When I first heard the announcement about the iPhone 4 I was at once amazed and angry. Apple had to throw out a new phone when we had only had our 3GS handsets a few months. The fact that a new phone was released was no big deal. We did not jump on the 3GS right away. But this time the features were so compelling that a technology geek such as myself looked at my fairly new iPhone and thought, "dang."
Even so, it took a while to convince myself that it was worth it to get one now rather than waiting. I was late in deciding to preorder and due to the madness there never got a preorder placed. That left me to spend a week planning a strategy for getting a pair of the new iPhone 4's on launch day. Unlike previous launch days, Best Buy, Walmart, and Radio Shack were to have units in addition to Apple and AT&T stores. After making phone calls, getting upgrade quotes, and determining how much it would cost us after selling our old 3GS units, I outlined a plan for myself.
The Plan
First, I had my name on a reservation list at Radio Shack. They were to call me back to confirm the units and see if I still wanted them. Were I not to hear back from them, I would get up at 3:30 or 4am and head out to the AT&T store. If the line were less than 30 people, I would wait. Otherwise, I would head to Best Buy.
Mounting Confusion
The last four days prior to 6/24 showed how chaotic the state of affairs surrounding the iPhone 4 launch were. Radio Shack could not find the list and tried to enter me into the computer system. But it tied into AT&T which had abandoned new preorders several days earlier. The manager tried reading their cryptic instructions and took my name and email address. An employee there found the list with our names and numbers. I left completely certain that they would not be of any help.
AT&T then announced they would have no units for walk-ins on launch day. No reason to even wait in line there unless you had a confimed preorder. Enough said.
Walmart would not take preorders and had no idea how many units they would have. Best Buy had taken some preorders, but could not say how many units they would get. That made waiting there seem pointless. What if I were there with 20 other people and they only got 15 units which all went to preorders? That was not only plausible, but likely.
The New Plan
I would get up at 4am and head right to Walmart. They confirmed on Wednesday that they had received their shipment, but were not allowed to open the box. (I repeated, "the box?") The Apple store would be opening at 7am and the mall would open its doors at 5am to allow the line to start forming. I would have time to head over if Walmart had people waiting.
The Commencement of Pandemonium
Launch day could not have started any worse. I overslept and found myself throwing on clothes and rushing out the door at 5am. I made it to Walmart and there were no customers waiting. Sweet!!! I hung around until an employee asked if I were waiting for an iPhone 4. Then she informed me they had only gotten one unit. One!! They opened the box and had received one unit. Not only did I need two, I did not want to wait 3 hours to fight over a single unit.
I left there while looking up the status of stores online. My best bet at that point seemed to be the Apple store. They were the only ones confirmed to have more than a handful of units. I passed Best Buy and saw a half dozen people camping out on the sidewalk. It seemed so unlikely that I would get 2 units there, that I continued to the Tacoma Mall.
Order out of chaos
I rushed to the mall. I got there by 5:45am. I was fortunate in that they did not actually open the doors until 5:30am. However, there were people who had been waiting since 2am. The security guards marked their hands with a number to indicate the order they arrived so they could wait in their cars. Consequently, the first 100 people in line bore numbers in black marker on their hands. I obediently fell into line. We were divided into two lines: one with reservations, and the other without. By six AM we were lined up and waiting. The Apple store was already alive with scrambling employees preparing for the rumpus to ensue. We were all very excited and the situation seemed promising.
The Wait Begins
The walk-in line went down one wall, into a side corridor which had access to the restrooms, back out that corridor, and continued across the mall and out the doors. The reservations line went through one of those zig-zag posts, down parallel to our line along the wall, but did not fit in the corridor with us so immediately jumped across the mall and continued to the doors. Being stuck in that side corridor we really could not see what was going on. But the air was thick with excitement.
At some point the store manager started going down the line and counting how many 16GB and 32GB models for which each person was waiting. About 10 people ahead of me in line he announced they would not have enough 16GB models for anyone past that point in line. No worries, I thought. I was waiting on the 32GB anyway.
