funeral

My grandmother and my grandfather back in the day.

My grandmother's obituary from the Corpus Christi Caller Times:

Catalina Toscano, a beloved wife, mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother went home to her heavenly father on February 13, 2012.

She was born in Corpus Christi, Texas, on April 29, 1920 to Florentine Trujillo and Sabino Armadillo ...

She lived in San Luis Potosi, Mexico during her young adult life, met and married her soul mate, Celso, and they returned to Corpus Christi to start a family.

She was active in her children's schools (P.T.A's) and active in her community and church, active in local politics (Was a block captain) and encouraged her family to vote and be responsible citizens.

She love (sic) gardening and traveling. She was light-hearted, friendly and was always smiling and quick to make friends. She was adored by her family and will be dearly missed ...

Published Thursday, February 16, 2012

I'll miss her.  My grandfather had already passed a few years ago and she was the last of all my grandparents.  She was a very giving person, a talented person, and a strong woman.  She raised seven, SEVEN, kids – including my mom.  Over the weekend I attended her funeral.

Naturally this got me thinking about my own death, and while I hope to live forever, science remains way behind where, as a child, I imagined it would be in 2012.  So I thought I'd write, here, what I would hope for after my passing; and if there's anything 3 years of law school taught me, it's that this blog post can serve as a legally sufficient will.

First, whatever organs can be donated to people who need them – please use them; Second, I want to be cremated; Third I don't want my funeral to be religious or involve religious ceremonies (though if individuals wish to pray that is perfectly fine, just don't bring in a priest or anything); Fourth – enough counting.

Not sure yet where my ashes should be spread.

I wouldn't want my funeral to be too somber – I think the song "You'll Never Walk Alone" would be great to play since it has a message of hope while acknowledging the challenges of life (and death); maybe some mariachi music and Arcade Fire.  The actual event would preferably be outside – a picnic would be good. The lesson of the event should be to make your time on earth count – try to change the world for the better – don't wait for some heaven in the afterlife (even if you think one exists) – we should all be working, fighting, struggling, for heaven on earth.

There should be dogs at my funeral to cheer people up. If anyone is allergic to dogs, they should be accommodated somehow; but not by eliminating dogs from the equation. Playful dogs would be best.

No fancy flower bouquets unless you pick the flowers yourself and arranged them yourself. If the funeral is in California and it is the right time of year, there are probably plenty of poppies and lilies around. Use those. If someone sends or brings store-bought flowers, that's fine; they just didn't get the memo; don't embarrass them or anything. If people want to do something – like people far away who can't attend the picnic – I think sending along food or drink would be great.

Those are my thoughts for now; and yes, I'm completely serious.

The One Way Street of Liberation

Central to today's Ninth Circuit Court finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional are the peculiarities of California law involving propositions, and this: "Fundamental rights, once recognized, cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights."

The relevant peculiarities of California law involve our system of voter initiatives (or propositions), that can be of two different types. Some propositions require fewer signatures to get on the ballot and are subordinate to the state constitution – if passed by the voters, the constitution can still trump such a law. Other propositions, let's call them super-propositions, require more signatures to get on the ballot and are of equal standing with the constitution – like an amendment or change to said constitution. California courts would have a tough time overturning such a law on state constitutional grounds, because such a law would be part of that very constitution.

Aside from the two different kinds of propositions, the legal timeline is also quite important. The Ninth Circuit panel made clear that, while a state could extend rights or benefits and then reverse course without violating the Constitution, a state cannot take away a right or benefit for only a particular class of individuals without a legitimate reason, lest it violate Equal Protection; and animus towards a group of people is not a legitimate reason.

Now, here's the timeline: a regular proposition outlawed same sex marriage in California back in the day; the California Supreme Court found that law unconstitutional; so the proponents of the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage then got a super-proposition passed (Proposition 8). While Prop 8 was a super-proposition and thus could not be found unconstitutional under the California constitution, the Ninth Circuit panel found it would be unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. The Federal Constitution outlawed this voter-approved measure because it had no purpose beyond taking something away from a certain group of people without any legitimate reason.  And the something it took away was a fundamental right – a right that had already been recognized as extending to same sex couples by the California Supreme Court in its earlier decision to strike down the regular proposition.

What if that right had not been previously recognized? In essence, what if the California Supreme Court hadn't overturned the first, regular proposition? That earlier law could still have been challenged in federal court. Under the 9th Circuit's analysis, a federal court could not have found the earlier proposition unconstitutional on these same Equal Protection grounds. It could be argued that the right never existed, so no right was taken away.

What if a super-proposition had been passed in the very beginning, describing marriage as between a man and a woman? California courts would probably not have found this unconstitutional, because the proposition would have become part of that very constitution which the court was charged with interpreting.  If challenged in federal court, it would likely be seen as defining marriage in California, rather than taking away a right already recognized by state courts.

As the 9th Circuit panel wrote: "Withdrawing from a disfavored group the right to obtain a designation with significant societal consequences is different from declining to extend that designation in the first place, regardless of whether the right was withdrawn after a week, a year, or a decade. The action of changing something suggests a more deliberate purpose than does the inaction of leaving it as it is ... the relative timing of the ... events is a fact, and we must decide this case on its facts."

I love this because it recognizes something truly beautiful about liberty: It should be easier to expand than contract; it should be simpler to say everyone gets x, rather than denying x to a particular group of people (where x could be the right to marry, an education or tickets to a Broadway show).  So it may be possible to drive the wrong way down a one-way street, but it is perilous and disfavored. Put another way, enacting prejudice into law ought to be difficult.