Another thing worth noting about the California court:
All seven members of the California court have been confirmed by the voters. Kennard — confirmed 2006 with 74.5% Corrigan — confirmed 2006 with 74.4% Werdegar — confirmed 2002 with 74.1% Moreno — confirmed 2002 with 72.6% Baxter — confirmed 2002 with 71.5% George — confirmed 1998 with 75.5% Chin — confirmed 1998 with 69.3%
Six of the seven were originally appointed by Republicans.
Reihan catches up on his slang.
… more firings. McCain loses another staffer, and has pledged to re-vet his entire staff. Not the best news for the Republican hopeful. And did Bush’s Nazi silliness unwittingly stomp on McCain’s big speech today?
Two important points:
The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into "marriage." It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between "marriage" (as a religious institution) and "civil unions" (as a secular institution) — i.e., that California law could leave the definition of "marriage" to religious institutions and only offer and recognize "civil unions" for legal purposes — provides that it treated opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. The key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining "marriage" for religious purposes.
And this:
No rational person can criticize the Court’s decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of — and contempt for — how the law works.
A group of creative sky pictures.
Drawing upon an Atlantic from 1958 with a series of articles on Burma, James Gibney looks at the history of the country and what it can teach us.
Okay, this one put me over the edge. Yes, I wept too:
I live in Texas. Rights for gay folks around here are sometimes hard to discern. Daring to hope for a future of equal marriage rights often just feels futile. So you just tuck that precious hope in the darkest corner of your heart and cover it with the thickest of armor. Because in the absence of the dignity of equality, it’s all you have. And they can’t have it.
Today, I celebrated with my Californian brothers and sisters from a thousand miles away. I saw their faces, I read their stories and I wept with them. And I dared to hope for myself and my fellow Texans, just a little. My little hope has outgrown its dusty confines.
I don’t think I’ll need that armor ever again.
Here he goes again:
The central question was whether the representative nature of the California state government, including its initiative provisions, would be upheld.
They were not. The California Supreme Court asserted its ultimate power today in a way that is shameful and deeply destructive of the ability of a free people to govern themselves.
Does Hewitt know that the California state legislature, presumably part of California’s representative democracy, has already voted twice to grant marriage rights? Does he know that the governor of California is backing the court? Or does he not care? How is it a "puscht" [sic] when the court actually upholds the legislature’s decision? He’s not the only one uninformed:
Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, accused the court of usurping the role of the legislature.
Don Surber serves up the same talking point:
No will of the people.
None of that democracy stuff.
Just the whim of the lawyers in black on the judicial bench.
Er: a legislature’s decision, passed twice? Not democracy? At least Tom Maguire knows what he’s talking about.
"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."
The salient question is: if the federal government section in DOMA is repealed, as Obama has promised, will the feds recognize civil marriage for residents of California and Massachusetts? If not, why not? Nada from McCain. He hates this stuff.
