After "Obergefell" -- Questions for the Era of Marriage Equality

July 30, 2015

(Edited - and sanitized -- version of this essay found on this publication)

On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court by a single vote in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges created a new landscape for the meaning of marriage in the United States.  We now look back on the time when this was defined not only by law, but by a cultural tradition reinforced over centuries as idealized romantic love between a man and a woman.  Now, that is in the past;  this part of the culture war having been won by the progressive movement - for lack of a more accurate descriptor.  This means   consideration of unintended consequences can no longer be dismissed as an argument by conservatives to retain traditional marriage.  The war is over,  the issue is dealing with the new order. 

Marriage, pre Obergefell  incorporated  a universal ideal of western societies,  created and celebrated by innumerable poems, songs, movies and novels.  Common courtesy required an assumption that the bride and the groom were marrying for some version of this ideal.  "Love" was the exalted poetic expression, sexual gratification and common interests the more prosaic elements of such marriage, literally the merging of two into one.

Of course this was the myth, one not subject to accurate surveys of its prevalence, but one that we went along with.  Over time, laws were enacted that attempted to eliminate those who blatantly  deviated from this general idealized institution.   If love was essential, and if marriage was an intimate merger then it must be between two people only,  so bigamy became universally criminalized.  In order that the love be between equals,  based on broader principles of family and clan,  every state limited the institution by consanguinity, degree of blood relationship.  All states prohibit first order relationships, and some second order, between close cousins.

We never did extend this promoting the ideal of marriage to age discrepancy, even though we still have a wide range of minimum ages among the various states.   But no state has ever defined maximum age differences between the two parties;  so a girl could marry a man three generations older without any legal hindrance.  Maybe love had something to do with it, but during the depression those with coveted civil war pensions found many young women whose love may have been for that  financial security more than their aged spouse. And, of course, pre-nuptual contracts and no-fault divorce are all deviations from the misty ideals of song and screen.

The Supreme Court can decide a case that earns landmark status, with the name of the plaintiff becoming immortalized in the decision, yet the consequences do not necessarily follow the instructions of the majority.   Brown v. Board of Education ostensibly ended school segregation over sixty years ago, yet, based on statistical analysis schools are  arguably more divided between blacks and whites than before that decision.  Segregation of schools is a product of our racial history and values,  with schools being only one component that is dependent on these elements that were not the essence of that 1954 decision.

I would offer that the current decision to legalize same sex marriage is about gender differences as reflected by culture, as such only minimally affected by laws. The broader consequences of this decision have never been part of the national discussion.  This Supreme Court decision was based on several simplistic memes that prevailed, like snippets of DNA taken out of the whole tell nothing about the nature of the organism.  

This essay is not a brief against same sex marriage, as this is now the law of the land, one that will not be reversed, nor am I convinced that it should be.  The arguments why the decision should have been different are stated clearly in the dissents.  In this post-Obergefell era, we can engage the meaning of this change of law in a way previously not possible when it was being contested -- and thus deeply politicized.  It was total war between the two sides, with language being the main order of battle.  This is now over, just like on August 15th 1945, Japs became Japanese, and previous enemies joined in a desire to go forward under the new state of affairs.  So too, on this day new norms must be addressed, new myths created, and like the end of WWII, the victors have as much investment in mutual accord as the losers.

As I described previously, marriage has long been quite different than the idealized myths accepted by many.  Yet,  sexual intimacy has long been a continuing element.  Only this institution provided religious and legal sanction for this otherwise sinful activity.   There still is one area where the validity of a marriage is subject to legal scrutiny that is based on the idealized myth of romantic love.  This is validating the "genuineness" of an emigre's  marriage to an American citizen.  Here's the description of the  process from one authoritative source on sham marriages for obtaining citizenship: 

What is the U.S. government’s view of a typical marriage? The statutes and regulations don’t go into detail on this, so the following comes from a combination of court cases and attorneys’ experiences. You certainly are not required to match every description on this list -- but the fewer you match, the greater the likelihood that you will face lots of questions and close scrutiny of your application.

