This is such an old, tired, beaten-to-death topic that it’s not even worth writing about. But I will.

First of all, shouldn’t we gay people be the prime authority as to whether being gay is a choice? We’ve said time and again that it’s not a choice. None of us chose to be gay; we just are gay. But apparently we can’t be trusted to know whether we actually chose it or not. Because we’re, I don’t know… mentally ill? Pathological liars? Brainwashed by imaginary gay central headquarters? Who knows. Even those who are professedly neutral and say things like “science is unclear on whether being gay is a choice” are insulting us. Is being gay a choice? Just freaking ask us. The answer is no.

I think the problem is one of language ambiguity. Being gay means, in most cases, “being exclusively (or almost exclusively) attracted to people of the same sex.” But some people mistakenly think that “being gay” means “having gay sex.”

I wouldn’t be surprised if many of these people are themselves fighting homosexual urges. They tell themselves that as long as they don’t act on their urges, they’re not gay. Therefore, in their universe, “being gay” only means “having gay sex.” Because if “being gay” means “being attracted to people of the same sex,” they’d have to admit that they were gay.

These are probably the same people who think that if society becomes more accepting of same-sex marriage, everyone is going to turn gay and get gay-married and nobody will reproduce anymore and the human population will die out. They think that everyone else has secret gay urges just like they do.

Finally: even if we defined “being gay” as “having gay sex,” and therefore “being gay” was a choice, so what? Religion is a choice. Fine, that’s specially protected by the First Amendment, so also: masturbation is a choice. Heterosexual sodomy is a choice. Extramarital sex is a choice. Who cares?

But it’s not a choice in the first place. I wish that canard would stop quacking already.

This article about how there is too much good TV resonated with me because it’s something I’ve been thinking about lately. These days I feel like I’m drowning in television. We bought an expander drive for our TiVo last fall; where previously our TiVo could hold 25 hours of TV, now it can hold something like 150 hours. We used to have make sure we watched stuff on the TiVo so we could make room for other things, but now we can just let stuff build up. This is good, but it’s also daunting to look at the TiVo screen and see how many shows are sitting on there, waiting to be watched.

And since there’s two of us at home, that means even more TV. Actually, I partially blame Matt for my viewing habits. (It’s OK; he already knows.) Back when I was single and lived alone, I didn’t watch much TV. There was time when I watched Buffy and Smallville; when I added on Angel, that felt like a lot. Matt was the one who introduced me to the TiVo; before I met him, I didn’t have a DVR.

I’m sure Matt would admit that he watches a lot more TV than I do. But Matt has also introduced me to shows over the years that I probably wouldn’t have sampled otherwise. Matt likes to check out new shows and see if they’re any good, so I do the same thing.  Back when I was not a big TV-watcher, I wouldn’t have done that.

Here are the shows I watch every week that I actually enjoy: How I Met Your Mother, The New Girl, The Mindy Project, The Middle, Modern Family, The Big Bang Theory, Community, Parks & Recreation, The Office, Happy Endings, Once Upon a Time, Mad Men (which is my favorite show of the last few years), and Doctor Who.

I feel like I’m forgetting some. I actually thought I watched more one-hour shows. I guess there’s Smash, which I don’t really like; I only watch it because my theater friends watch it. I’ve completely given up on Glee, which Matt still watches but which I now find terrible and can’t stand anymore. I’ve watched the first two episodes of Bates Motel, which is intriguing so far, but I haven’t decided if I’m going to stick with it. There’s also The Americans, which I like but is starting to accumulate on the DVR, because there’s just not enough time.

That’s partly because in addition to all of the above (except for Bates Motel), Matt watches Elementary, Castle, Bones, The Vampire Diaries, Arrow, Being Human, The Following, and Warehouse 13 (which is summer only). Also Suits. And this Nickelodeon show called House of Anubis which is on like every single day.

And let’s not forget other stuff we watch: NBC Nightly News, The Daily Show, Rachel Maddow, and Saturday Night Live. And The Simpsons, Family Guy, The Cleveland Show, and American Dad. And Archer, which I only half pay attention to. And The Regular Show, which is only 10 minutes so that’s okay. Oh, and Scooby-Doo: Mystery Incorporated, which is a kind of funny and tongue-in-cheek iteration of the Scooby-Doo gang. And also Being Human, U.K. version. (I like the British version but not the American one.)

Thank goodness I gave up on Days of our Lives a few months ago.

