judicial inquiry more searching than the rational basis test. References to “intermediate” scrutiny discuss a specific level of scrutiny between the rational basis test and strict scrutiny.” As I will point out later, the court specifically uses intermediate scrutiny to determine this case, they don’t try to create some vague new level located somewhere between intermediate and strict.]

The intermediate tier has been “applied to statutes classifying on the basis of gender or illegitimacy and requires the party seeking to uphold the statute to demonstrate the challenged classification is substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental objective. … To survive intermediate scrutiny, the law must not only further an important governmental interest and be substantially related to that interest, but the justification for the classification must be genuine and must not depend on broad generalizations.” (pg 22)

C. Determination of Constitutional Facts
I’ll admit, this section is one which I made no effort to understand the first time around, and I’m not sure it makes much difference in the grand scheme of things. But, it appears to me that because of the status of some of the testimony, the district court excluded it, and the County brings it up in this appeal.
Adjudicative facts, it seems, are the facts specific to a particular case and the outcome of the case hinges simply on applying existing rules to the facts presented. Legislative (or constitutional) facts, on the other hand, are facts about society as a whole and the idea leads to adapting laws or rulings on laws based on societal trends, and while there are set rules regulating the admission and presentation, of adjudicative facts, legislative facts can be presented either formally or informally, and can in fact be judge-obtained. The court looks at the “actual truth content” of the legislative facts, and should rely only on the most compelling data. However, the court says the error of the trial court in dis-allowing such evidence is not relevant in its current de-novo review.

D. Similarly Situated People
The County advanced the argument that the plaintiffs were not “similarly” situated to heterosexuals because they could not “procreate naturally” (pg 26) and therefore the laws did not have to be applied uniformly to them, banking on the assertion that equal protection demands that laws treat alike all people who are “‘similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purposes of the law.’” (pg 25) But, the court declares, “‘[S]imilarly situated’ cannot mean simply ‘similar in the possession of the classifying trait.’” In other words, “No two people or groups of people are the same in every way, and nearly every equal protection claim could be run aground onto the shoals of a threshold analysis if the two groups needed to be a mirror image of one another.” (pg 27) So “to truly ensure equality before the law, the equal protection guarantee requires that laws treat all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law alike.” (27) The court explains the history of marriage laws in the state, saying that they were to allow individuals in a relationship to combine their financial resources and efforts and energies together. They also serve to “recognize the status of the parties’ committed relationship,” (28) and to change their legal and social status.
The plaintiffs are similarly situated to heterosexual couples, according to the court, because the purpose of the laws was to promote committed relationships and to provide “an institutional basis for defining their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities.” (28)

E. Classification Undertaken in Iowa Code Section 595.2
This section determines whether the statute limiting marriage to one between a man and a woman is classification on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. The district court held it was classification on gender, but the Supreme Court hold it classifies on basis of sexual orientation. “The benefit denied by the marriage statute—the status of civil marriage for same-sex couples—is so “closely correlated with being homosexual” as to make it apparent the law is targeted at gay and lesbian people as a class.”” By requiring that the person you are marrying be of the opposite gender, “purposefully placing civil marriage outside the realistic reach of gay and lesbian individuals”, the statute effectively discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, not gender.(31)

F. Framework for Determining Appropriate Level of Judicial Scrutiny
Obviously, neither the Iowa or the Supreme Court has determined the level of scrutiny appropriate for a sexual orientation classification, however past cases can provide a way to determine the proper level.
“Classifications based on factors like race, alienage, national origin, sex, or illegitimacy are “so seldom relevant to achievement of any legitimate state interest that laws grounded in such considerations are deemed to reflect prejudice and antipathy…” “For these reasons and because such discrimination is unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative means,” laws based on these types of classifications must withstand more intense judicial scrutiny than other types of classifications. ” (33)
But to determine the levels in other cases, the Supreme Court has looked at four factors: “(1) the history of invidious discrimination against the class burdened by the legislation; (2) whether the characteristics that distinguish the class indicate a typical class member’s ability to contribute to society; (3) whether the distinguishing characteristic is “immutable” or beyond the class members’ control; and (4) the political power of the subject class.” (34-35) This is not a solid test, and the court assesses “how each bears on the question of whether the Iowa Constitution requires a more searching scrutiny be applied to the specific classification at issue.” (36) They do conclude that the first two factors have always been present when heightened scrutiny is applied and are considered pre-requisites. The final two are looked at to supplement the determination for heightened scrutiny