The "normal" married couple has a fair amount in common. They share a language and religion. They live together and do things together, like take vacations, celebrate important events, birthdays, and holidays, join clubs or gyms, and have sex and children. Typical couples also combine financial and other aspects of their lives after marriage. They demonstrate their trust in one another by sharing bank and credit card accounts and ownership of property, such as cars and houses. They celebrate each others' birthdays and meet each others' families.

Now, post Obergefell, these assumptions become more problematic, as they are based on traditions that no longer apply- less so today than yesterday.  In reality they have not been universal for a long time, yet one aspect now stands out.  Is having a sexual relationship to remain an indication of legitimacy of marriage, and if so, should what had been the crime of sodomy between men until recently now become an activity to advance a goal of citizenship?  If we now simply exclude shared sexual activity from one of the elements of legitimacy of marriage, what is left other than affection perhaps, or any possible sets of "goods' that government chooses to legitimize. 

If one man has a high income, with a friend less wealthy who may even have dependents, should they be denied the legitimacy of a  marriage license as a door to citizenship?  Of course this would reduce income tax for the wealthy party, yet would this require the attributes of marriage, including sexual relations?  The assumptions that still serve the Immigration authorities are as vague to define marriage as Justice Stuart's "I'll know it when I see it" was to define pornography.  While the quip became famous, such a subjective definition has no legal meaning, opening the door to unlimited pornography.   But for those who feel this is more expansive freedom of expression, it came at a dire cost.  The penalty for even cartoon graphics of children performing these sexual acts is draconian for those convicted of mere possession.  The rage against pornography was simply displaced to the few who are prosecuted for enjoying this solitary sexual pleasure. 

There is another more serious issue that must be evaluated going forward.  This is the reality that sexual intercourse can be an act of love, but also a violent assault, with a stronger emotional damage when the latter - rape - is perpetrated on a man.  In fact, what is generally seen as acceptable "coming on to" by a man to a women, can be seen as a grave insult when the initiative is not welcomed.  At this point I will illustrate this with an obscene "joke."  (reader may want to skip the next paragraph)

Mel, a shy accountant, after one last bad decision in choice of lawyers, is sentenced to ten years in prison.  His new cellmate, Cleatus, a tough muscular killer, approaches him after a few days, saying,  "we should be like a family here, you and me."  Melvin is pleased that he's not the violent man he feared and agrees.  "O.K, Mel,  who do you want to be, the Mommy or the Daddy?"  Mel thinks for a bit, and says, "I'll be the Daddy."  Cleatus smiles and says, "O.K, Now you go down and suck off Mommy's dick !"

O.K., for those who wisely skipped the "joke" --  it illustrated a reality not rare among those who live a life of violence ending in incarceration.  While mostly ignoring this abuse, previous norms of antipathy towards seduction of one man by another have acted as a protection for those who are weaker - however defined.  The Obergefell decision, by implying that such overtures, irrespective of genders of the parties, are to be under the same rules, does not acknowledge the extent and harm of inter-male hostility, much less accept that such behavior evolved as an integral part of primate sexual dimorphism.  This complementarity of genders is a fact of amoral evolution, that has nothing to do with the revealed truth of God's word. 

If there is to be a celebration of this Supreme Court Decision it should not be cast as a defeat of "homophobes" -- an irrational epithet that has been part of the armamentarium used in this war to depict any opposition as a deplorable mental defect.  If this barely examined change in our central cultural myth is to be liberating, it can not be to the detriment of those who opposed this, who have been cowed by the current linguistic simplification worthy of Orwell:  Discrimination = bad,  Equality = good, Bigotry = evil. 

