Boston, Massachusetts, USA -- plus more

All three judges on the First US Circuit Court of Appeals have agreed the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton in 1996 is unconstitutional. 

Well, sort of, in a way.

Okay, not really much at all.

Marriage is not a right.

Marriage is when the state grants you a consensual and contractual law-recognized relationship.   It's controlled and has limitations.   It is not a right. 

There is no promised, inherent or  guaranteed right to anyone that the state or other institution of authority will either allow them to get married, be married or otherwise enter into some other legal contractual status, marriage-related or not.    Marriage is not guaranteed in the US Constitution in either a legal, social, moral or religious context.   It's not directly anything the 14th Amendment (specifically Section 1) currently covers.   However it might turn out one day,  that's a day in the future that is not today.      Arguments to the contrary, this is not medieval Europe where two parties taking each other as wife and husband become a married couple under common law.   

However, one thing is clear about today.   Right or wrong, advanced or backwards, fair or unfair, normal or abnormal.   It is Wife and Husband.  That is,  5/6ths of the world considers marriage to be between the two, wife in the sense of adult human female and husband in the sense of adult human male.

Movies, actors, directors, fans

There is a vast difference between performers and those who watch them.     An actress or actor  memorizes lines, plays parts, is involved in all the work that goes along with creating a role and a story.    If we're talking about movies, as we are, the scenes are often (usually) not shot in order, many scenes are shot multiple times (often with variations), there are many many hours of waiting and acting and rehearsing.  Special effects, green screens, the sets, all the things the performer sees and deals with that the viewer never does. So there's much more to a movie than just one performer or even all of them.

 In short, what a viewer sees is nothing like what the performer does and experiences in creating something.
 

Very much not impossible at all. PART THREE

Now that we've demonstrated that it's very easy for an Indonesian to persecute and badly treat another Indonesian for just about any reason, racial, ethnic or otherwise; even for no reason at all.  That an Estonian might just want to rob another Estonian just because they don't like the looks of their face.     That hey, "those people" from the other side of town (or the street) are only good for cleaning our shoes, those of us from the correct side.   That well, you're from the Meru, and obviously us Kisii are better than you are.  (Insert your own comparisons; they all work the same, and are equally as worthless in merit.)

What's not impossible?    Why, just ask the media, they'll give you plenty of answers, yes and no.  Some of them even won't be made up. 

Very much not impossible at all. PART TWO

Agree or not with the first part, that is the type of thing we're operating on here as a basis. Well, that's vague.

The operational assumption here is that racism in the standard sense (and in our case here) only counts as racism when there is an assumed inferiority and that it's based upon race / ethnicity.    Further, it  requires that the group of people believing another group of people racially / ethnically inferior are using  that as a reason to mistreat, subjugate, discriminate against the other group.     Without all of those it's something else.