G. Determination of Appropriate Level of Scrutiny

1. History of discrimination against gay and lesbian people
The county does not argue that gays and lesbians have been targets of “purposeful and invidious discrimination” (37) because of their sexual orientation, and the court points to several instances of discrimination throughout and up to recent history, such as gays being dismissed from the military, hate crimes, and others. The state legislature has felt the need to remedy these and other past wrongs by including the definition of hate crimes to include those committed against an individual or group because of their sexual orientation and prohibit bullying or harassment in schools based on sexual orientation. These enactments “demonstrate a legislative recognition of the need to remedy historical sexual-orientation based discrimination.” (38)
“In sum, this history of discrimination suggests any legislative burdens placed on lesbian and gay people as a class “are more likely than others to reflect deep-seated prejudice rather than legislative rationality in pursuit of some legitimate objective.” This observation favors an elevated scrutiny to uncover any such prejudice.” (38-39, citations omitted)

2. Sexual orientation and the ability to contribute to society
First off, the court asserts that when the classification bears no relationship to a person’s ability to contribute to society, heightened scrutiny should be applied. A classification without that relationship is presumed to be based on prejudice and outmoded notions of society. (39) “More importantly, the Iowa legislature has recently declared as the public policy of this state that sexual orientation” has been “recognized in Iowa to be irrelevant to a person’s ability to contribute to society.” (pg 39-40, citing chpt 216 of the Iowa Code)

3. Immutability of sexual orientation
The County advanced this argument fiercely because they contest that the plaintiffs could not prove that sexuality was immutable. “A human trait that defines a group is “immutable” when the trait exists “solely by the accident of birth.”” (42) “Put another way, when a characteristic is immutable, different treatment based on this characteristic seems “all the more invidious and unfair.”” The Iowa Supreme Court said that the courts do not require the class to prove that the trait is absolutely impossible to change. Instead, they say the “immutability “prong of the suspectness inquiry surely is satisfied when . . . the identifying trait is ‘so central to a person’s identity that it would be abhorrent for government to penalize a person for refusing to change [it].’ ”” (44) The court here said that because the orientation “‘may be altered [if at all] only at the expense of significant damage to the individual’s sense of self,’” (44) sexual orientation can properly be deemed an immutable characteristic.

4. Political powerlessness of lesbian and gay people
The County tried to assert this prong of the test was not present because of the numerous legal protections the gay and lesbian people have secured for themselves against discrimination and argues that the group must have nearly a complete lack of political power before the courts elevate the level of scrutiny. However, the court says that complete lack of political power is not a pre-requisite for protection, citing the case that women had some political power when scrutiny was heightened for gender classifications, and the current political power is also not a pre-requisite for judicial protection, as then courts would unlikely be able heightened scrutiny on any current suspect classifications.
Rather, Cady cites, “the touchstone of the analysis should be “whether the group lacks sufficient political strength to bring a prompt end to the prejudice and discrimination through traditional political means.”” (46-47) And, “although equal rights for gays and lesbians have been increasingly recognized in the political arena, the right to civil marriage is a notable exception to this trend. Consequently, the specific right sought in this case has largely lacked any extensive political support and has actually experienced an affirmative backlash.” So it’s concluded that gays and lesbians as a class are no more politically powerful than other groups currently protected and this prong should not count against them in the current test.

5. Classifications based on sexual orientation demand closer scrutiny
In citing the Connecticut case of Kerrington, the court says, “Nonetheless, we conclude that, as a minority group that continues to suffer the enduring effects of centuries of legally sanctioned discrimination, laws singling them out for disparate treatment are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny to ensure that those laws are not the product of such historical prejudice and stereotyping.” (48-49) Therefore, classifications based on sexual orientation must be examined under a heightened level of scrutiny under the Iowa constitution

H. Application of Heightened Scrutiny
Although the Plaintiffs argue for the case to be subjected to the “most searching scrutiny,” the court holds that because the statute cannot survive intermediate scrutiny, the court does not need to and does not determine whether classification on sexual orientation should be subject to strict scrutiny. (49)

