The Dish

Bob Barr, who wrote DOMA, supports the California ruling on federalist grounds. Meanwhile, a very sharp analysis here. Money quote:

The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the correct way to characterize the fundamental right question is whether there is a fundamental right to marry from which same-sex couples are unconstitutionally excluded, rather than, as the state argued, whether there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. The court referred to Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, its landmark 1948 ruling striking down the state’s law against interracial marriages. In Perez, the court had not treat the question as whether there was a fundamental right to interracial marriage; rather, the question was whether different-race couples were being wrongly denied the fundamental right to marry.

Sane conservative Steve Chapman makes two obvious points:

Most economists believe that in the long run, the 2003 cut in the capital gains rate reduced revenue rather than raising it. For that matter, even the Bush administration’s budget admits as much. Keeping the rate at 15 percent rather than letting it revert to 20 percent, it estimates, would cause a revenue loss of $79 billion over the next decade…

A low capital gains rate hinders the free market by inducing people (especially very wealthy ones) to find ways to take earnings as capital gains instead of ordinary income. In other words, it encourages them to do things that would not make economic sense otherwise. A modestly higher rate would discourage such wasteful avoidance.

If we could cut real spending, i.e. defense or entitlements, I’d be eager to keep taxes where they are. But at some point, we cannot keep deferring debt to the next generation. McCain seems to have forgotten this. Or rather pushed it out of his mind for political reasons.

Chris Crain warns:

Expect gay marriage opponents to ask the court to postpone the effective date of its order until after November, so that they can put the question to voters.

The California court cited the 1948 Perez v Sharp anti-miscegenation law ruling prominently in its decision today. If you believe that courts should have no role in opposing public opinion in areas of social policy, then the polls at the time make for interesting reading. Ten years after the 1948 ruling, Gallup fund that 94 percent of white Americans opposed inter-racial marriage. As late as 1967, when Loving vs Virginia was decided, a majority opposed it. That remained the case through the 1970s. In fact, the Perez v Sharp ruling was fifty years ahead of public opinion.

Yes he can! From his remarks today, an Obama-like theme:

If I am elected President, I will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. I will listen to any idea that is offered in good faith and intended to help solve our problems, not make them worse. I will seek the counsel of members of Congress from both parties in forming government policy before I ask them to support it. I will ask Democrats to serve in my administration. My administration will set a new standard for transparency and accountability. I will hold weekly press conferences. I will regularly brief the American people on the progress our policies have made and the setbacks we have encountered. When we make errors, I will confess them readily, and explain what we intend to do to correct them.

He’s also hoping to reduce our presence in Iraq drastically in his first term:

By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom.

Most? So we’re down to less than 70,000 troops by then?

 

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.