The Dish

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.

California Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban – Get more documents

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.

Calm:

"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.

David Corn says the Edwards endorsement doesn’t matter much:

Having John Edwards at his side during the general election will help Obama to a limited degree. But that won’t do much to populist-ize the likely Democratic nominee. Obama–as would practically any Democrat–will come across as a populist and working-class advocate not by campaigning with Edwards but by campaigning against McCain.

But it would be a mistake for Obama to adopt any of the anger of Edwards’ 2008 run. 2004? Sure. But there’s a difference, and an Obama lunge for the Shrum line would be disastrous.

Not so fast says 538:

It seems to be taken for granted that John Edwards had some stranglehold on the working class white vote. But this was not really the case. The working class vote was not a particular strength of John Edwards in either relative or absolute terms.

Plubius adds:

Edwards’ working class appeal is more limited than it appears. Appearances, however, are important. While the endorsement may not help Obama with actual working class voters, it will help in the realm of media perceptions, which is the only game that matters at this point (sadly). The chattering classes perceive Edwards as having significant working class appeal. Thus, we’ll hear over and over this week about how Edwards — West Virginia aside — strengthens Obama’s working class street cred. This chatter, in turn, will help strengthen the resolve of superdelegates and other party establishment figures who are beginning to coalesce around Obama.

The possibility of talking to Iran’s leadership is regarded by the Republican nominee as "unacceptable":

"The belief that somehow communications and positions and willingness to sit down and have serious negotiations need to be done in a face to face fashion as Senator Obama wants to do, which then enhances the prestige of a nation that’s a sponsor of terrorists and is directly responsible for the deaths of brave young Americans, I think is an unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation’s security."

Obama should not, in my view, concede the premise here. He should have a debate about whether in fact it is a good idea for the president of the United States to keep dialogue with our enemies as an option. What you see in McCain’s and Bush’s rhetoric is an idea that diplomacy and statecraft are somehow about conferring legitimacy on people and regimes anathema to us, as opposed to advancing the West’s interests by a variety of methods: force of arms, diplomacy, alliances, etc. They seem wedded to a dramatic rather than pragmatic view of foreign policy.

But the result of Bush-McCain’s position these past seven years has been the empowerment of Iran in the region, a vast increase in Tehran’s pull in Baghdad, and Iran’s rapidly advancing admission to the nuclear club. How could talking actually make things worse than they have gotten under Bush? What I’m saying is just that these are debatable issues – and McCain’s desire to rule them out of bounds is an attempt to prematurely shut down a debate the American people have every right to have.

(Photo: Mario Tama/Getty.)

A reader writes:

My Beloved, Samantha, just asked me to update my Facebook page to confirm that I’m engaged to her. My mother just called for the third time this morning and choked out through her tears, "I promise this is the last time I’ll call this morning, but I understand that the proper protocol is that the mother of the bride pays for the wedding." I’ve left a message for our minister to see if he is available in 30 days to officiate our wedding.

This marriage will allow us to be recognized within the state as we are recognized in our neighborhood, in our church, and with our friends: as a family with all the rights, protections, and responsibilities that come with that commitment. This marriage would allow us to expect acceptance rather than anticipate discrimination of our family. Marriage would protect our children. Marriage would attach recognition to what we know is true, that the love that brought us together as a couple and binds us a family matters just as all families matter. Families comprise neighborhoods, churches, friends, and the state. Families are why we have civil marriage in California and why our family deserves the same recognition.

I’m attaching a photo of our family. From left to right is Sophie (turned 8 last Friday), Samantha, Anneliese (4.5), and me. I figured since I’ve viewed your wedding photos, you should see a photo of my family. We are all looking forward to our marriage next month!

David Corn notes a striking absence in McCain’s 2013 speech today: no mention of abortion or marriage. He’s taking the Cameron route.