explanations

I've very good at being explained to: at figuring out what needs doing when the person explaining hasn't entirely untangled it yet, especially if there's related paperwork or an illustration of the desired results.

I'm not as good at explaining things, though I enjoy sharing information.

I suspect my facility at picking things up is part of why I'm not as good at explaining things myself: since I can get by with a partial or not entirely untangled explanation, I've had less need to create, or figure out what goes into, a really good one.

I can do it on paper. I can't always do it out loud, one-on-one. Being asked questions often helps.

explanations

I've very good at being explained to: at figuring out what needs doing when the person explaining hasn't entirely untangled it yet, especially if there's related paperwork or an illustration of the desired results.

I'm not as good at explaining things, though I enjoy sharing information.

I suspect my facility at picking things up is part of why I'm not as good at explaining things myself: since I can get by with a partial or not entirely untangled explanation, I've had less need to create, or figure out what goes into, a really good one.

I can do it on paper. I can't always do it out loud, one-on-one. Being asked questions often helps.

Good news here in New York

Justice Doris Ling-Cohan, of the N.Y. State Supreme Court, ruling in a lawsuit against the New York City Clerk, who had refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples:

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted; it is further ORDERED that defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied; it is further ADJUDGED and DECLARED that the Domestic Relations Law violates Article 1, Sections 6 and 11, of the Constitution of this State; it is further ADJUDGED and DECLARED that the words "husband”, "wife", "groom" and "bride", as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic
Relations Law are and shall be construed to mean "spouse", and all personal pronouns, as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law, are and shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women; it is further ORDERED that defendant is permanently enjoined from denying a marriage license to any couple, solely on the ground that the two persons in that couple are of the same sex;

Justice Ling-Cohan's opinion quotes not only the obvious Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas, and a selection of precedents less discussed outside legal circles, she specifically invokes a Canadian ruling on the same issue. However, rather than throwing in a "but of course we only mean monogamy" disclaimer, she mentions polygamy not as a threat to society, but as factual/historical evidence that marriage has not always meant one man and one woman.

She stayed the order for 30 days, in case the city chooses to appeal. They may not: I have the impression that the City Clerk doesn't want anything to do with this issue, and was following advice from the Corporation Counsel's office. In practice, they take their lead from the mayor's office. Mayor Bloomberg is running for re-election.

I don't share Ling-Cohan's conviction that marriage is the foundation of society: but I'm very pleased that the protections it offers will be extended to more of the people who want to claim them.

[Legal footnote, if you don't want to wade through the decision: summary judgment because the defense agreed that there were no disputes over any of the facts claimed by the plaintiffs.]

Good news here in New York

Justice Doris Ling-Cohan, of the N.Y. State Supreme Court, ruling in a lawsuit against the New York City Clerk, who had refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples:

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted; it is further ORDERED that defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied; it is further ADJUDGED and DECLARED that the Domestic Relations Law violates Article 1, Sections 6 and 11, of the Constitution of this State; it is further ADJUDGED and DECLARED that the words "husband”, "wife", "groom" and "bride", as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic
Relations Law are and shall be construed to mean "spouse", and all personal pronouns, as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law, are and shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women; it is further ORDERED that defendant is permanently enjoined from denying a marriage license to any couple, solely on the ground that the two persons in that couple are of the same sex;

Justice Ling-Cohan's opinion quotes not only the obvious Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas, and a selection of precedents less discussed outside legal circles, she specifically invokes a Canadian ruling on the same issue. However, rather than throwing in a "but of course we only mean monogamy" disclaimer, she mentions polygamy not as a threat to society, but as factual/historical evidence that marriage has not always meant one man and one woman.

She stayed the order for 30 days, in case the city chooses to appeal. They may not: I have the impression that the City Clerk doesn't want anything to do with this issue, and was following advice from the Corporation Counsel's office. In practice, they take their lead from the mayor's office. Mayor Bloomberg is running for re-election.

I don't share Ling-Cohan's conviction that marriage is the foundation of society: but I'm very pleased that the protections it offers will be extended to more of the people who want to claim them.

[Legal footnote, if you don't want to wade through the decision: summary judgment because the defense agreed that there were no disputes over any of the facts claimed by the plaintiffs.]