Matt sometimes accuses me of taking a moralizing tone about his TV watching. I guess I kind of do. It’s just that I start to feel disgusting when I sit on the couch for too long watching TV. And I also feel like it keeps me from being social — although to be honest, I might be confusing cause and effect; I think it’s really low self-esteem that keeps me from being more social.

But I mean, we don’t just watch TV. We go to the theater a lot. And yet theater, like TV, is a passive form of entertainment. You’re sitting and watching something instead of connecting with other people socially.

That said, there are several TV shows I’d check out if there were only time. Game of Thrones, The Good Wife… OK, I can’t think of any others right now. I thought there were more.

But I really feel this anxiety about wasting away my life in front of a TV set.

The article is long, as most law review articles are, but basically, the answer is: nobody yet knows how this would work.

The article goes deep into the weeds about conflict of laws. (Yay civil procedure!) In short, the author says that either Congress or the federal courts should make a uniform rule: either (1) the federal government should recognize a same-sex marriage if it was valid where performed, or (2) the federal government should recognize a same-sex marriage if it is valid where the couple currently lives.

Just because there would be confusion does not mean DOMA section 3 should not be overturned. Conflict-of-laws issues come up in family law all the time. And at any rate, there will be confusion as long some states refuse to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed in other states.

If DOMA is tossed, will people who marry in New York and then return to Arizona have the same federal benefit rights as someone who marries and stays in New York?

I don’t think there’s a clear answer.

New York State doesn’t have a residency requirement for marriage. So any same-sex couple in the country can go to New York and get married. Or a same-sex couple who lives in New York, Massachusetts, Iowa, etc., could get married and then move to another state that doesn’t have marriage equality, for any of the many reasons that people move around: to take a new job, to care for an elderly parent back home, to live in a warmer climate, and so on.

So if DOMA Section 3 goes away, which married same-sex couples would federal recognition “attach” to, and when? Could it attach, and then later detach when the couple leaves the state? And then attach again when the couple goes back?

You could argue that once the couple gets married and federal benefits attach, they can never be taken away. It doesn’t seem quite fair otherwise. But you could also argue that since Arizona doesn’t recognize a New York same-sex marriage, and the federal government has to defer to the states, then federal benefits can detach once the couple permanently moves to Arizona. I don’t know. Or what if the couple lives in New York but owns property in Arizona, or say Florida? Would federal taxes apply to that property? What about inheritance?

I imagine the case would be clearer if a married same-sex couple is merely visiting a non-equality state, not moving there permanently, and some incident happens that involves a federal law. I can’t think of any examples, but there might be one.

It’s not just federal benefits we’re talking about, like tax breaks or Social Security or family leave. There are more than 1,100 rights and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of a marriage.

The law can be fractal sometimes. One big issue gets resolved, but other little issues come up in its wake. A future court would probably have to resolve these issues as they come up. That’s not a bad thing — it’s just how the law works. But it’s certainly interesting.

Today’s oral arguments in the DOMA case leave me cautiously optimistic — moreso than yesterday’s Prop 8 arguments. There seems to be a consensus among the experts that DOMA Section 3 is doomed, precisely and only because Justice Kennedy evidently believes that it violates the power of states to define marriage. Only four justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan) appear willing to overturn it on grounds of equal protection; Kennedy would provide the crucial fifth vote.

Roberts and Scalia also brought up federalism, but in a curious way. They asked: if the federal government is not allowed to exclude same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage, does that mean it’s not allowed to include them, either? Wouldn’t that, too, violate states’ rights to define marriage? And if it is okay for the federal government to include them, then why isn’t it okay for the federal government to exclude them?

It was an odd perversion of the principle of federalism. The answer to their question requires asking: what’s the point of federalism in the first place?

Federalism is usually seen not as an end in itself, but as a vehicle to protect individual liberty — usually, negative liberty (“freedom from X”). How does it violate principles of liberty for the federal government to extend federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples? In other words, how does that interfere with anybody’s rights? On the other hand, when the federal government withholds those benefits from same-sex couples, as it does right now, it restricts positive liberty. (More here.) Our government was structured in such a way as to further certain principles, but Scalia and Roberts sounded like they were more interested in sophistic thought games than in the real-life implications of DOMA on these principles.

I thought Roberts, for one, would be more skeptical of DOMA, and I’m kind of disappointed in him. I guess the health care got all of our hopes up.

Then there was Alito, who twisted the principle of equal protection. Alito raised concerns that getting rid of DOMA would itself cause equal protection problems: what if a surviving same-sex spouse in New York doesn’t have to pay estate taxes because New York recognizes same-sex marriage, but a spouse in North Carolina does, because North Carolina doesn’t recognize those marriages? Doesn’t that raise equal protection concerns, he asked?