Let the winners, those who see gender, as they do race, as a social constructs having no biological reality, while enjoying this victory, return to their roots of rationality.  Males and females are different in ways that are verifiable from infancy to death,  but also in subtleties we don't fully understand, only some of which are social constructs.  Societies do form norms around these, some oppressive and others consistent with viable cultures.  This Obergefell decision is historic.  Yet, the cheering should be conditional on going beyond the victory.  Those who claim that the arc of history bends towards justice have no evidence for this being true, as over the course of civilizations it certainly has gone both ways - the direction only knowable in retrospect.  

This battle is over.  Marriage as an institution continues to be transformed as reflective of our larger culture --  sometimes for the better other times not.  War is ugly, whether fought with military weapons or vilification of the enemy, as sides must be taken, with those not with us being deemed against us

The greatest distortion of this entire movement that culminated in this Obergefell decision was that the only opposition was from benighted religious fundamentalists. This deflected the reality that this movement was a classic manifestation of the sociological phenomenon known as the Bandwagon Effect where an idea takes on a life of its own immune to any other perspectives.  Just as no high level law firm would make the case to the Supreme Court,  those in the learned social sciences with values built over centuries of objectivity were silenced by the sound of the cheering on the bandwagon for equality and justice.  None in this academic community chose to risk all by standing athwart this parade to yell "Stop!"

The decision called "Obergefell" has ended the battle but not the war.  It would be a mistake if the process of this victory becomes the norm for resolving social issues, with heated verbiage shutting out enlightened discourse.  Our country does not need another divisive wedge that is seen as vindication for one side based on a single vote majority of a non elected body.  The question not resolved or even addressed by this decision is whether this country shall descend into being shaped by sound bites or develop a mode of discussion based on candid open mutual respect.

This will determine which way this decision bends the arc of justice.

Addenda:

I wrote an alternative history, based on a true event, the first state Supreme Court decision legalizing same sex marriage in Massachusetts, Hillary GOODRIDGE & others [FN1] vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & another. [FN2] SJC-08860 decided in 2003.  By this decision the chain of events based on the constitutional mandate for every state to give full faith and credit to another was set in motion. 

The title, "Margaret's Choice - a Fantasy" focuses on the actual background of two liberal Justices, Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall and Associate Justice Martha Sosman.  It is Martha's dissent, based on her being a staunch social liberal that is the sole effective argument that has not been tainted as being antagonistic to the broad values of progressives.  Her full dissent is appended to my essay and can be found from this URL - PDF beginning on last line of 20/27. 
--------------------
This N.Y. Times OpEd echos sentiments of this essay, The Supreme Court’s Lonely Hearts Club

Clearest Example of N.Y. Times distortions in promoting same sex marriage.  It is my demonstrating false statements in an OpEd that was published the week of oral arguments of Obergefell,  Marriage Equality among Primates 


(1) The Rise, Fall and Continuing Uses of Adultery and Fornication Criminal Laws,
Dr. JoAnne Sweeny
 Loyola Law Review article circa 2014

Current article describes how laws ruled unconstitutional by inference, can remain in state codes.  This can affect cases such as allowing a landlord to refuse to rent to unmarried couple, but only on rare occasion.  These laws peaked in the turn of the 20th century (pp153) 

*******




Shock and Awe in Aurora - The Trial Update

July 21, 2012-- Posted to Dailykos. com
July 15, 2015 - Updated at end of his trial -appended

Explosions, flashes, smoke, cries of pain, and then only the mourning wails of survivors.

James Eagan Holmes, the individual who planned and executed the massacre at the movie theater in Aurora, was fifteen years old when the invasion of Iraq began with what was described as "Shock and Awe." This is the time when a boy is learning how to be a man, what is respected and what is despised, what emotions can be acted on and which have to be repressed, how to meet the challenge of navigating the uncharted world that lies before him.

