Large PrintHandheldAudioRating
Twisting The Hellmouth Crossing Over Awards - Results
Live on New Server

The Author as a Lesbian - Season 5

StoryReviewsStatisticsRelated StoriesTracking
Review of chapter "IICY?" from unicornzvi
Well I managed to finish this story, however unlike the previous parts of this series it was a struggle. The problem is you tried to present it as a serious story, but like lots of bad liberetarian fiction the only way the plot is possible is if everyone who opposed the heroines was a complete idiot and the courts acted in a very out of character fashion. a few highlights of what bothered me:

1)The Amigas did not break the cohabitation law because they never stayed in their room between when the law was passed and their arrest.
2)The judge in the first case publically admited to accepting a bribe (weather or not he was going to do what he accepted a bribe to do even without the bribe is irrelevent)
3)Daria acts surprised when national groups come to support her. In fact the relative lack of such groups showing up on both sides and offering their support was rather surprising.
4)That one person withdrawing their financial support could have a significant affect on their campaign (that's even if he was the richest person in the world).
5)While the Edmonds act is still on the books (at least as faras I know) so are many other ridiculous laws and ordinances which are not enforced and in fact the courts bend over backwards to avoid raising those issues.
6)The ridiculous assumption that repelling the Edmonds act is the same as making polygamous marriages legal. The most such a change would do is put polygamous marriages on the same footing as gay marriage.
Comments from author:
Thank you for slogging through, and for taking the time to point out the issues that you perceive. I'll respond to them in order.

1) This was a bit of artistic license - I could have had them all come home and have their door knocked on the next day, but I simply had their confessions to the police stand in for them.

2) Well, it was actually the prosecuting attorney, and he is talking to the "clients," of his benefactor, not the general public. Since he is doing exactly what they want, it's highly doubtful that they're going to raise a ruckus, especially since there are too many ways to hide such a bribe.

3) Daria's very, very intelligent, but she's focused on doing things to get her and her wives acknowledgment as legal spouses. She's not a politician.

And certainly more groups, both for and against both gay and polygamous marriage would have shown up. There would have been almost every network on the planet interviewing the girls, as well. The ones shown are representative of many more that would have been there.

4) One person could have had that effect, if (besides providing financial support) they were the person with the contacts to make amicus curiae(spelling?) briefs to the courts happen, and if the withdrawal is right before certain cusp points, and not planned for. Certainly the money isn't the major issue here; it's the support that the girls could have lost if checks suddenly started bouncing, and no briefs showed up on the day of the verbal arguments. Happily, that contingency was planned for.

5) Yes, the Edmunds Act is still on the books. The last time that it was challenged was in 1972, so apparently at least that recently people on both sides of the issue felt that it was not ridiculous. Most jurisdictions avoid the issue both because they have other priorities as far as enforcement is concerned and Fourth Amendment issues, but the largest effect of it being on the books at the time of the story (around 2000, which was before DOMA (which this decision would also have rendered unconstitutional) was enacted), is simply the fact that there were only two places on a marriage license for celebrants.

6) If the effect of the story was to repeal the Edmunds Act, you'd be correct. But you have your branches of government confused. Only the legislative branch can repeal a law, and, as I said, the effect is simply to wipe _that_law_ off the books. What the judiciary can do (in this case, the Supreme Court) is find that a law is unconstitutional, and that can have extremely far-reaching effects. Let's look at this case.

Multi-partner (actually, pretty much constrained to multi-female) marriages were legal at the time that the Edmunds Act was made into law. The act made entering into plural marriages a felony. This act was heavily enforced in the Utah Territory, where most plural marriages at the time had been entered into. It was also extremely unevenly enforced (over 1300 men were arrested, with those convicted serving about three and a half years in prison, while no women were even arrested).

