California brings gay couples closer to equality with straight ones. But why the state income tax exception? More evidence, to my mind, that civil unions are no alternative to marriage and actually perpetuate cultural balkanization and civic inequality. In another fascinating development, every single Democratic candidate has now come out formally in opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment to bar any benefits or rights to gay couples. Such an amendment would effectively repeal Vermont’s and California’s civil unions, domestic partnerships and any benefits to gay couples under the law anywhere in the U.S. When a radical amendment of this kind is opposed by one of the two major parties, what chance does it have of garnering the overwhelming support needed?
BLAIR VERSUS THE DEMS: A revealing column by a good Blair observer, Andrew Rawnsley, suggests that the pilloried British Prime Minister is not going to change course, domestically or on Iraq in the near or even distant future. Particularly apposite to the debate among the Democrats, Blair will not countenance a tax hike for the wealthy – those earning over $160,000 a year. Why? Here’s why:
Blair disdains the notion, popular with quite a lot of his colleagues and not so long ago openly propounded by Peter Hain, that a new 50 per cent rate on those earning more than $100,000 a year would raise some useful revenue from an affluent but small slice of the voters. Would the electoral penalty really be that high? Blair is as emphatic as he has ever been that the penalty would be huge, and for the same reason as always: those earning less would believe that Labour was coming after them next. On this, at least, Downing Street insiders say that he and Gordon Brown are in complete agreement.
In Britain, at least, the DLC still has clout.
The Dish 