From the "other" side: Pam's House Blend:: Freeper, fundie heads exploding over CA marriage ruling 

No, I won't repeat any of it here, but ... well, when you listen to some of the comments, it makes me happy for the decision all the more, if only to lead to more exploding heads.

Well, I will say a couple of things:

1. The basis for the decision, in the face of the previously (eight years ago) initiative law voted in by the populace, was that the populace and their representatives had crafted a body of law regarding domestic partnerships that was close to marriage already, save for the name. Except that it couldn't be called that. Except the justices decided that was discriminatory.
2. Despite all the rhetoric of "every child deserves and needs a mother and father," a different ruling would have done nothing regarding California child custody laws.
3. It is, in fact, one of the most important jobs of high courts to stand up to the will of the people when that will, in law, is not in keeping with the (state or federal) constitution. That can be irksome. That can also be a critical protection of your rights, too. Idjits.
4. I don't insist on knowing and approving everything you do in your bedroom. I do insist you show similar courtesy to others. I didn't ask your permission to enter into a committed relationship with someone I love; ditto on the insistence of similar courtesy.
5. Oh, and, that whole "marriage is dooooooomed!" thing? Here's what I think.

(via Les)

Filed under :: Gay Stuff :: Politics & Law :: ZT & PC
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (2) · Pings (0) · TR/G

Couple of good articles in the LA Times about the state supreme court decision yesterday that overturned the legal ban on gay marriage.

It's an instant presidential campaign issue, for starters. It's not just California -- it now raises the issue nation-wide again. McCain -- who has made all the "right" noises about "protecting marriage" -- now suddenly risks alienating either his GOP conservative base or his moderate base if he comes out either too strongly or too softly. I suspect it's not as strong an issue to raise or pursue for most moderates as it is for the conservatives -- but if he comes out as forcefully as he'll be pushed to from the Right, it may seriously backfire.

Obama and Clinton have both taken a more center position on the issue -- not favoring gay marriage, but okay with civil unions. If the Left presses the Democratic candidate to take a stronger stand, again, the center might get turned off; if the candidate fails to take a strong stand, though, it might turn off some of the (ahem) younger generation that, as a whole, approves of the whole gay marriage thing.

I think the risks are greater for McCain than the Democratic nominee, but it does bring the whole "values" issue back to the fore, and maybe will help demonstrate that people to the left of Pat Robertson have "values," too.

For the moment, everyone's treading water.

 All three offered finessed responses Thursday, saying that defining marriage is best left to individual states.

In an apparent effort to assuage supporters, McCain reiterated his belief that states have a right to ban same-sex marriage. Obama and Clinton emphasized support for civil unions and equal rights for same-sex couples.

In California, where it looks like there will be a ballot proposition to constitutionally ban gay marriage, the question is whether that will draw more conservatives to the polls or not. A lot of that may depend on how the presidential campaign plays out. Though, notably.

Not surprisingly, the most definitive political statement Thursday came from someone not on the November ballot: California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," Schwarzenegger said. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the Constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

The actual decision goes beyond just this actual item.

The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard.

Good on them. 

The court's ruling repeatedly invoked the words "respect and dignity" and framed the marriage question as one that deeply affected not just couples but also their children. California has more than 100,000 households headed by gay couples, about a quarter with children, according to 2000 census data.

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," George wrote for the majority. "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

Looking at the actual decision, the court framed it interestingly. Given that California already had a strong statutory domestic partnership law for gay couples ...

Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an
officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.

In other words, state law already made the status more or less equal -- the court was looking at whether it could then call it different things without getting into "separate but equal" territory. They decided not.

Meanwhile, the Right is fulminating.

"This is yet another example of why the people need to go to the polls in November to defend the historic and natural definition of marriage," said Ron Prentice, executive director of the Sacramento- and Riverside-based California Family Council, which opposes same-sex marriage.

Yeah -- it's all about "history" (and what's "natural"). As the court noted, the same was true when it struck down (in 1948) bans on interracial marriage, too. But, then, using Mr Prentice's arguments, maybe we can get a polygamy clause into his ballot measure, too -- that's not only natural and historical but Biblical as well.
 

Filed under :: Gay Stuff :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (4) · Pings (0) · TR/G

Bravo.

California's top court has ruled that a state law banning marriage between same-sex couples is unconstitutional.The state's Supreme Court said the "right to form a family relationship" applied to all Californians regardless of sexuality.

[...] The seven-judge panel voted 4-3 in favour of the plaintiffs who argued that the 2000 law was discriminatory. "Limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.

Filed under :: Gay Stuff :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (4) · Pings (0) · TR/G

Michigan's voters passed a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage "or similar union for any purpose." Because of that, the state supreme court has now ruled that no public agency can extend any benefits to domestic partners (e.g., to gay couples, who, of course, cannot get married in Michigan).

The irony is twofold. First, though the amendment was touted by "pro-family" organizations, among those hurt by the ruling are the children living in households of gay couples.   Sorry, not only do we not recognize your adoptive parents as your "real" parents, but you can't have health insurance, either. A bigger irony is that the "pro-family" folks who proposed and got Amendment 2 pushed through claimed again and again and again that this was not about "benefits," that beneifts would never be taken away, it was simply about protecting the "M" word from those nassssty gay people.