Even a cursory look at the facts will show that this is a case where the majority's religious beliefs are being forced upon a minority. When you force everyone to follow someone's religious beliefs when someone is not being harmed, you are setting up a state religion. Since that is forbidden by the Constitution, one would assume that the members of the Court would rule against it, especially since men revered as holy by their major religion (Judeo-Christianity) have been in those types of marriages.

In this work, I had them do that. And by the way, that would put them on the same footing as gay marriages - because to the extent that the State recognized any kind of marriage, they would have to recognize both gay and plural marriages. So, yes, plural and gay marriages would be legal if the Edmunds Act was found to be unconstitutional due to infringing on the Free Exercise and State Religion portions of the First Amendment.

Honestly, the only way for the State to both allow all faiths to have their own rules of marriage, to not force those who believe in "one man, one woman," to deny their beliefs, and to properly pull their laws from the sources granted in the Constitution, is to take a step back. The various faiths can define marriage as strictly or loosely as they wish, but the State cannot then grant rewards or penalties based on that - they must define unions, and reward and penalize based on those.

Additionally, since there are no religious feelings bound up in the unions, they must be open to all of the groupings that will satisfy the needs of whatever statute is written. That means, if you're talking about next of kin rights, all of someone's spouses must be allowed. If you're talking about something dealing with caring for children, being able to have a parent at home is going to be better than having to drop someone off at day care.

Sorry, you pushed some buttons, but thank you for your review.
Review By [unicornzvi] • Date [15 Feb 13] • Not Rated
Review of chapter "IICY?" from DanielJ
Thank you for this amazing story. I found it part way thru season 3 and after catching up on it, I love everything about this story except for the end, and by that I mean that it's the end. I would very much like to read more of this, so please if you are not going to continue it, but have found someone to pick this up and continue it post an update so I can follow it.
Thank you again for the story and know from now on I will keep an eye out for any stories you post because I love your work.
Review By [DanielJ] • Date [1 Mar 12] • Rating [10 out of 10]
Review of chapter "IICY?" from alynambered
Yes, I finally got around to reading the rest of this. :)

'I' agree the argument before the Supreme Court makes much sense; but that most certainly doesn't mean the bigots and small-minded people will. It's too bad that more people can't recognize the need for common sense rather than being sheep.

Loved '101st' and Buffy's defs of right and wrong, but they're waaay beyond many's comfort zone. It requires too much individual responsibility and respect for others.
Comments from author:
Well, the nice thing about that is that you don't have to convince all the uncomfortable. You simply have to convince around 20 men who have pledged their sacred honor to rule for what is right, rather than what is easy or convenient. It will likely be difficult, but it is doable.
Review By [alynambered] • Date [23 Feb 12] • Not Rated
Review of chapter "IICY?" from CrystalBlaze
Thank you so mkuch for all this wonder.

