The Dish

Just as we can now get real pictures from liberation in Iraq, so we can get real pics of the first gay Americans to have their love and commitment solemnized by their own government. Thousands of them. In an act of civil disobedience. Yes, I know this is breaking the law. But Rosa Parks broke the law as well. Civil disobedience has always played a role in civil rights movements. If the religious right want to stop this, they should move to arrest the mayor of San Francisco or impeach him; or they should move to arrest the newly married couples. Then we’d really have a media spectacle. I think the real reason for the outrage is that these couples have finally shown what this is about: couples trying to solidify their love for one another. It is preposterous to believe that this can harm anyone. Once these marriages exist for real in Massachusetts, the public in that state will realize how cruel, wrong and baseless it is to attack couples for doing something constructive, real and social. And then the nation will.

“I’m an undergrad at Princeton and feel like I need to challenge this whole professorial bias business. I know it’s fun for you to receive letters about intimidated conservatives and cherry-pick the most shocking stories for publication, but (in my experience) these kind of stories either don’t happen or, at best, are very rare. I took a class called Discrimination and the Law that was taught by a very, very liberal professor, and was lucky enough to have her for my small-group discussion. Despite her personal politics, she would often pull the discussion to the *right* in our left-leaning precept if it was becoming too one-sided. In that class, just as in those taught by Robbie George (who is, by the way, one of Princeton’s most popular professors), students who make good arguments are rewarded regardless of political philosophy. If the writers whose anecdotes you printed had better thought out their positions beforehand, maybe they could have shot back and impressed their TA or professor.
Of course, this is just my experience, but it’s definitely not uncommon.”

Apart from that, the story holds up.

Kaus goes boldly where no Edwards supporter has gone before.

While the Republicans expand government at a phenomenal rate, the British Tories are daring to ratchet it back a little. It’s still peanuts compared to what we need to do to bring government back to a reasonable size – the proposals would reduce government’s take on national wealth from 42 to 40 percent. (I can’t see why it should ever be more than a third). But at least the Tories haven’t completely lost their smaller government vision.

The Iraqi police forces could have responded to a recent attack by seeking help from the nearby American military. They didn’t. They asked for more ammunition.

Here’s a 2002 letter from a Duke professor delineating why most faculty hires lean left:

“In seeking faculty, universities look for people who can analyze and discuss matters of some complexity, who are unafraid to challenge the wisdom of simple solutions, and who have a sense of social responsibility toward those who cannot buy influence. Such people tend to be put off by a political party dominated by those who believe dogmatically in the infallibility of the marketplace as a solution to all economic problems, or else in the infallibility of scripture as a guide to morality. In short, universities want people of some depth, subtlety and intelligence. People like that usually vote for the Democrats. So what?”

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Columbia students use blogs to pursue an Internet rumor.

SHE WAS BERATED IN CLASS: The young student who wrote the anti-race preference letter below talking about her two brothers – one white, one Guatemalan – had to endure one of her professors publicly berating her in class for her insubordination. Details here. Re-education camp next?

It’s high time the front-runner was sat down and peppered with serious questions about what his policy now is. The Washington Post yesterday ran an excellent editorial dissecting Kerry’s record of dizzying, shall we say, nuance:

In 1991 he voted against the first Persian Gulf War, saying more support was needed from Americans for a war that he believed would prove costly. In 1998, when President Clinton was considering military steps against Iraq, he strenuously argued for action, with or without allies. Four years later he voted for a resolution authorizing invasion but criticized Mr. Bush for not recruiting allies. Last fall he voted against funding for Iraqi reconstruction, but argued that the United States must support the establishment of a democratic government.
Mr. Kerry’s attempts to weave a thread connecting and justifying all these positions are unconvincing…

To say the least. I’d say his vote against the $87 billion is a huge liability in the coming campaign. Kerry needs a serious proposal on Iraq that isn’t designed purely to attack the Bush record. So far, I haven’t seen one.

THE ZARKAWI LETTER: Whoever wrote it, it fits completely with the atrocities now being inflicted on Iraqis trying to rebuild their country.

It was bound to happen. Finally, a Washington Post reporter did the work that the New York Times’ David Kirkpatrick didn’t. In an important piece on Saturday, the Post revealed that critical authors of the current federal marriage amendment do indeed intend it to bar civil unions for gay citizens in every state. Money quote:

Two of the amendment’s principal authors, professors Robert P. George of Princeton and Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame Law School, contend that the opening sentence also would forbid some kinds of civil unions.
They argue that future courts would have to interpret the amendment to protect not just the word “marriage,” but also its essential meaning — in the same way that, if the Constitution forbade states from creating “navies,” they clearly could not establish “flotillas” or “armadas,” either.

The possibility of civil unions – as the equivalent or simulacrum of civil marriage for gay couples – would be removed everywhere by this amendment. Amendment sponsor Representative Musgrave, who emerged in Colorado in part because of her hostility to gays, is also opposed to civil unions. What’s fascinating is that Bradley and George believe that the first sentence alone would do this. The second sentence – barring any courts from enforcing any of the “legal incidents” of marriage to gay couples as such – is therefore perhaps best read as an attempt to ensure that this interpretation is the prevailing one.

THE REAL AGENDA: You can see how this might play out. If the FMA were to pass, civil marriage rights would be denied gay couples. But if states then passed civil union laws instead, the religious right would spring into action and sue to gut them of any force. Why do I think that’s a plausible scenario? Because they’re already doing it on a state level. In California, an anti-marriage initiative was passed keeping gays out of marriage; but a comprehensive civil unions bill was then enacted. What did the far right do? They sued. The judge, mercifully, didn’t grant a preliminary injunction against the law. But imagine that such a suit occurs after the FMA. Such a federal amendment would be an extremely powerful tool to use in state courts to shred civil unions of their protections for gay couples. It could also be used by, say, parents of a gay man to deny his spouse inheritance or access to a hospital room. So the authors of the FMA can plausibly say that a state can have civil unions, as they have. But it’s meaningless. In practice, those civil unions could contain nothing that marriage contains, because none of these “incidents” could be upheld or enforced by the courts. Yes, we’ll allow you to have a car, but you have to remove the engine and the wheels. That appears to be the real agenda. The FMA is one of the most radical attempts to disenfranchise a group of citizens in history. No air-brushing or spin or sloppy journalism should be allowed to disguise that naked and alarming fact.