New Friends
By 8 AM I had introduced myself to Paula and Chris (short for Christina). The manager thought that Paula and I were a couple when he was doing his count. That was funny, although I wonder if he assumed that because she was black. Did that mean we looked like a couple? In any case, the Pretzel Maker store had opened early and Chris offered to go get us each a pretzel. That was fun. A gentleman went down our little hall with a cooler and free sodas. They were all sugar-free so I grabbed a Jamaican Ginger Ale. I thought it would be all I needed.
By 11 AM we had moved down the hall and were starting up the other side. They had passed out water and cookies to those of us in line. But we were hungry and I realized still had a long wait so I volunteered to find some pizza for us. I got Paula and myself a slice a pizza each as well as a side of fruit. At noon they distributed more cookies and joked they were fattening us up.
The next couple of hours went by slowly. We hardly moved at all. At 2:20pm they came down the hall with blizzards and smoothies. They ran out before reaching us though. :-( Later they came back with orange julius drinks. I got the last one, but was disappointed that it was some berry concoction rather than an actual orange julius.
Still Waiting
We could scarcely believe it was pushing 3pm and we were just reaching the corner of the hallway. The guard who had been at the door at the end of the hall at the start of the day went by and I told him we were still there. He said it would be moving more quickly now, but then had to address something so I could not ask him to elaborate. But by 3:15pm we rounded the corner and were in the main mall corridor. We were so excited. Sunlight was streaming in through the skylights and mall customers were going back and forth. And no more bathroom smell!
We thought our ordeal was nearly over. The line was moving so much more quickly as they started taking 5 walk-ins for every reservation. Michelle, an Apple store employee, was great. She had lots of energy and when not passing out cookies would chat with us. She kept telling us it was looking good that they had enough phones for all of us and she would definitely let us know if they were certain they would run out.
Unfortunately, since the reservations were down to nearly zero in line, they started routing our line through the zigzag. Paula was gone by this point. She bribed her daughter into waiting in line for her. LOL I really could not blame her, but it was fun talking with her. David surprised me by showing up just after we moved into the zigzag. He did not want to stay though. He had had his own long day at work and was worn out. But he was sweet enough to get a smoothie for me. :-)
Mounting Excitement
At this point we were cheering every time a person was taken from our line. The employees were very organized and one would be introduced to the next person in line and walk them into the store. We then started cheering when someone from our line left with their new iPhone. It was fun. I started thinking I might act like Jack from Will and Grace and when they selected me I would act all shocked and ecstatic like I won the lottery. But when my time finally came I was caught off guard. One employee was standing there presumably waiting on the manager to give him the go-ahead. But then he asked my name and said an employee Jacob would take care of me. Next thing I know Jacob is shaking my hand and walking me into the store amidst cheers from the line.
The excitement made that last hour seem much shorter. But when I left the store, it was 5:15pm. I had been in that mall for 11.5 hours. What a day!! But I got an iPhone 4 for both David and myself. And I have fun memories and quite a story to tell. I mean, I shared photos of Zoey and Aria with Paula and Chris, heard about Paula's career with Alaska Airlines, how Chris' husband thinks she is crazy, shared incredulity at our sitting on such a dirty floor, and more.
But I have my iPhone 4. :-)
Friday, June 25, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Court Decisions Supporting Same-Sex Marriage
Last week my blog was oddly silent throughout the closing arguments of the California Prop 8 trial. Okay perhaps not oddly silent since I write so infrequently. However, I kept tuning into the affair to see how it was progressing. One fascinating observation I noted was the number of references the attorney Ted Olson made to U.S. Supreme Court rulings in support of same-sex marriage. It is almost certain that the U.S. Supreme Court will cite these same cases in determining the constitutionality of Prop 8 and other state laws banning same-sex marriage. I mention this as regardless how the circuit court rules, the case will most certainly be appealed. And to continue following this, it is helpful to understand those cases that challenged some popular, yet discriminatory laws.
