Month: April 2009

The debate continues. Jerry Taylor responds to the attack on Cato and Ryan Avent parries the blow:

…it’s very difficult to skeptically review the scientific literature and conclude that the consensus is wrong. That’s why folks like Jim Manzi (and Ronald Bailey, who has revised his views somewhat since writing the book Taylor cites) are reluctant to confidently endorse the views in that Cato ad. But rather than accept, as an institution, that the science is probably correct and go about its business arguing that no state action is required (or whatever policy it might decide upon) Cato chose to betray the principles of honest skepticism that no doubt attracted many of libertarianism’s better minds. They’re sure to notice this choice. Hence, crisis.

Manzi's final thoughts here.

Dale Carpenter reacts to Iowa:

This is the third pro-SSM state supreme court decision in the past year. In addition to the important marriage result, the decision is notable because it continues a growing trend among state courts to treat sexual-orientation classifications as suspect. If it continues, that trend will have consequences on gay-rights questions well beyond the marriage context. State judiciaries are beginning to follow a familiar pattern of hastening civil-rights progress for a group once that group's cause has achieved a measure of legislative success and cultural acceptance.

No other state in the Midwest even recognizes same-sex domestic partnerships, much less civil unions, or marriages. Same-sex marriages will actually begin in Iowa in about three weeks. The state has no residency requirement for marriage, meaning that gay couples elsewhere in the Midwest can easily travel there and get married, although their relationships will not be recognized when they return to their home states. I can see two simultaneous effects from this: (1) rising expectations among gay couples in the Midwest combined with more political pressure to enact domestic partnerships and civil unions, especially in Illinois, and (2) rising alarm and political organizing among gay-marriage opponents in those same states.

The Des Moines Register has more on how the state is reacting. Among other things, the paper estimates that unless the legislature acts very quickly, the state's demanding constitutional amendment process means there would be no possibility of passing a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage until 2012.

Sen. Patrick Leahy's office has put out a statement:

In contrast to reports circulating on the Internet, Leahy said he is continuing to explore the proposal.

“I am not interested in a panel comprised of partisans intent on advancing partisan conclusions,” Leahy said. “I regret that Senate Republicans have approached this matter to date as partisans. That was not my intent or focus. Indeed, it will take bipartisan support in order to move this forward. I continue to talk about this prospect with others in Congress, and with outside groups and experts. I continue to call on Republicans to recognize that this is not about partisan politics. It is about being honest with ourselves as a country. We need to move forward together.”

Indian Superman!:

(hat tip: 3QD)

Dave Weigel:

The latest fringe right meme: President Obama tipped us off to, uh, something, by briefly bowing before the king of Saudi Arabia.

Links mine.

There’s a chance the legislature can over-ride the governor’s veto of civil equality. From Marty Rouse, National Field Director of the Human Rights Campaign:

The bill heads into final technical passage in the House tomorrow and then returns to the state Senate for concurrence (remember last week’s overwhelming 26-4 vote there).  The bill should land on Governor Douglas’ desk next Tuesday; he’ll likely immediately veto and then the House will likely try to override on Tues, Wed, or Thurs of next week.

Since some Democrats who voted against the bill last night, may vote with their party to override (and some Rs who voted for the bill may not want to vote to override their Governor), it is not completely clear how close the votes are to override. 

If all 150 members show up, 100 votes are needed for override.  Advocates believe they are very close to having the votes to override.  We could very well be only 5 votes short of an override, and we have less than a week to get them.  Vermont could very well be the first state in our nation to enact marriage equality by the legislature….or not.  One vote could make the difference.

What can we do?  Email, post on facebook, call, everyone you know who lives in Vermont and urge them to call their state Representative and ask them to vote to override the Governor on the marriage bill. This really may come down to one vote.  So please take action today.

You can send a note to Vermont legislators by this link.

Strikes again:

Thanks to an obscure tax provision, the United States government stands to pay out as much as $8 billion this year to the ten largest paper companies. And get this: even though the money comes from a transportation bill whose manifest intent was to reduce dependence on fossil fuel, paper mills are adding diesel fuel to a process that requires none in order to qualify for the tax credit. In other words, we are paying the industry–handsomely–to use more fossil fuel. “Which is,” as a Goldman Sachs report archly noted, the “opposite of what lawmakers likely had in mind when the tax credit was established.”

(hat tip: Wilkinson)

A reader writes:

I watched the original interview. Powell is one of the toughest guys out there. He's smart, smooth, and he can intimidate with a single minute shift in body language. Watching Rachel work him was revealing. He was somewhat shocked to be pushed so hard (although obviously he was there for a reason); he was not on strong moral ground, and he knew it, and he knew we knew it; he looked very tired at times; and he was trying to tell her — in fact he DID tell her, that it was all going to come out in time:

POWELL: "And so it is a legal issue and I think we have to be very careful and I have to be very careful because I don't want to be seen as implicating anybody or accusing anybody because I don't have the complete record on this. And that complete record I think in due course will come out."

The "complete record I think in due course will come out"–if you were Cheney, Yoo, et al., how would you be reading that?