Was James watching the coverage of the war on CNN that evening, the description of the thousands of missiles that would reign down on the cities of Iraq, with the knowledge that some will land on people like his family who will be killed or maimed. I remember that day, and hoping against hope it was a feint, a strategy to make a final demand on Saddam Hussein to concede even more, not that he could do much more than he had been doing. I didn't believe that this carnage would be unleashed on a country never attacked us, and was in a virtual state of surrender, accepting every demand for inspection and disarmament made by us

What did James take away from this? Most of us, I will say men because mass murder is still one activity that is exclusively masculine. Most men make the transition to adulthood in some way or the other. In some subcultures infliction of violence is a rite of passage. We know that some street gangs demand such against the hated group with different colors down the street. Within such a group, not to belong is unthinkable, even if homicide is a requirement.

We who have made it to adulthood have resolved the contradictions of life, found a way to channel our anger, repress our rage, express our impulses with various degrees of success. For others it is a lifelong challenge. Like  James, I dropped out of a Ph.D program in Psychology-Neuro didn't exist then. And as outgoing as I am today, then I was more studious, not connecting too well with my associates at Columbia. I adjusted; and like James before yesterday, my greatest breach of the peace has been a few traffic violations over the years.

But I know rage. I've felt it, and been amazed that it could take over my being. At a given point, release, acting on this, is anticipated with an almost orgiastic pleasure. It's part of human wiring, perhaps more so in men than women, but that's another discussion. Among men, mass murder is not only acceptable, under certain conditions it is required.

Power comes in many forms: from having the ability to order the destruction of a foreign regime to being part of a select profession that has credentials to describe and then prescribe human behavior. This was the power that James was close to achieving, a Ph.D that would have made him Dr. Holmes, someone who could be seen as an expert on events such as the one he perpetrated yesterday.

But he was not going to achieve this particular niche of authority as he was being pushed out of his program. His withdrawn personality would not be seen as wisdom but as a sign of disorder. His identity was being lost, and what was left. No friends, no intimates, and now no respect.

Or it could be something else. It could be like the case of Charles Whitman, who shot fifty people from the tower of University of Texas in 1966. It turned out that he had a brain tumor that was enough to affect his own wiring, From Wikipedia:

He was also affected by a court martial as a United States Marine, failings as a student at the University of Texas, ambitious personal expectations and psychotic features he expressed in his typewritten note left at 906 Jewell Street, Austin, Texas, dated both July 31, 1966 and later by hand "3 A.M., both dead August 1, 1966".


Charles Whitman, like James Holmes, was losing his identity, his authority, his power. While Whitman had an observable condition, "A glioblastoma, which is a highly aggressive brain tumor, which .....may have played a role in his actions," we will never know what could have affected Holme's brain, as it most likely is in the complexity of billions of neuronal connections that he was hoping to be part of understanding.

We all struggle, some more than others, each in our own way. I blog. I write for unknown people with the hope that a few may read and be affected in some way. Ironically, I share this activity with one of Holme's victims, Jessica Redfield, who may be, in her easy social interactions the antithesis of the man who took her life. She appears to have written only two blog articles, the first being an incredible expression of her emotions when she missed by minutes being a victim of another mass shooting, and so describing what she must have felt when this actually happened to her six weeks later.

Her other article is more whimsical and self revealing. As a budding sports journalist she compared her relationships with men with different hockey teams. This one caught my attention:

The Quiet Guy: That is the guy who shows up to some of the parties but never really says anything to anyone. You often forget he’s even there. He stays out of the way and waits for his moment to shine. I’m talking about the Columbus Blue Jackets.


According to all accounts, this was the persona of James Holmes, the invisible man who faded into the woodwork. The latest news reports is that Holmes not only was withdrawn in person but had no "digital footprint" no social media, no personal blog, no political website....nothing.

There probably doesn't exist any targeted preventative for mass slaughter, and thinking so may only be counterproductive. There's only so much security that's possible, and as we have now seen, there is always a weak link to be exploited. It may be that all we can do is share our own unique humanity, giving what we can to those who may be left out, those suffering from quiet desperation. It may be only a smile, or a brief conversation, showing some interest and maybe some empathy.