1. Intermediate scrutiny standard
As we should have learned from Con Law, (whether we actually have or not is questionable, I realize) ““To withstand intermediate scrutiny, a statutory classification must be substantially related to an important governmental objective.” In applying an intermediate standard to review gender-based classifications, the Supreme Court has stated: “Focusing on the differential treatment or denial of opportunity for which relief is sought, the reviewing court must determine whether the proffered justification is ‘exceedingly persuasive.’ ” …whether the proffered governmental objectives are important and whether the statutory classification is “‘substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.’ ”” (50, citations omitted)

2. Statutory classification: exclusion of gay and lesbian people from civil marriage.
“To identify the statutory classification, [the court must] focus on the “differential treatment or denial of opportunity for which relief is sought.” “Because the relevant focal point is the opportunity sought by the plaintiffs, the issue presented by this lawsuit is whether the state has “exceedingly persuasive” reasons for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples, not whether state sanctioned, heterosexual marriage is constitutional. Thus, the question we must answer is whether excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage is substantially related to any important governmental objective.” (51, citations omitted)

3. Governmental objectives
Here the court must determine whether the objectives offered by the County can be deemed important. If they are sufficiently weighty to be deemed important, the next question is whether the objective is fairly advanced by the classification. The five sections following are the County’s main arguments for the classification.

a. Maintaining traditional marriage
The court starts right off by saying this objective has “superficial” appeal. However, “[w]hen a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective,” the argument becomes circular in that it becomes a question of “whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.” (52) After a slightly confusing though explanatory example of this, the court says that in that approach it allows a classification to be maintained for its own sake. It also says that this is not a governmental interest being asserted, just a preservation of tradition argument.

b. Promotion of optimal environment to raise children
With both sides offering up support for their arguments that either “the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents” or that opposite-sex households are the optimal environment for children, and even though the court admits that the “best interests of the child” is a legitimate governmental interest which the statute may reasonably advance that interest, in this case intermediate scrutiny is used, and under that analysis the government’s goal must be substantial. The court then asks whether the classification is over- or under- inclusive.
“An under-inclusive statute means all people included in the statutory classification have the trait that is relevant to the aim of the statute, but other people with the trait are not included in the classification.…. An over-inclusive statute “imposes a burden upon a wider range of individuals than are included in the class of those” with the trait relevant to the aim of the law.”(55, only 15 more pages left!)
The statute is under-inclusive because it does not include others who would also provide a less-than-optimal parents, such as “child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons” (56) and thus tends to show that the classification is based in prejudice or overbroad generalizations. “If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not merely gay and lesbian people.” (56) The statute in fact also does not prohibit unmarried same-sex couples from raising children. The court does entertain the notion that this statute is a step towards providing the optimal environment for children, with other remedies to follow, however it ultimately dismisses it as well.
The statute is also over-inclusive because it includes those same-sex couples who do not wish to and will not choose to raise children.
A statute which is at the same time both over- and under-broad statute reveals it is “less about using marriage to achieve an optimal environment for children and more about merely precluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage,” (58) and therefore only minimally advances the government’s asserted interest, not clearing the hurdle of intermediate scrutiny.

c. Promotion of procreation
The court dismisses this claim quite quickly, mainly because the County failed to answer the question required under the analysis: “whether exclusion of gay and lesbian individuals from the institution of civil marriage will result in more procreation.” (59) While heterosexual marriage does indeed lead to procreation, the County failed to show that with same-sex marriage prohibited, opposite-sex couples would be more likely to have children. (As a chick who doesn’t want kids herself, I have to whole-heartedly agree with this analysis. It’s really quite ridiculous)

d. Promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships
Apparently the County didn’t even provide evidence to support this objective, and the court could find no relationship either. “The stability of opposite-sex relationships is an important governmental interest, but the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not substantially related to that objective.” (60)

e. Conservation of resources
The County’s argument is simple: “couples who are married enjoy numerous governmental benefits, so the state’s fiscal burden associated with civil marriage is reduced if less people are allowed to marry.” (60) However, under this argument, any group of people (African-Americans, illegitimates, aliens, even red-haired individuals) could be restricted from marrying in an equally rational way. (61)
The statute is also shown to be once again over- and under-inclusive with regards to this particular objective (see page 62) and the court holds it does not substantially further this objective.

