Author: Andrew Sullivan

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional," – Judge Vaughn Walker.

Reax to follow:

Prop 8 Ruling FINAL

Howard Gleckman thinks the Bush tax cut debate is a distraction. The questions he wishes Obama would pose to Congress:

*Should the income tax continue to be the foundation of our revenue system? If so, do we want to raise rates while protecting hundreds of billions of dollars in special interest tax subsidies. Or should we reprise the 1986 Tax Reform Act, where we broadened the tax base by eliminating many special provisions and lowered overall rates. It seems like a good idea to me, but let’s debate it.

 

*Is the income tax fixable at all, or is it so broken that we’ll need to replace it, or supplement it, with a Value Added Tax or some other consumption tax? Such a change would have profound implications, not only for the budget, but for spending, savings, and investment. And it could create a very new set of winners and losers than under the current tax system.  

 

*What is the role of Social Security and Medicare taxes in a fair and efficient revenue system? With almost no discussion, this year’s health law fundamentally changed the nature of the Medicare tax by imposing it [on] investment income, rather than just wages (starting in 2013). Perhaps we want to talk about this one some more.

If we had a rational political system and a viable opposition party, it would be lovely, wouldn't it?

From a week-old poll:

A poll on the Palestinian Ma’an news website that ended Monday showed that more than 56% of Palestinians support a former Israeli defense minister's idea to annex the West Bank and grant Israeli citizenship to its 2.5 million residents.

Ali Yenidunya runs through some of the normal objections:

On the Palestinian front, those who argue for a one-state alternative and political “vision” assume that Palestinians would overtake the rule of the state through the state’s democratic channels. However, the Palestinian question would face new and more complex problems and the nationalist movement could lose its support from the emerging Palestinian elite.

I'm against a one-state solution because I'm a Zionist. I want the Jewish state to endure, as a coherent, decent democracy. But this position – which includes the urgent necessity of ending the settlements and returning to something close to the 1967 borders – is now, apparently, anti-Semitic, or, at least, worth sabotaging to prevent Obama from having any foreign policy success. We've been over this territory before. Here's Yglesias's defense of Zionism from almost a year ago:

I really kind of hope that hundreds of years from now there won’t be national states at all, instead we’ll all be lumped in with the Vulcans and the Andorians in a United Federation of Planets and off we’ll go. But there’s clearly no prospects for the abolition of the nation-state in the short-term. And the Jewish people’s claim to a nation-state is just as strong as the Finnish or Dutch or Thai claim. Or, for that matter, as the Palestinian claim. By far the best way to secure a just resolution of those conflicting claims is through a two-state solution—an independent Palestine, and a democratic Jewish Israel.

I completely grasp the pull of radical cosmopolitan values, but I think people who think that the area west of the Jordan River would be a great place to try implementing them in the short-term are being a bit crazy. It’s not even clear that Belgium or Canada will be able to survive as bi-national entities.

Andrew Sprung tells Dan Senor where to put his threats.

What are they doing about our two failing, counter-productive wars? Nada, but passing the buck to the president and Petraeus.

Should she win, her campaign strategy will serve as a proof of principle for Palin's campaign. Angle is losing among the general population but the supporters she does have are highly motivated:

According to a Reuters/Ipsos survey of Nevada voters released Tuesday, 81 percent of Republicans say they are certain to vote on November 2, 17 points higher than the 64 percent of Democrats who say they’ll vote in the midterm elections. The poll indicates that Reid leads Angle 48 to 44 percent among likely voters. Among the larger poll of registered voters, Reid holds a 52 to 36 percent advantage.

Kleiman goes another round:

If all Manzi means when he disses “social science” is that you shouldn’t just read some random paper in an economics or social-psych journal and propose some insanely risky venture such as privatizing Social Security or voucherizing public education or wiping out labor unions based on that paper, then I’m happy to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him against irresponsible radicalism and for cautious and evidence-sensitive approaches to bringing about social improvement.

Manzi (who agrees with my thoughts on the exchange) nods:

While I don’t think that “all I meant” was that “you shouldn’t read some random paper in an economics or social-pysch journal” and propose X, I certainly believe that. Most important, I acknowledge enthusiastically his “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” point that the recognition of our ignorance should apply to things that I theorize are good ideas, as much as it does to anything else. The law of unintended consequences does not only apply to Democratic proposals.

In fact, I have argued for supporting charter schools instead of school vouchers for exactly this reason. Even if one has the theory (as I do) that we ought to have a much more deregulated market for education, I more strongly hold the view that it is extremely difficult to predict the impacts of such drastic change, and that we should go one step at a time (even if on an experimental basis we are also testing more radical reforms at very small scale). I go into this in detail for the cases of school choice and social security privatization in the book.

John McWhorter scoffs at our intermittent race conversation. Glenn Loury gags as well.