This shooting has brought a one day suspension of the presidential campaign where the escalating acrimony seems to be too resonant of the tragedy in Aurora. Perhaps when it resumes, there will be a new sensitivity to the possible effects of the metaphorical character assassination of the attack ad culture on those who are on the edge.

We on this site believe in political action to make a better country and world. That's admirable, but also difficult to achieve. We interact with various people, including those who are withdrawn, perhaps troubled, and in need of human contact. We will never know when such connections makes a difference, in a single life or many. But for those who can, make the connection. I still remember those who did so for me a half century ago with great fondness and appreciation.
-----------------------------
July 15, 2015

A two month long trial is ending.  The question is of two choices that our society allows.  One is he will be executed, the other live his life in a closed facility for the mentally ill.  Neither will bring back one of those whom he killed.

I see the question of his "insanity" as beside the point, as what he did provided no gain, no personal satisfaction that any reasonable person could identify with.  He did not kill for riches, for sexual control, to advance any ideology ---- no he killed out of something that we can surmise but his death will provide no fear to those like him, as he wanted to end his own life along with others.

The trial, with a jury pool of thousands and weeks of  forensic testimony  that was irrelevant as the facts were not in dispute, was a display of the power of the legal profession and it's control over the judicial system.   Once again, as in the Ted Kozinski, "the Unibomber" there were no tools to transcend this ossified system of criminal law, based on vague concepts of biblical Free Will and the identification of Good and Evil.

It is a sad coda to the tragedy that befell the innocents at that movie theater two years ago.  And maybe a continuation of the film of violence and horror that had attracted the audience to their deaths.
---------------
The final segment of this three part trial was a vote by the jury on each count, each murder, whether to vote unanimously for the death penalty.  For each count, each murder, one juror refused to go with the majority for capital punishment, so James Holmes was sentenced to life without parole.
---------------
During the period of this trial Norwegian Andreis Breivik who killed seventy seven young adults at a liberal camp held in an island of the coast, was accepted for to the National University to study political science by correspondence.  His sentence is limited to 21 years, unless he is shown to be a danger to the public.  In my view there is a reasonable chance he will be an excellent student, come to understand why he did what he did, and possibly go on to make a contribution to society.   











Sandra Bland's Sacrifice

Dailykos chooses to use the term "diary" for essays that someone such as myself has spent dozens of hours on writing and editing.  A diary is something one keeps for himself, so doesn't care if secrets are betrayed or about words that may offend or anger others.  What's my excuse for writing this essay? Maybe its because I think that this death provides insight into something deeper,  a women who by all evidence was on the cusp of having a good and full life, and making a genuine contribution to the most entrenched stresses of our country, the ongoing conflict between the races. 

I have watched the entire fifty minute video on several websites, and will reference this one  the "Texas Tribune" (TT version) , from which I take quotes further along this essay.

This N.Y. Times article "Assesing the Legality of Sandra Bland’s Arrest." evaluates a short video of four selected key events, giving legal analyses, but  lacking of some important elements

The above linked TT video shows the entire encounter, from Brian T. Encinia, a state trooper, pulling over Sandra Bland, beginning in a friendly manner until she was hauled off in handcuffs.  Unlike most criminal cases with second hand testimony of witnesses and participants, the public gets to see what actually occurred, complete with intonation and emotional expression of both parties.   I will be going over the interaction of the dashboard camera, which in spite of questions of editing, shows the deputy at his worse, and was unlikely sanitized.   

The media is speculating on her hanging, whether it was a murder or suicide.  Those who see "police" as an inherently an institution of corruption and bigotry can believe that there was a murder and coverup.  I guess those who are convinced of this should read this no further, as i can't buy it, not now with the current evidence.  I believe Sandra was a victim of something much more profound, and this is worthy of exploration, and it even gives her short life, her ultimate sacrifice, meaning.