4. Conclusion
“[T]he sexual-orientation-based classification under the marriage statute does not substantially further any of the objectives.” (63)

I. Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage
The County does not advance this argument (the court rationalizes this silence saying it believes the County understands religion cannot be used to justify a ban on same-sex marriage), though the court brings it up as an argument on its own.
The court recognizes that much of the opposition to same-sex marriage comes from religious groups, seeking to preserve the sanctity and tradition of marriage. Because the Constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve religious debates, lawyers, judges and courts have specifically avoided making these arguments. This aside, however, the court seeks to calm those opposed to same-sex marriage by asserting that this permitting of civil same-sex marriage does not require a church to change their doctrine. “A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution.”(66)

J. Constitutional Infirmity
There are no genuine facts which can support the upholding of the statute under the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

V. Remedy
“[T]he language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.” (68)

VI. Conclusion
“The district court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiffs. Iowa Code section 595.2 violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution. [The] decision becomes effective upon issuance of procedendo.” (69) (“[p]rocedendo shall issue twenty-one days after the opinion is filed unless a petition for rehearing is filed”)

Phew! On to my crim law outline!
~C

Without rapists who's gonna buy your whistles?

How terrifying is it that I leave Boston in 43 days? 21+ of those days will be spent in the hell that is law school finals, at least 1/2 will be spent in a state of voluntary semi-conscious drunkenness... And yet it seems so far away til May 15th. I mean, I'm not going to say I'm excited, because I know somewhere I am. But also nervous. I don't have a job for the summer, even though I have a place to live. And while I know some people are excited for my return, my girls in particular, M, K, K2, and J, and a couple of my summer boys, J and W, are psyched and we already have plans (both legal and quasi-legal), I'm super nervous about how this summer is going to go. I'll be stressed about law school applications ( Damn I have to go through that 9th layer of hell again) and I won't be able to do all the free-spirited things I could last summer... and of course there will be the inevitable awkwardness... fuck. Just get me motivated to study for finals and I'll take it from there.
Maybe
Sorta
Kinda

Huh. Apparently people don't think it's a complete surprise that I could be dating someone. #AprilFoolsbackfire. I changed a couple things on my Facebook page, my political views to Communism and a member of the Neoconservatives, and said I was in a relationship, hoping to pull at least a couple into the web of lies. Nope. Not a soul. Meh, at least I can laugh at my being so single!

I am stalking an 18 year-old. It makes me sad. Actually I'm not stalking, because that would take effort. Refreshing Twitter and clicking links takes no effort at all. His name is Bo Burnham, and I just realized I told you about this in my last post, but yeah, I'll continue. It's smart, quick-witted, vulgar, crass, and brilliant. He also does these live shows, where he'll make up songs based on live viewer comments... I've never suggested anything, but this is just one line from one night: "Penis, Zach Efron... yeah, we're gonna stop it right there!"

And, slightly related, and more of a declarative statement!!:: I'm going to see Demetri Martin and Bo Burnham at the Wilbur Theatre!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (yes, that's a lot of exclamation points, but that's how excited I am!!!) They are both hilarious, and I adore them both. AAANNNDDD now I get to brag, especially to my fellow Demetri Martin fans. (nobody I know has heard of Bo Burnham, so they don't really care).

But yeah. Uhmmmm.... I think that's all for now.

WAIT! STOP THE BUS!!! NO!

I had oral arguments on Monday! I was fairly confidant going into it, I'm not going to lie, but if you didn't know your arguments after having worked on and researched the case for months, you're pretty much screwed. I knew I would get nervous right as I started talking. I knew this because for International Law moot court last spring with N, I was alright right up until I started talking, then I started shaking and sweating and my voice started quaking... it was partly nerves, part getting up and having to face J, one-night-stand fuckface for the first time in months. So that was in the back of my mind the whole time as I was nervously wasting time until The Hour Of Reckoning. And I did get a little shaky, but for the most part, I kept my composure, I ROCKED a couple of the questions the "judge" had for me, I'll admit, and the time went so fast. But no flop sweat (ew, yeah, but not this time, boo-yah), my voice was strong, and I kept the presentation flowing, moving back to my arguments from the questions and answers to and from the judge. And the "judge" and Meltzer were actually very complementary at the end!! So yeah, that part of hell is over, and it was actually a great, adrenaline-filled way to end it! They just might make a semi-competent lawyer yet.

There, that's it. For now. Honest.

Till next time:
~C