The answer is: isn’t that North Carolina’s fault, because it doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, rather than the federal government’s fault, since the federal government just defers to state definitions of marriage? Why wouldn’t the remedy be to shield all surviving same-sex spouses nationwide from the estate tax, rather than make all of them pay it? It seems odd and cruel to say that it’s better not to provide benefits to any married same-sex couples rather than provide benefits to all of them. It basically holds couples who live in same-sex marriage states hostage to all the other states. How is that okay?

Despite Alito’s questions, I still see him as a possible vote to strike down DOMA. Maybe not very likely, but still possible.

Thomas, of course, said nothing. But I wonder if he, too, might strike down DOMA on federalism grounds. I’m not counting on it, but not totally ruling it out either.

So that leaves the four liberals plus Kennedy. States’ rights isn’t the reason I’d prefer for striking down DOMA, but I’d certainly take it.

And now the long three-month wait to see whether Matt and I get to have a whole-milk marriage.

As I wrote the other day, the DOMA case is more personally relevant to me than the Prop 8 case. I already live in a state with marriage equality, and at this point, the only way DOMA will be overturned is if the Supreme Court does it. Due to partisan gerrymandering, we won’t have a Democratic House of Representatives for a while, and no GOP-controlled House is going to vote to get rid of it. No matter what happens with the Prop 8 case, it seems clear that it’s going to disappear one way or another in the next four years. Four years is still a long time to those who can’t get married, but without judicial intervention, Prop 8 will disappear much sooner than DOMA will.

That said, today’s oral arguments in the Prop 8 case were frustrating to listen to and read. Some of the justices just don’t get it.

There was Scalia, snidely and passive-aggressively asking Ted Olson exactly when it became unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to get married. Olson smartly parried with his own question: when did it become unconstutional to deny interracial couples the right to get married? Scalia was just beating his dead horse that the Constitution never changes. I’d like to ask Scalia: exactly when did it become unconstitutional to discriminate against women?

Then there was Scalia (again) saying that we don’t know whether it’s a good thing for children to be raised by same-sex couples, even though all respectable social science has shown that it makes no damn difference what the genders of the parents are. Is it a good thing or a bad thing for kids to be raised by interracial couples? Is it a good or a bad thing for kids to be raised by Jews who live in Christian neighborhoods? Is it a good or bad thing for kids to be raised by couples who are in any way different from everyone else?

That’s my biggest problem with opponents of marriage equality. Don’t they realize that thousands of gay couples are already raising children, married or not? And if these justices have a problem with marriage equality because it might lead to more kids being raised by same-sex couples, why don’t they have a problem with civil unions, which supposedly already provide all the rights and protections of marriage, because after all, marriage is just a “label”?

Then there was Alito, saying that we need to be careful because same-sex marriage is newer than cellphones or the internet, like that makes any difference when we’re talking about love and commitment and human rights.

I was discouraged by Kennedy, who didn’t seem to want to buy the Ninth Circuit’s argument that was tailored implicitly for him. Maybe the Ninth Circuit was too clever by half.

I was most of all discouraged by Chief Justice Roberts, who seemed as skeptical of marriage equality as the other right-wingers.

Oral arguments are not necessarily indicative of the final decision (just ask Roberts about the health care case). And it seems very possible that the Court could overturn Prop 8 through inaction, either by letting the Ninth Circuit decision stand or by dismissing the case for lack of standing. But the tone of the questions discouraged me.

Perhaps things will go differently tomorrow in the DOMA hearing, when federalism arguments will take prominence. I imagine someone will ask about what happens if a Mississippi couple decides to get married in New York, because it has no residency requirement, and then goes back home to Mississippi: will the couple have a marriage that is recognized for federal purposes but not for state purposes, and how is that more complicated than having a marriage that is recognized for state purposes but not for federal purposes? The answer is that far more couples get married in their home states than go forum-shopping for marriage. But the justices like to poke and prod at the issues, so the question could come up.

I don’t know. I’m just going to take a deep breath and remember that none of us can predict anything.

I’ve been paying lots of attention to these cases, of course. Matt and I are getting married this year, so we will be directly, concretely affected by the DOMA decision. In fact, I can’t think of another Supreme Court case during my lifetime that has had the potential to affect me so concretely and directly. Lawrence v. Texas affected me symbolically as a gay person, but it didn’t affect me directly, since I already lived in a state where gay sex was legal. This is different. It’s a weird, cool feeling.