I wonder if the "Citizens for the Protection of Marriage" can be sued by the couples so affected.

Meanwhile, the Maryland supreme court has ruled that, regardless of Islamic law, a guy can't summarily divorce his wife by simply repeating "I divorce you" three times - certainly not in order to avoid having to divide up the (in this case sizeable) estate.

Maybe he'll sue that his freedom of religion is being infringed ...

Filed under :: Gay Stuff :: Love and Marriage :: Politics & Law :: Religion
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (6) · Pings (0) · TR/G

It's not just a gimmick -- it's a destructive gimmick. Woo-hoo!

The Federal gas tax is about 18 cents a gallon; given the way prices have skyrocketed, 18 cents is a drop in the bucket  -- and given that it's being suggested by two particiular presidential candidates -- who won't be in a position to make it happen for nine months, by which time gas may well be even higher and the effect even a smaller drop.

It's the "feel-good" silly suggestion of the season.

Plus -- it's not like the federal gas tax is just crazy money that's being burned in big bonfires beside the Potomac. It goes toward federal highway work -- maintaining / expanding / repairing roads, bridges, non-trivial stuff like that. So either any tax "holiday" will have to be short-lived, or else there won't be any road for folks to be driving on ...

They'd be just as well off printing money and sending out more rebate checks.

Filed under :: Elections 2008 :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (2) · Pings (0) · TR/G

1. Shamos: Why e-voting paper trails are a bad idea | The Iconoclast - politics, law, and technology - CNET News.com - Are e-voting paper trails actually useful, or desirable? I think what the whole e-voting thang has raised is how secure (or insecure) our voting process is, and what risks we need to take (and which we need to work on reducing).
2. When the Ex Blogs, the Dirtiest Laundry Is Aired - New York Times - I don't know if it's a good thing, or a bad thing, that my divorce from Cheryl was in pre-blogging days.
3. The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure DVD news: Announcement for DC Super Heroes: The Filmation Adventures | TVShowsOnDVD.com - This makes me sooooooo happy! The SAHoA was dearly beloved by me as a child -- esp. for all the non-Superman/Aquaman bits, which is what this DVD set will collect. Glee!
4. BMWSportTouring Forums: Space Shuttle Processing: Rarely seen by the general public - How to assemble a space shuttle for lauch. Cool. (via GeekPress)
5. The Art of the Title Sequence - This looks like an extraordinarily cool site, looking at TV/movie title sequence. Pretty. (via kottke)

Filed under :: Blogging :: Love and Marriage :: Media :: Media - Cartoons :: Politics & Law :: Potpourri :: Science
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (1) · Pings (0) · TR/G

Sometimes the government has to keep secrets. There are certain operations of, yes, national security that have to be kept under wraps, at least for a time.

But there is nothing so addictive as secrecy, especially when coupled with power, and keeping things secret because otherwise the bad guys will find out too soon all too easily turns into keeping things secret for the public's own good, which in turn becomes keeping things secret for the good of the secret-makers.

The Bush Administration has time and again used the first excuse, when it's been all too clear that, at best, they really have #2 in mind, if not #3. Their mantra of "Trust us, or else the Terrorists will win" rang hollow every early on, and now it would be laughable if the consequences were not so grave.

Now the Senate has taken up S.2533, the State Secrets Protection Act, which basically provides judicial oversight when the executive branch seeks to invoke "state secrets" as a reason to suppress information or stop judicial proceedings. 

Filed under :: Homeland Security :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (2) · Pings (0) · TR/G

One of the "sleeper" stories of the past few years -- and probably the next -- is how the government-subsidized shift in corn production (and, indirectly, other agricultural production) from food to biofuel is causing increasing ripples in the world food supply and the problem of world hunger.

Alas, farm subsidies tend to be among the most sacrosanct things in the budget, once established.

Filed under :: Environment :: Geopolitical Brouhaha :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (0) · TR/G

Interesting NY Times article about all those retired military serving as "media analysts" for the various networks, and the conflicts of interest that the networks ignore (or at least don't mention) when they bring them on the air.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

So hardly unbiased, objective, uninvolved observers of what's going on. But that financial interest has further ramifications.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

And the networks, interested in getting "scoops" and "trusted figures" to expound on the day's news, are more than happy to put these folks on the air, gliding along with their own "don't ask, don't tell" kind of attitude.

It's a long article, but worth reading.

Filed under :: Fourth Estate :: Geopolitical Brouhaha :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (0) · TR/G

That was the unfortunate phrasing I used in talking with a co-worker about my (not) expected economic stimulus check. Which I'm not expecting to get because we make too much money. Which is (a) what I was trying to say in an amusing way (though not quite that amusing) and (b) the sort of "problem" I suppose it's not bad to have.

Okay, it was kind of funny.

So I guess I'll just spend some of my filthy lucre to stimulate the economy on my own. Just to do my part, mind you.

On the other hand, if you're expecting one of those checks -- here's a suggestion on what to "spend" it on. Or for a similar cause of your choice.

Filed under :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (0) · TR/G