My contention, subject to further evidence to the contrary, is that this death was the result of the deep despair that she felt, and was a manifestation of her sense of hopelessness that affected her more than it would have others who spend a few days in a lock up.  She was a woman who was not part of the stereotypical black subculture of violence,  but rather an individual who had earned a college degree based on her belief that justice would prevail even in spite of widespread deceit and bias against Blacks by law enforcement agencies.  Before this interaction descended into violence by the officer and vilification of him by Bland in response, her assertion, "What till this gets to court" showed her belief that the system worked, that justice would triumph.  Others, black men that I know personally, know better.  They expect what they get from traffic stops such as this, so it is not taken personally.  Recently some friends were discussing this and our "token Negro" as he jokes, made it clear.  "When a cop stops me, I keep my hands visible for him to see, illustrating in his tone of voice a friendly respect."  He knows the drill. 

I suggest that reader be familiar with at least the first fifteen minutes of the original video (corrected for technical problems)  It clearly shows that Bland's description of her moving to the right to let the cruiser pass is accurate.  The N.Y. Times legal review leaves out one question posed by Encinia at 3:90 in the TT version, "Where are you headed to now"   While in another context would be friendly small talk, in this setting where the officer was asserting his right to deprive the citizen of her freedom by force, the question is rightly viewed as a demand for information.  Since her destination had no bearing on the offense that she was to be charged for, it was a deprivation of her constitutional right to privacy.

At 8:05 we see Encinia after returning from the usual checking out legitimacy of her license and ownership, asking Bland "Are you O.K., you look irritated" with Bland responding cogently without any hostile affect.  " I am, I was just getting out of your way so you could pass me, and you stopped me to give me a ticket, so yeah I am a little irritated." 

Encinia quietly:  "Are you done?  Bland: calmly speaking, "Yes, you asked me if I'm irritated and I told you, so I'm done."

Encinia: with a somewhat subtle hostile tone for the first time:  "Would you mind putting out your cigarette please, if you don't mind!"  This was at 8:30.  It's where everything changed. 

Bland: calmly "I'm in my car I don't have to put out my cigarette"

Encinia: "You can step out now"

Bland: "I don't want to step out of my car"

Now at 9:40 the dialogue turns contentious.  Encinia now gives orders based on his authority that he refuses to explain. From the time of Blands refusal to put out her cigarette, she was, without Encinia saying the actual official words: "I am placing you under arrest" did give her orders as if she were under arrest."  This is a subject of extensive litigation of what a police officer may do when suspect is, or is not, "under arrest," 

This  N.Y. Times article "Assesses the Legality of Sandra Bland’s Arrest."  explores this issue, and concludes that Blands refusal to put out her cigarette, much less to leave her car when ordered to do so, was within her legal rights.  

More important than the legalities of this event, is why it happened, what it means.  Sandra Bland was not a thief, a scofflaw, a shop lifter, but a citizen who had learned the rules, and knew that this country was based on freedom of speech, and that although there had been a time when her ancestors were subject to the orders of any free white person, that time she believed was over.  And at this moment, being ordered to cease smoking a legal substance,  was not something that she needed to obey,  and she was not going to accede to it.

The more force that the Encinia used, first verbally than quickly physically, the more irate Bland became.  She saw his behavior as an assertion of masculinity and assumed it was because of his own doubts about it.  He could overpower her, but she could burst his illusion that he is being a real man in doing this. 

At 10:20 before the physical confrontation began, Encinia finally said, "you are under arrest, get out of the car" Bland asked calmly, "Under arrest for what?" 

Something becomes clear when these few minutes are watched carefully.  From the time she is stopped, and responds clearly without any sense of rage, she is speaking in the idiom of an educated individual of African American origin.  Not a single curse word, or ad homonym statement, articulately expressing her rights, such as being able to continue to smoke a cigarette in her own car.  It was at that time that Encinia become the master, perhaps in Bland's mind, the Slave Master,  choosing to assert a right he didn't possess, as she was peacefully accepting the citation.