Now go work that saxophone. (Yeah, I went there.)
Review By [CrystalBlaze] • Date [13 Feb 12] • Not Rated
Review of chapter "IICY?" from lunalurker
Ah, the saga comes to an end. I don't remember if I've reviewed this before, so this seems like a good time to pop in and thank you very much for the very entertaining and thoughtful reading. This is one story that I would love to see come true in our pale little world, especially the supreme court ruling and a massive settlement against the Phelps crew.
Thank you very much for writing, and best wishes to you and yours!
Review By [lunalurker] • Date [11 Feb 12] • Rating [8 out of 10]
Review of chapter "IICY?" from slmncpm
just got back in time to read these. LOVE THEM! you know i still want more of it, you did fantastically. *hands you scones*
Comments from author:
Thank you. No more for the time being, I'm afraid. *eats blueberry scones*
Review By [slmncpm] • Date [10 Feb 12] • Not Rated
Review of chapter "Episode Thirteen" from Roth
Still liking this, though I am thoroughly confused by this episode. It's like I'm missing epi 13 and went straight on to 14. I'm going to continue reading in the hopes that this will become clearer.
Comments from author:
Well, try re-reading it with the knowledge that either the girls won their case, thus not having to go to jail, or lost, in which case they have to go to jail after they graduate.
Review By [Roth] • Date [8 Feb 12] • Not Rated
Review of chapter "Episode Twelve" from Tatsu
ya know with the fact that the courts in California ruled that an act like prop 8 is unconstitutional, and maybe if two of the ultra-conservative supreme court judges would croak, this could happen. nice arguments.
Comments from author:
You never know. I hope so.
Review By [Tatsu] • Date [8 Feb 12] • Rating [10 out of 10]
Review of chapter "Episode Twelve" from slmncpm
*smiles* i have had so's of both male and female. to me it is the person i love, not the shell they are in. i am currently engaged to a male, both of us bi and lean towards poly. my last female so tried to make me a political statement and i despised it. i doubt that i would be the one that would have the case go before the courts. but then ... one never knows the future! *laughs* of course it would be the international courts since my so is from another country!
Comments from author:
*grins* Aw, darn.
Review By [slmncpm] • Date [7 Feb 12] • Not Rated
Review of chapter "Episode Twelve" from slmncpm
btw, i do agree with the arguments and whole heartedly would love to see it win irl! i know a few poly families that are stable and loving and over 16 years old. being bi and pagan myself, it would make sense to have a more stable family of people whom love each other, than just the trad hetero pairings. if you look at the statistics, their version of marriage isn't working out so well for them. *laughs* i don't know why they think WE are hurting it, they are on the way to killing it themselves.
Comments from author:
Then I guess that someone has to get a case to go up there. *teases* Are you and your S.O. female? ;)
Review By [slmncpm] • Date [7 Feb 12] • Not Rated
Review of chapter "Episode Twelve" from TaraLi
I did look at the link in the previous chapter, and yes - it is a downer.

You've made an excellent argument here in favor of non-standard living arrangements. As the Supreme Court currently stands, I doubt it would fly - too many of their recent decisions worry me deeply. I will say I see touches here and there that remind me of Robert Heinlein, but in many ways, that's to be expected as anyone who thinks carefully on the topic, without prejudices from their religion, pretty much must come to the same conclusion. I would say that it's just common sense - but sense seems have become one of the rarer things in our society today.

I wonder if you have a Season 6 planned out! I do hope so!
Comments from author:
When I started, I decided to do a re-map of the entire Daria series, with the single difference snowballing. In two episodes, that'll be over. At this point, I'm not planning an extension. However, that may change, and more to the point, someone else may step up and want to continue it. That would be fine with me, as long as any extra chapters/episodes were posted here and where the series began.

The arguments set down here are my own. I'm sure there is a bit of Heinlein in there, as I've read most every bit that he's written; but, yes, I agree that a lot of it is common sense. It would do us, as a nation, a lot of good to implement these ideas, and it is what was written down when we started the United States. Whether the arguments would sway the Court, I couldn't tell you, but as someone who has no dog in this fight (straight, not in a poly relationship, not having beliefs that require me to kowtow to other's beliefs -or- force others to believe as I do), I think that it's one of the few ways that we can start focusing on what's important - bringing our race to the stars.
Review By [TaraLi] • Date [7 Feb 12] • Not Rated
Review of chapter "Episode Twelve" from slmncpm
oh i am so excited!
Comments from author:
Thanks. Do you agree with the arguments Daria puts forth?
Review By [slmncpm] • Date [7 Feb 12] • Not Rated
Review of chapter "Episode Eleven" from TaraLi
Oooh - Bad faith! I'm glad that law firm got those contracts from the hate groups - as that's likely the *ONLY* contracts they'll have, once it gets around that if you hire them, not only might they pull out of your case at the last moment, but that they're actively shopping for a better deal from your enemies. And I would expect the Bar Association might have something to say, as well - as lawyers get enough bad press as it is, and to confirm it *THAT* blatantly?
Comments from author:
Well, no, Grace, Sloane, and Page isn't a law firm, it's a (very fuzzily defined) investment firm. And the amigas didn't hire them, they accepted help. The lawyers (with the exception of Ann Freeman) were all from VHRSSS, Helen's firm. Ann was a freelance Constitutional lawyer. I hope you looked at the link, though it's a downer.
Review By [TaraLi] • Date [6 Feb 12] • Not Rated
Review of chapter "Episode Nine" from alynambered
I've been slowly working my way thru seasons 1-4 as they've been completed. I got sucked in by the open ending of 4 and couldn't wait for 5 to be finished to begin reading.