Loving v. Virginia
In 1958, Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter, an interracial couple married in Washington D.C., were arrested when they returned home to Virginia. Their crime was violating the state’s ban on interracial marriage. Their one-year jail sentence was suspended on the condition that they leave the state and not return for 25 years. The Lovings left, but took their case to multiple courts, including Virginia’s Supreme Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the state’s right to ban and penalize interracial marriages. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 where it overturned the decision, ruling that the ban on interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of individual liberties.
The law’s supporters said it was “God’s will” that people of different races not be married. Sound familiar? Judge Leon Bazile at the Lovings trial actually said:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
How does this relate to same-sex marriage?
Swap gender for race and the injustice is evident. The U.S. Supreme Court also noted that “the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” The ruling did not state anywhere, “And this applies only to heterosexuals.”
Interesting side-bar
At this very moment the Texas Republican state party platform officially states: “We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.” They also oppose the legalization of sodomy which leads me to my next significant court case...
Lawrence v. Texas
In 1998 Houston police officers entered John Lawrence’s apartment after receiving a disturbance call from a neighbor, and found him having sex with another man which was against the law in Texas. The men were arrested and convicted of “deviate sexual intercourse.” This case ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court where they struck down the sodomy law holding that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. This further invalidated similar laws throughout the United States which criminalized sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private.
How does this relate to same-sex marriage?
The Supreme Court’s ruling stated:
Our laws and our tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationship, child rearing, and education. Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes just as heterosexual persons do.
Wow. It does not get much clearer than that. Ted Olson also argued last week that Prop 8 “takes away the fundamental right to marry from a class of persons based upon their practice of something that’s been decided to be a fundamental constitutional right of liberty, privacy, and association.”
Romer v. Evans
In 1992 Colorado voters approved an amendment which barred state and local governments from protecting people’s civil rights based on their sexual orientation. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this voter-approved amendment to the state constitution surreptitiously violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The state argued that Amendment 2 merely blocked gay people from receiving “special rights”, to which Justice Kennedy wrote:
To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.
He further argued that protection offered by antidiscrimination laws was not a “special right” because they protected fundamental rights already enjoyable by all other citizens. And it gets better. Kennedy also wrote that the amendment did not even meet the much lower requirement of having a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose:
Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.
[Amendment 2] is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.
How does this relate to same-sex marriage?
I feel as if I am stating the obvious here. Prop 8 denies people’s civil rights based on sexual orientation.
Sweatt v. Painter
Heman Marion Sweatt was denied admission to the School of Law of the University of Texas on the grounds that the Texas State Constitution prohibited integrated education. During the trial, Texas created a separate law school for blacks and offered Sweatt admission. Yet in 1950 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Sweatt’s favor, again based on the Fourteenth Amendment.
And how does this relate to same-sex marriage?
Separate is not equal. Despite Texas’ attempt to create a separate environment for blacks, the “separate but equal” philosophy which was the norm was overturned. And the direct correlation is that domestic partnerships are not equal to marriage.
Reitman v. Mulkey
In 1964 the voters of California approved Prop 14 which amended the state constitution nullifying the Rumford Fair Housing Act. The amendment stated:
Neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part of all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.
It sounds like it merely says you can sell or rent to whomever you choose. Read it again slowly. It means you can discriminate against anyone – legally.
The U.S. Supreme Court set an important legal precedent here. A state’s amendment passed by initiative could be removed from their constitution if the proffered amendment “encouraged” racial discrimination. The Court noted that this was nothing less than considering a permissive state statute as an authorization to discriminate.
How does this relate to same-sex marriage?
The fact that an amendment is approved by voters does not mean it can enforce discrimination. And any such amendment can, and should be, removed.
These are some of the most significant court cases quoted during the closing arguments. There are many more. Those curious may read the trial proceeding for themselves as well as look up the court cases I referenced above (there are numerous law sites which provide all of the details). I particularly find the direct questions by the court and the answers by the attorneys very enlightening. And while it is true that California voters approved Prop 8, if a public poll were taken in the 1960s, to decide the fate of interracial marriage, an unjust outcome would have been just as predictable.
