growing up i always thought that quicksand was going to be a much bigger problem than it turned out to be
In November 2013, Big Finish will be releasing Doctor Who: The Light at the End, a very special 100-minute story to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Doctor Who. Tom Baker (1975-81), Peter Davison (1982-84), Colin Baker (1984-86), Sylvester McCoy (1987-89) and Paul McGann (1996) will all reprise their roles as, respectively, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Doctors, whose paths suddenly intersect when they face imminent destruction.
“We wanted to do a proper, fully-fledged multi-Doctor story for this very special occasion,” says writer, director and executive producer Nicholas Briggs, “and it’s wonderful that all the surviving Doctors threw themselves behind the project so enthusiastically. That’s not to say the first three Doctors don’t appear – we wanted to pay homage to the whole history of the classic series.”
The Doctors will also be joined by a number of their regular companions: Louise Jameson reprises the role of the savage Leela, Sarah Sutton plays the scientist Nyssa, Nicola Bryant is American botany student Peri, Sophie Aldred is streetwise kid Ace and India Fisher returns as Edwardian adventurer Charley Pollard.
“And that’s not all,” says producer David Richardson, “because Geoffrey Beevers is back to create mayhem as the Master, and there will be a number of appearances from some much-cherished old friends from the TV series…”
Doctor Who: The Light at the End will be released in two different versions. A five-disc limited special edition comes with two hour-long documentaries, plus The Revenants, a Companion Chronicles tale which began life as a free Doctor Who Magazine download. It’s performed by William Russell, who starred in the very first TV story as Ian Chesterton. The special edition comes in beautiful special packaging, and will include a number of exclusive professionally photographed images of the cast.
The standard edition comprises two discs, featuring the two hour-long episodes of the story.
1. “The Constitution says nothing about a right to same-sex marriage and therefore does not protect it.”
This argument misconceives the character of the Constitution, which establishes abstract principles like equal protection that do not enumerate the specific rights they protect. The Constitution “says nothing about” a right to interracial marriage, yet the Supreme Court properly interpreted equal protection and basic liberty to condemn laws denying that right, holding that the right to marry is “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Those same principles require extending the rights, responsibilities and protections of marriage afforded to opposite-sex couples to same-sex couples. The Constitution does not leave the legal definition of marriage entirely to the democratic processes.
2. “Recognizing a right to same-sex marriage will spell (as Scalia warned) the ‘end of morals legislation’ and put us on a slippery slope toward protecting a right to bestiality and incest.”
Lawrence's recognition of a right to same-sex intimate association does not stem from rejecting traditional morals legislation as such, nor from accepting an “anything goes” right to choose one's sexual partner. The same is true of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's recognition of a right to same-sex marriage in the Goodridge decision. Instead, those courts extended rights already recognized for opposite-sex couples to their analogues for same-sex couples. They recognized that gays and lesbians seek rights to pursue the same moral goods that straights do: “commitment, mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family,” as Goodridge put it.
3. “Courts have foisted the right to same-sex marriage upon the people. The people should decide this question, and they have consistently rejected same-sex marriage.”
This certainly is not true after Nov. 6, 2012, when the people of Maine, Maryland and Washington adopted same-sex marriage through referenda. It was not really true before then. In the states where courts have recognized rights to same-sex civil union or marriage — such as Vermont and Massachusetts — legislatures already had extended numerous protections to same-sex couples and their children. Conservatives belie their argument for letting the people decide. When state legislatures pass marriage equality laws, they say voters should decide through referenda. Now that three states have embraced same-sex marriage through referenda, conservatives likely will argue that it should be decided through constitutional amendment.
4. “Courts protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination and recognizing rights to same-sex marriage have invented a novel standard of judicial review.”
On this view, courts must either 1) recognize a fundamental right or suspect classification, triggering “strict scrutiny” that almost automatically invalidates the law, or 2) apply deferential “rational basis scrutiny” that all but automatically upholds it. In Ordered Liberty we debunk this myth. Justices Stevens and Marshall famously argued that, under the Equal Protection Clause, the Supreme Court instead has applied a continuum of standards. The same is true under the Due Process Clause. The California case,Hollingsworth v. Perry, did not apply a “novel” standard but followed the approach of Romer andLawrence. It avoided recognizing a fundamental right or suspect classification, yet put teeth into its analysis of whether the law was rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose — holding that Proposition 8 instead manifested “animus” against or a rejection of the “worth and dignity of gays and lesbians as a class.”
5. “If the Supreme Court invalidates Proposition 8, it will decide the question of same-sex marriage for the whole nation.”
In fact, like Romer, Perry was decided on narrow, “minimalist” grounds. The Ninth Circuit stated, “We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case.” California “had already extended to committed same-sex couples both the incidents of marriage and the official designation of ‘marriage,’ and Proposition 8’s only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation, while leaving in place all of its incidents.” Applying Romer, the appeals court found the amendment unconstitutional because it was “left with ‘the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward,’ or … mere disapproval of … gays and lesbians as a class.” Perry is thus a narrow decision that does not impose same-sex marriage on the whole nation.
…the outcome may come down to the vote of one justice: Anthony Kennedy. Supporters of marriage equality should take some comfort from the fact that he wrote the opinions in both Romer and Lawrence.