The Dish

The former Clinton aide and writer, Sidney Blumenthal, calls on John Kerry to sue the London Sun for libel over the intern story. It’s easier in Britain.

ONE JUDGE IS GAY: Judge James L. Warren in San Francisco is responsible for ruling on the marriage cases. He’s also the grandson of Earl Warren, has ruled in favor of gun manufacturers and enraged some in the gay community by his ruling in a recent dog-mauling case. Oh, and he’s gay.

IRAQI DEMOCRACY IN ACTION: Another example of how it can work. The Washington Post’s coverage of post-war Iraq keeps getting better.

MORE INCLUSIVE VAGINAS, PLEASE: Just when you think the far left couldn’t get any sillier, they go and protest a production of the “Vagina Monologues,” because it isn’t “diverse” enough. Among the protesting slogans … well you can read about it all here. (Hat tip: David Kaufman.) DO NOT GO THERE if the “c-word” offends you.

Another email makes a different point:

“Often we lawyers speak of good faith in distinguishing those actions which are punished and those that are not. I think the difference between Judge Moore and Mayor Newsom is simply that concept.
Moore had no possible good faith argument for what he was doing. The Supreme Court had repeatedly ruled against displays like his. While the Court has not been a font of consistency in its Establishment Clause jurisprudence, it has consistently ruled against Judeo-Christian displays which have no secular nexus. Moor’s had none and thus could in no way be justified.
Given recent trends in litigation, I do think Mayor Newsom has a strong argument that a court could well find the California law violative of equal protection. After the Massachusetts Supreme Court interpreted its constitution as requiring no marriage distinctions between gay and straight, and with similar judgments by the highest courts in Hawaii and Vermont, I think there is no question that the Newsom could in good faith say that California’s courts will in all probability overrule the statute which makes marriage only for a man and a woman. Basing his action as mayor on that seems to me in keeping with any officeholder’s oath which first and foremost binds them to the Constitution rather than to other laws.”

What this debate may be coming down to is that, under almost any rational understanding of equal protection, civil marriage has to be extended to gay couples. That’s why court after court has ruled thus. But popular feeling among at least a plurality of voters holds that marriage for gays is abhorrent to them, a threat to marriage itself – or, in the words of Laura Bush, “very, very shocking.” Given equal protection guarantees, the only viable option, then, for those opposed to marriage rights for gays is to change the constitutions – state and federal – to carve out an exception to equality under the law. So that the U.S. and state constitutions would say: Every citizen is equal under the law, except when it comes to gays marrying. Or, more bluntly: all people are equal but some people are more equal than others. And this Orwellism we put into the founding document of the country. That may emerge as the choice we face.

COULTER FIGHTS BACK: I’m no fan of hers, but this column is relentless. I’m glad it’s not me she’s after.

As seen by the Onion. Priceless.

I’ll be on Hardball tonight with Chris Matthews.

Suddenly, the race really does look more competitive.

Check out Jacob Levy’s devastation of the radical, indeed revolutionary, aims of the Federal Marriage Amendment. The amendment is a dramatic step to gut states’ rights, undermine states’ autonomy and forbid any civil benefits for gay couples anywhere:

The FMA was oddly written in an attempt to meet social conservative aims under cover of shoring up the separation of powers and respecting federalist principles–and while avoiding the appearance of extremism that would be created by banning civil unions altogether. The attempt to do all this simultaneously failed. We’re left with an amendment that achieves social conservative aims by subverting both the separation of powers and federalism.

Once again, a battle between conservative principles and religious right extremism.

Here’s an email that rebuts the one I printed yesterday. I have to say that it makes a good point, and helps – for me at least – to delineate between civil disobedience and what the mayor of San Francisco has just done:

Moore got in trouble because he defied “settled law.” He knew when he placed the monument in my home state’s Judicial Building that doing so was contrary to well-established law regarding the display of religious symbols in public buildings. In doing so, he treated the public space as his own private pulpit and violated his oath of office.

Public officials such as Newsom and Moore do not have the LEGAL DISCRETION to act as they have done in their respective cases. Moore ultimately was thrown out of office after he defied the Federal court’s order, but he was only cited for contempt of court after he had already persistently violated his oath of office as a public official. And he was roundly condemned across this state and across the country for his actions long before the contempt order was issued by Judge Thompson. Again, if public officials have the privilege of being able to disregard the CLEAR mandates of the law in executing the law, then there is no law at all, just arbitrariness.

Civil disobedience relies upon private citizens forcing public officials to enforce unfair or immoral laws, even when the officials in good conscience would prefer not to do so. By doing this, it points out the immorality or unfairness of the laws in question.

The proper way for Newsom and others to have made a symbolic showing on this issue while conforming to the law would have been for thousands of gay/lesbian applicants to have appeared day after day at his office seeking marriage licenses, and for him to have publicly and reluctantly denied their individual requests. This would have three immediate results. First, enormous public relations boost for the movement in question. Second, would have created grounds for suit in state courts under the state constitution’s equal protection clause, which is the proper forum for deciding if the statute in question is unconstitutional. Third, it would create an enormous disruption of other governmental business, thereby making the protest have a practical impact.

I’m pretty much persuaded by this, and my joy at the sight of so many couples finally getting recognition may have blinded me to it at first. But I still draw a distinction between those private citizens seeking marriage licenses and the mayor. They are merely seeking their civil rights. He is supposed to enforce the law. But I also think the public relations coup in this is arguably more profound than classic civil disobedience. What actual marriages do – even if they are eventually held legally void – is to put real human faces on an otherwise abstract discussion. We’ve all been trained to do one thing after people get married: congratulate them. When members of the religious right respond to these marriages with horror, they fly in the face of basic human and civil instincts. That may not excuse Newsom. But it is definitely transforming the debate. And when it happens for real in Massachusetts, it may prove decisive.