Loving v. Virginia
In 1958, Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter, an interracial couple married in Washington D.C., were arrested when they returned home to Virginia. Their crime was violating the state’s ban on interracial marriage. Their one-year jail sentence was suspended on the condition that they leave the state and not return for 25 years. The Lovings left, but took their case to multiple courts, including Virginia’s Supreme Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the state’s right to ban and penalize interracial marriages. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 where it overturned the decision, ruling that the ban on interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of individual liberties.
The law’s supporters said it was “God’s will” that people of different races not be married. Sound familiar? Judge Leon Bazile at the Lovings trial actually said:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
How does this relate to same-sex marriage?
Swap gender for race and the injustice is evident. The U.S. Supreme Court also noted that “the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” The ruling did not state anywhere, “And this applies only to heterosexuals.”
Interesting side-bar
At this very moment the Texas Republican state party platform officially states: “We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.” They also oppose the legalization of sodomy which leads me to my next significant court case...
Lawrence v. Texas
In 1998 Houston police officers entered John Lawrence’s apartment after receiving a disturbance call from a neighbor, and found him having sex with another man which was against the law in Texas. The men were arrested and convicted of “deviate sexual intercourse.” This case ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court where they struck down the sodomy law holding that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. This further invalidated similar laws throughout the United States which criminalized sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private.
How does this relate to same-sex marriage?
The Supreme Court’s ruling stated:
Our laws and our tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationship, child rearing, and education. Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes just as heterosexual persons do.
Wow. It does not get much clearer than that. Ted Olson also argued last week that Prop 8 “takes away the fundamental right to marry from a class of persons based upon their practice of something that’s been decided to be a fundamental constitutional right of liberty, privacy, and association.”
Romer v. Evans
In 1992 Colorado voters approved an amendment which barred state and local governments from protecting people’s civil rights based on their sexual orientation. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this voter-approved amendment to the state constitution surreptitiously violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The state argued that Amendment 2 merely blocked gay people from receiving “special rights”, to which Justice Kennedy wrote:
To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.
He further argued that protection offered by antidiscrimination laws was not a “special right” because they protected fundamental rights already enjoyable by all other citizens. And it gets better. Kennedy also wrote that the amendment did not even meet the much lower requirement of having a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose:
Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.
[Amendment 2] is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.
How does this relate to same-sex marriage?
I feel as if I am stating the obvious here. Prop 8 denies people’s civil rights based on sexual orientation.
Sweatt v. Painter
Heman Marion Sweatt was denied admission to the School of Law of the University of Texas on the grounds that the Texas State Constitution prohibited integrated education. During the trial, Texas created a separate law school for blacks and offered Sweatt admission. Yet in 1950 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Sweatt’s favor, again based on the Fourteenth Amendment.
And how does this relate to same-sex marriage?
Separate is not equal. Despite Texas’ attempt to create a separate environment for blacks, the “separate but equal” philosophy which was the norm was overturned. And the direct correlation is that domestic partnerships are not equal to marriage.
Reitman v. Mulkey
In 1964 the voters of California approved Prop 14 which amended the state constitution nullifying the Rumford Fair Housing Act. The amendment stated:
Neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part of all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.
It sounds like it merely says you can sell or rent to whomever you choose. Read it again slowly. It means you can discriminate against anyone – legally.
The U.S. Supreme Court set an important legal precedent here. A state’s amendment passed by initiative could be removed from their constitution if the proffered amendment “encouraged” racial discrimination. The Court noted that this was nothing less than considering a permissive state statute as an authorization to discriminate.
How does this relate to same-sex marriage?
The fact that an amendment is approved by voters does not mean it can enforce discrimination. And any such amendment can, and should be, removed.
These are some of the most significant court cases quoted during the closing arguments. There are many more. Those curious may read the trial proceeding for themselves as well as look up the court cases I referenced above (there are numerous law sites which provide all of the details). I particularly find the direct questions by the court and the answers by the attorneys very enlightening. And while it is true that California voters approved Prop 8, if a public poll were taken in the 1960s, to decide the fate of interracial marriage, an unjust outcome would have been just as predictable.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