(Head held high) I listen to Rush regularly, in part, because the Mainstream Media doesn't always report both sides of an issue equally or fully. And then I go looking for independent corroboration of the information or positions put forth.

So, for your Rush portrayal - not bad. He doesn't take commercial breaks, he takes 'Profit Center' breaks. As for his stated position on homosexuality, it tends towards the 'what you do in private is your business; but I don't want it blatantly forced in my or my family's faces.' But you do present a valid portrayal of people's concerns about government forcing religions to change their precepts.

Granted that marriage is currently considered predominantly a legal contract, it's historical basis is religious and therefore under the present interpretation of 'the separation of church and state', really doesn't belong under the control of government. Any religion/church that wants to accept/perform gay marriages, should be free to do so; while the government should simply recognize any contracts drawn up between legally eligible individuals, of which marriage certificates are simply one example.

Okay, I kinda got sidetracked by one of my peeves. I really like these stories and fully agree with Daria's/your thoughts on 'Hate'. The world would be a lot better off if people would simply worry about going to Hell themselves and leave the rest of us to our own fate.
Comments from author:
Understand, I don't think that Rush is the embodiment of all evil, either. He's a talk show host, and a good one. I obviously don't listen to him too much, so I will defer to you on the facts. I will say that the shows that he has done that I have seen have included him demonizing his opposites. Referring to the time we were under Bill Clinton as "America under siege" (I probably have that label wrong) and cutting his callers off with a baby's cry and a vacuum sound(when he said he wouldn't cut off callers) wasn't the best choice, in my opinion. And he seems to use any strategy he can to keep control of the show. Which is fine, if you understand that his goal is to have a successful talk show, rather than finding the truth about things. And there are those with opposing viewpoints that do much the same thing.

I can agree with you on Rush's views on homosexuality. He's nowhere near a, say, Fred Phelps. But he seems to be okay with someone who has a view (his view) to choose how someone else, harming no one, lives their life. To me, that's just not kosher.

I agree completely with your second to last paragraph - as far as it goes. Government has an interest in protecting children, and holding everyone to current Christian standards with respect to marriage does not cover that interest sufficiently.

Thank you for your kind words.
Review By [alynambered] • Date [2 Feb 12] • Not Rated
Review of chapter "Episode Six" from slmncpm
i was thinking about this story and some thoughts came to me. in this state (missouri) if you leave a child alone at the hospital it is considered abandonment and you can be arrested, but if they did it in the state you are writing about, they can be arrested for cohabitation. now, this means ANY hospital that has two people of the same sex in any room (and the ones here segregate by sex) that they are breaking the law. so would any hotel that allowed families to stay in the same room (and i don't know about you but i can't afford to travel and my kids NOT to stay in the same room with me). the same goes for lock ins, which most religious groups here have, as well as school functions that are similar. those might be considered orgies. wouldn't that be a kick in the teeth to the churches?

i do realize you have moved on to the polygamy aspect, but i thought i would mention these facts for you. *smiles and hands you scones of your favorite sort* they are calorie and fat free. heh.
Comments from author:
Yes. A bit later on, one of the amigas (Jane, IIRC) pointed out that not only was it against state law, but that it, in itself, was horrible, horrible law. Thus, everyone was happy when it was struck down.

Thanks for the blueberry scones, I love'em!
Review By [slmncpm] • Date [28 Jan 12] • Not Rated
Page: 1 of 2 next end
StoryReviewsStatisticsRelated StoriesTracking