The spectacular reversal of faith in John Kerry displayed by the parents of a woman who did not, apparently, have an affair with Kerry is a little creepy, is it not? On Friday, as Drudge has pointed out, the father said: “I know my wife will not be voting for Mr Kerry, let’s put it that way… Two years ago he was all for gay marriage, now he’s against it. Not that I care one way or the other, it’s just there have been so many things where I have seen him reverse. Whatever audience he is talking to, he will tell them what they want to hear.” The father also referred to Kerry as a “sleazeball.” Now it’s all sweetness and light: “We appreciate the way Senator Kerry has handled the situation and intend on voting for him for President of the United States.” The father says he was previously misquoted. If he was, that is in itself a story. That’s a hell of a quote to have fabricated. Dirty tricks again? Or maybe Kerry’s classy rebuttal to any rumors swayed the couple into seeing him as a man of sterling character. But the extreme reversal of opinion still strikes me as strange – and possibly dangerous for Kerry. And now, as Principal Skinner once put it, “Let’s have no more curiosity about this bizarre cover-up.”

What a refreshing turn of events. The exit polls were wrong again this time – but mainly because they understated Edwards’ surge. Kerry’s deep weaknesses as a candidate, his terrible performance in the debate, and (possibly) worries about the potential for future scandals all dragged him down. Dean should now get out – and endorse Edwards. So should Kucinich and Sharpton (fat chance – no pun intended). Again, the most interesting dynamic is that Edwards scored better among men than women, and he won many more Republicans and Independents than Kerry did. That’s in line with previous results as well. And that’s why the whole Kerry electability thing is a bit of a crock. The data suggest that Edwards is more electable among those the Democrats need to appeal to: men, Southerners, Republicans and Independents. Yes, he seems a little jejune. Yes, his protectionism is worrying. But he is so obviously a better speaker and a better candidate than the current front-runner. I think Kerry can still be stopped. He was the default choice after Dean flamed out. The Dems now have a real choice – between Kerry and Edwards. I’d go for Edwards in a heartbeat.

NOT A FAKE: A sculpture made by an Iraqi in honor of liberating American soldiers is not a hoax. It’s real. The full story will inspire you.

I found Ed Kilgore’s comments on Mel Gibson’s upcoming movie about Jesus’ Passion very apposite. Kilgore comments on the applause for the movie from evangelical Protestants thus:

These are people, for the most part, who don’t place much stock in the liturgical calendar, and the particular relevance of the Passion to the annual cycle of meditations about Christ. Moreover, these are people who often think St. Paul’s comments on gender relations or homosexuality – or for that matter, the entire Old Testament – are as central to Revealed Truth as the gospels themselves. Presumably, most conservative evangelicals would be as interested in, say, a movie about the cursing of the Cities on the Plain as with anything specifically about the Passion.
And third, I’m a bit concerned, though not surprised, by the sort of Popular Front thinking that has so many conservatives from every religious background expressing total solidarity with Gibson’s faith, which is by any standard a bit eccentric, and by Catholic standards specifically, heretical or at least schismatic. I realize that many conservatives share the Left’s eagerness to transfer political and cultural ideological labels into every realm of life, including religion … conservatives should beware embracing just anyone who calls himself a conservative.

Popular Front thinking! Now that captures some of what is going on within the American Right these days. I reserve judgment on the movie till I’ve seen it. But everything I’ve heard worries me. Gibson is not in the mainstream of Catholic thought; his emphasis on the Jewish priests in the Gospel narrative violates official Catholic concern about fomenting anti-Semitism. And his focus on the physical suffering of Christ may be excessive. Jesus suffered terribly – but so did many, many others in his day, on exactly the same lines. The point of the Gospels is to relate the Passion to the rest of his teaching and, of course, to the Resurrection. It is not to engage in portraying blood-curdling violence for dramatic or shock value. I will wait and see the thing myself. But I don’t trust Gibson an iota.

NEWSOM AND MOORE: Thanks for the emails pointing out some important distinctions between the actions of Judge Moore and Mayor Newsom. Here’s one of the most succinct:

Judge Moore did not get into trouble for violating the law. He got into trouble for defying a final court order holding that he had violated the law.
Newsom has clearly violated Family Code Section 300, although whether that is OK, in light of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, remains to be adjudicated. The difference is that, unlike Justice Moore, Newsom will not defy a final court ruling on the issue.
American history is replete with public officials who “violated the law” out of principle. (Lincoln, Truman, for example.) The difference is that, unlike Moore, they respected the authority of the courts to find them in violation.

There you have what I think is a significant difference. But I’ll be happy to post cogent opposing arguments.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “I performed for Howard Dean about a month and a half ago, and I really loved him. So I’m very disappointed he f***ed it up … It’s over. He’s finished. He lost his cool. He’s too reactive and he blew it. He has terrible Scorpio anger and he hasn’t learned how to harness it yet. So this will be a great spiritual lesson for him.” – comedian Sandra Bernhard to the Portland, Ore., gay newspaper Just Out (courtesy of Rex Wockner).

UNILATERALISM IN HAITI: The French are thinking of sending a “peace-keeping force” to Haiti. Without the U.N.’s approval? How could they? But the really lovely part of this BBC report is how they delicately refer to the U.S. intervention that brought Aristide to power:

Mr Aristide – a former priest who was restored to power with foreign help in 1994 – is under pressure to quit from opposition politicians and armed rebel groups, who accuse him of having rigged the 2000 elections.

My italics. Priceless.