It’s interesting that depending on where you live, you may be paying more attention to one case than the other. Gay Californians are likely paying more close attention to the Prop 8 case, although they are the only ones who will likely be affected by both the Prop 8 and DOMA cases.

I don’t think the Court is going to issue a broad, nationwide right to marriage equality. It has never overturned so many state laws at the same time. Roe v. Wade overturned at least 30 states’ laws on abortion; Loving v. Virginia overturned 16 states’ laws banning interracial marriage; Lawrence v. Texas overturned 14 states’ laws banning sodomy. Currently 41 states ban same-sex marriage.

It’s too early to tell what the Court will decide at the end of June, since we haven’t even had the oral arguments yet. But it seems most likely that the Court will get past the standing issue in DOMA (there’s an issue over whether the parties have proper standing before the Court in the first place, but I don’t think it will be a problem) and overturn it on federalism grounds. If the Court can get past the standing issue in the Prop 8 standing issue, I think it will find a way to strike down Prop 8 without affecting any other states.

No matter what happens, though, marriage equality is coming to California. If the Court upholds Prop 8, California will probably hold another referendum in 2016. (I don’t think marriage proponents would risk a referendum in 2014 — midterms are when all the crazies come out.)

And it’s coming to every other state, too. As Frank Bruni points out today, and as many others have said, and as the polls show, things are moving in one direction, and one direction only. This isn’t like abortion, where people argue over whether it’s murder. More and more people are seeing that letting two competent adults decide to get married hurts absolutely nobody. Not only is public opinion chaning; it’s changing quickly, as all the arguments against it fall apart like so many paper tigers.

In that case, why would the Supreme Court be so reluctant to overturn so many state laws at once? Because the Court cares about its reputation. The three or four conservative activists have no problem angering the public by twisting the law to overturn democratic decisions (see Citizens United, Obamacare, gun regulation, Bush v. Gore). But the others, despite what they might feel personally, do have qualms.

So I think we’ll see halfway, moderate, but hugely important decision in favor of more equality in this country rather than less. At least five, maybe six justices. Maybe even seven. (Or even eight – I could see Thomas being offended by DOMA on federalism grounds. Scalia will be a holdout no matter what.)

But that comes in June. This week are the oral arguments. Tuesday and Wednesday will be fascinating.

Of course, it doesn’t take any talent to do this. Watching movies is very passive. Even paying close attention to a movie is mostly passive. It requires no physical exertion, and it probably takes less energy than reading. Yes, a boring movie can be an endurance test, and sometimes you have to read subtitles, but mostly you just sit there and… watch.

I decided relatively late that I was going to try and do this. First it was just going to be all the Best Picture nominees. I thought I’d try some of the other major categories too. But then I saw that @mattiek (former old-school blogger Cows in the Barn) was working his way through all 53 nominees, and I realized it was something I could try to do as well. There were a few days where I watched three or even four feature-length films. I ventured out to some movie theaters I hadn’t been to in ages. But I managed to check everything off my list.

What’s next? I might start working my way through Sight & Sound Magazine’s 2012 critics’ poll of the top 250 films of all time. It’s supposed to be the most respected list of movie rankings, and it only comes out every ten years. Even among the top 10, I’ve only seen two.

At any rate, tonight for the first time I’ll get to watch the Oscars without asking, “What the hell is War Witch?” or “What is Kings Point?” or “That movie looks interesting.” Because I’ve already seen them all.

Today I saw The Impossible and The Master, which brings my total to 93 of 122 nominations seen, and 30 of 53 films. And with these two films today, and The Sessions and Flight earlier this week, I’ve knocked off all the acting nominations and have completed 13 of 24 categories total.

I find myself wondering why I’m doing this. I guess at heart I’m doing it because it’s fun. I love going to the movies, and I love watching the Oscars.

I guess part of me also hopes it will make me better somehow. More knowledgable about movies, or smarter, or something. But the thing is — sitting in a theater passively watching a movie takes no talent. To read a tough book you have to be smart, but anyone can watch a movie. So what do I really hope to get out of this? Do I really feel like I’m a more knowledgeable moviegoer? Not really. I haven’t seen most of the films on the Sight & Sound poll of top 250 movies ever. But I want to.

Also, why the Oscar nominees? I’m wary of just checking things off a list so I can say “done.” And the Oscars are fallible. Not everything is great just because it was nominated for an Oscar.