As Encinia escalated his demand for the cessation of the legal behavior of Bland, smoking in her own car,  in her anger she was transformed, figuratively kicking him in his balls, with her language transformed to what she had spent years transcending, putting aside the educated citizen she had become,  to revert to something visceral, fighting hate with hate, injury with attack.  Now in the full vernacular of the streets.

He yelled at her, "I will light you up" meaning using a taser to shock her."

Then she says sarcastically, " You're feeling good about yourself, aren't you, really good about yourself."  It goes back and forth like this for a bit. Bland: "You're scared of a female"  "I can't wait to we go to court, ooh I can't wait"  Bland is now focusing on his manhood, what she sees as his weak spot,  calling him at 12:35  "....a pussy assed cop"

13:21 "You are about to break my wrist, stop" she wails, now in genuine pain.  "I've got epilepsy you mother fucker" to which Ecinia responds calmly, "Good, good."

On the  FBI web site there is this section "Crime under color of law"

Preventing abuse of (law enforcement) authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.


We are missing the greater meaning of Ms. Blands death as we focus on seeking evidence that another person put the noose around her neck.  Whether or not that is the case, her death was caused not only by the nature of the arrest, but that she was not released on her own recognizance, as the only criteria of pre-trial incarceration is danger of flight, which did not exist for her.   It is now universally accepted that imprisonment may be traumatic for some.

The words of the District Attorney Elton Mathis conveys the aberrant attitude of the local law enforcement establishment.

After viewing the video, Mathis said Bland was not "compliant" with Encinia's directions.  "Sandra Bland was very combative. It was not a model traffic stop. It was not a model person that was stopped," Mathis said.


Assigning responsibility for this tragedy equally between one unarmed woman and a police officer who threatened to shock her, abused his authority and demanded personal information about her travel plans is egregious.  Encinia's actions were nullified just like in the NFL where two fouls cancel each other.  This was the prosecutor speaking on the record, so we an only image the verbal abuse by the jailors who were controlling the life of Sandra Bland for those three days.

There is some question whether she was prone to depression --- of course she was!.  Anyone who suffers from endogenous hypo mania-depression, knows that despair is intimately connected with enthusiasm.  To have the determination to get a college degree, to stand up for her basic rights requires a variation of mania- an optimism which happens to make one vulnerable to being overwhelmed when this is shown to be only a mirage, an illusory world that is dissipated with the clang of the cell door.  Perhaps she was devastated with the vision that she is still a slave girl like her forebears, who is being punished for not following instructions. And like them, there isn't a fucking thing she can do about it.

I do not believe that Sandra Bland was deprived of her life, but she was deprived of her hope -- a hope for justice that she had every right to expect.  For her, one who had attempted to use this belief in the system for a redress of oppression - this "crime under the color of law" was overwhelming. If you want to get a sense of the discretion that Encinia had, watch the first few minutes of the tape, where he did stop someone and was happy to tell her, "I'm only going to give you a warning, no fine, no ticket."  It would be useful to find this young women whom he was so friendly with, and ask why her and not Sandra. 

While we morn this wasted life, it is still important to acknowledge that Brian T. Encinia is not "Everycop."  He is a weak man imbued with authority that he should never have been given.  He could not respond to the reasonableness of Ms Bland, as he would have been personally diminished in his eyes, something not tolerable to him. 

Nothing would cause a worse self fulfilling prophecy than believing that all deputies and police are like this, as those who wear a badge who also fight this scourge would become demoralized.  The tide is truly shifting, advance by those such as Sandra Bland, who used her reason rather than rage, until she had no choice but to fight back. This tragic loss of life, even if by her own hand, is the essence of the battle of the black lives matter movement, that in some ways Sandra Bland sacrificed her very life.    
------------
There's more on my own website, AlRodbell.com.  Much of it, unfortunately not in keeping with the spirit of Dailykos.  But this essay/diary on fit on this site.