Not the Court Reporter

 

Twenty six years ago, when I got out of law school, half of my class were women.  So why is it that virtually every time I arrive at another lawyer’s office for a deposition, the receptionist assumes that I’m the court reporter?  When I was a younger lawyer, I thought it was because of my age.  Now I realize that it’s because of my anatomy. 

I’m professionally dressed, carrying a briefcase.  I introduce myself with my full name, tell them I'm there for a deposition, and give the name of the lawyer at their firm who is hosting the deposition.   The typical response is “Oh, you must be the court reporter” or “Oh, you’re the court reporter?”  I’ve even had them say - with a puzzled look “Oh, I thought the court reporter was already here.”  You might think that a younger receptionist would be more attuned to the fact that (gasp!) Women can be Lawyers (who knew?), but I’ve had the same response from the 19 year olds as from the 60 year olds. 

 

I have tried simply responding to their comment (“Oh, you must the court reporter”) by simply saying “No,” but it doesn’t work well.  They just stare blankly - they can’t imagine who else I could possibly be.  Sometimes they even ask “So, who are you?”  And I repeat what I just told them.  I refuse to be required to justify my presence by explaining my status and who I represent to any moron sitting at a reception desk. 

 

I’ve heard male lawyers introduce themselves to the receptionist - they do it exactly the same way that I do - and they are never assumed to be the court reporter.  Instead, the receptionist simply  announces the male lawyer’s arrival - by name - to her boss.

 

I’ve decided to drag these people - kicking and screaming, if necessary - into the 21st century.  It’s for their own good, for the benefit of professional women everywhere and, OK, also for my own amusement.    So, the next time I hear “Oh, are you the court reporter,”  my response will be to drop my briefcase, grab my chest with both hands, look them in the eye, and say, “Apparently so, since women can’t be lawyers in your universe.”

 



It’s either that, or I get myself a button that says “No, honey, I’m not the court reporter.”

Marriage and the State

The Texas Attorney General is appealing the ban on same sex marriage in DeLeon v Perry.  No big surprise there - lots of people are terrified of the idea that a gay couple might enjoy the same state-sponsored benefits that heterosexual couples have had available for a hundreds of years.  Yes, I said state-sponsored benefits.  Did you really think that they’re worried about saving the souls of the “sinners”? 

 

No, when it comes to laws, the real issues are mostly about who gets the benefits.  In the US, those benefits include different income tax rates (though some would say this is a detriment - an irony of a tax system which is purportedly designed to encourage socially desirable behavior), community property laws (with all the good and bad that comes with them), inheritance rights, and the ability to receive social security benefits based on the spouse’s earnings, among other things.     

 

Seriously, I don’t care whether gays get married.  I want my gay friends to be as happy as my straight friends, and I believe that they should have the same rights.  But ultimately, I would never recommend that they marry.   Why?  Two reasons. 

 

First, because as soon as you do that, you have to take the certainty of interference of the government along with the potential of benefits down the road.  For example, once you’re married, you’ll need the permission of the state to break up.  Divorces cost money, and lots of property.  Every time there is a divorce, both parties end up poorer.  That’s partly because while they’re married, there’s a strong tendency for both of them to feel like everything they own belongs to each of them - if you divide everything you own in two, and take out some for the process, and you’re going to be a lot poorer.  The only married people I know that even begin to understand their real solo net worth are those who had a lot of it before they were married.  (Separate property can’t be divided on divorce.  Remember that, keep it separate, and keep good records!)

 

Second, our vision of marriage is flawed.  If you’re married by the state, it’s presumed to be forever, even though we know better.  By trying to pretend that it will last forever, we automatically condemn most marriages to failure.  Here’s how it happens: 

 

A couple marries, thinking their love is eternal.  But once they marry, one of two things often happens.  Either one of them begins to feel that “Now that I have the girl (or guy) of my dreams, no further work is necessary.”  Of course, this is the death of the relationship.  

 

Alternatively, one of then begins to feel “OMG I’m trapped!  Must Get Free Now!”  That person begins working too much, drinking heavily,  sleeping around or some other activity designed (consciously or otherwise) to drive the other person away.  It doesn’t matter what label is on the door, they just want out.  Sooner or later, they’ll get their wish, only to want back in - with someone else.

 

Of course, there IS an solution, but like gay marriage, it’s not recognized in Texas - yet.

The solution - contractual marriage.  Like a cross between a pre-nuptial agreement and a divorce decree, the contract would state exactly who gets what when the time is up.  I suggest a minimum of 1 year, maximum of 5 years, renewable only with mutual consent.   It simultaneously eliminates both apathy and entrapment, and substitutes an incentive for both parties to work together to make  everybody happy. 

 

I’ve been talking about this for years, and a couple of years ago, Mexico began to experiment with it.  http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2011/1101/Mexico-s-temporary-marriages-till-death-or-two-years-do-us-part I’m not sure how that will work out, but if it can work in ultra-Catholic Mexico, maybe Texas would try it next.      

Freer Speech

I just saw a Facebook post protesting the Supreme Court’s decision making some campaign finance rules unconstitutional.  The post said  “Speech doesn’t corrupt, money corrupts.  Money isn’t speech.”  But they’re mistaken - how you spend your money IS speech under the first amendment, just like flag burning, sign waving, protesting and rude finger gestures.  It's an action that expresses an opinion.
 

There’s a good reason for the maxim “money talks.”  In fact, the reason some people think that there should be contribution limits is the fear that the rich people will drown the little guys out.  It’s always been true that if you’ve got money, you can talk louder, and longer than someone who doesn’t.  But the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, not equality in audience numbers.  Prohibiting people who have money from exercising their rights because the rest of us can’t afford to exercise our rights to the same degree doesn’t make us more free, and it certainly doesn’t make us better informed.

In fact, here in the 21st Century, we can see a wide variety of views on any issue you can name, from the comfort of your __________  [fill in the blank with anywhere you can get cell or cable or satellite or internet service].  Most of the people on these media spend little or nothing to promote their views. (And in most cases, you’ll get what you pay for when you read them.)  However, many people using Facebook or YouTube have huge audiences.   

It's also worth noticing that just being rich doesn’t mean you agree with other rich people.  Do you think George Soros or Al Gore or Barbra Streisand would agree with Warren Buffet or Charles and David Koch?  Seriously, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NPR and Fox don’t promote the same views, and they’re all media giants.  And unfortunately, none of the above agrees with Gary Johnson or Ron Paul.

So, chill out America - the Supreme Court got one right.  Your voices can still be heard, and this  decision allows you to more easily join your voices with others who agree with you.  Anything else is censorship.

 

McCutcheon v FEC 040214