Still, this project is exposing me to movies I wouldn’t have seen otherwise. I don’t think I would have seen The Impossible if not for Naomi Watts’s Best Actress nomination. A movie about the death and destruction of the 2004 South Asian tsunami? Count me out. But it turned out to be more engrossing than I’d expected (partly because my family used to go on Asian Christmas vacations when we lived in Tokyo, so it evoked memories for me and made me wonder what would have happened if my family had been in a tsunami). It was a bit hokey toward the end — I found my eyes welling up even though I totally knew my emotions were being manipulated. And I felt guilty that the movie focused on rich Western tourists as opposed to the native Asians who were killed. But I’m still glad I saw it.

I can get something out of a movie even if it’s flawed. Matt often says he can find something worthwhile in even the worst piece of theater; perhaps the same is true for me of movies. Well, maybe not pulp movies like the kind Quentin Tarantino famously used to love seeing: pulp westerns, blaxploitation, kung-fu, horror — those aren’t my thing. Not really into the teenage summer blockbusters either. Actually, maybe it’s just the serious arty-type movies I’m into — movies with a vision.

I guess I’m thinking too much. (Guilty!) As my therapist has been telling me, stop worrying about the point of doing things that seem fun, and just do them.

OK then.

I can’t seem to tell whether a work of art is good or not. I only know whether or not I liked it.

Does this mean I’m stupid and unsophisticated? Or does it just mean I like to think for myself instead of just accepting other people’s judgments about art? I honestly don’t know.

This year I’m really making an effort to see as many of the Best Picture nominees as I can. As of today I’ve seen eight of the nine (!) nominees: Amour, Argo, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Les Miserables, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, and Zero Dark Thirty. The only one I haven’t seen yet is Django Unchained. (That last one will definitely be an effort, because I’m not a fan of Quentin Tarantino or Jamie Foxx and it’s 2 hours and 45 minutes long. But I’ve come this far; I can’t give up now!)

Of the eight I’ve seen, here’s what I thought of them, from most enjoyed to least enjoyed:

Lincoln: Enjoyed unabashedly. Entertaining, moving, politically relevant, and fun. Two and a half hours flew by for me.

Argo: A great popcorn movie. I couldn’t find anything wrong with it except that the climax was a little too 1980s Hollywood adventure-y. Did Affleck mean it as an homage to 1980s popcorn movies or did he just get carried away? Either way, it was well made and exciting.

Zero Dark Thirty: Long, but intense, and riveting.

Silver Linings Playbook: Great characters and acting and an enjoyable plot. Parts of it were too conventional and neatly tied up, but I forgave that because I felt affection for this movie. I just liked the people. I guess that’s a good thing. But I can’t tell if it’s Best-Picture-ish. (That sentence kind of sums up this whole blog post.)

Life of Pi: I liked this more than I thought I would. Technically brilliant, narratively exciting. I think Suraj Sharma (the teenage lead) should have gotten an Oscar nomination.

Les Miserables: Didn’t really care for it. Bombastic, and too long. (I’ve never seen the stage production but have never liked the music all that much.)

Beasts of the Southern Wild: This is one I have trouble with. I feel like I was supposed to like it more than I did. But it didn’t really move me. I feel like I was impressed with it rather than liked it.

Amour: I saw this one today and it’s the one I have the most trouble with. Jesus Christ, what a depressing, severe, constricting, claustrophobic film. It’s about an elderly husband and wife, one of whom is slowly dying, and the whole film takes place in their apartment, except for one scene near the beginning. Many of the scenes are long single takes, with the camera staying in one place. At one point I looked at my watch because I got bored, and there was more time remaining than I’d hoped. It picked up a bit at that point, but still. All the critics seem to say this movie is a masterpiece, but I can’t figure out why. This is the one that most makes me wonder if I’m stupid, or at least if I just don’t know enough about film. Why is this a good movie? What do I know after seeing this movie that I didn’t know before? I already knew that growing old and infirm is terrible and ugly; do other people not know that? Is that why the movie is supposed to be good?

My point is this, and it’s true about movies and paintings and books and plays: if I can’t appreciate a work of art unless a critic — and I mean that in the best sense of the term, someone who is knowledgable about the art form and writes well — tells me why it’s good, am I dumb?

As Sondheim wrote, art isn’t easy. But shouldn’t I at least be able to figure out if something is “good” without a critic telling me so?

The reason this bothers me is because art is one of the great joys of life, and if I can’t appreciate a piece of art that I’m supposed to appreciate, am I missing out on one of the joys of life? If you have to be an expert on a particular art form to enjoy something, then what’s the point?

I can’t figure out how to resolve this. It just really bothers me. I have lots of unanswered questions and I’d be curious to know other people’s thoughts about art and “good”-ness.