California Supremes Rule on Prop 8

The argument is now purely semantic. It means nothing to ban something in name only. Whether the term marriage is applied or not, gay unions are now part of the social landscape.

The argument about extending equal rights was not semantic - but that battle was won by the homosexual community. They are now and forever entitled to all of the legal protections of marriage in the state of California.

The brouhaha has to do with the terrible precedent set by the passage of Prop. 8 - denying rights to a minority group at the ballot box is not a legitimate practice in a constitutional republic. That’s why the court ruled that the amendment does not change the rights of homosexuals to the benefits of marriage - it only impacts the use of the term “marriage” in reference to these rights.

The drama was not due to the “Gay Lobby” - the drama was due to a misguided amendment enshrining discrimination in the California Constitution. The GOP hoped to exploit this drama to improve voter turnout, which worked up to a point. Blaming the drama on the Gay Lobby is just asinine.

The ruling is a minor setback for gay marriage advocates, but a major blow to conservative aspirations to define the rights of homosexuals. Gay marriage will come to pass, under that name or some other. Eventually the distinction will be seen for the fiction that it is.

Californians redefined the word marriage for the purposes of civil society, with the caveat that the rights of marriage are still available to gays whether the institution is called marriage or not. So the bigots can call homosexual unions by some other term, and will force the state to do so as well. But blind justice will still demand that this separate category be equal to the unspeakable marriage of gays. Except for those who are already married.

Economic justice is still justice

Steele can frame the issue however he likes. He will still be wrong. This is about equal treatment under the law. If gays can’t marry, nobody can.

Marriage as a religious institution is not at issue here, and even if it were, homosexuals have just as much right to marry as anyone else.

Civil marriage is the institution at issue, and equal protection will eventually overturn restrictions based on the gender of the applicants. It is simply a matter of time, as the younger generations have no qualms about extending marriage rights to all. The older generations will begin to die off in large numbers in about fifteen years, and quaint restrictions on marriage will go the way of miscegenation.

If you believe in marriage, and you don’t want to “share” with homosexuals, that’s too bad. It’s a word, and it’s an idea, and it’s free to all. You can deny them their civil rights for a time, but in the long run marriage will not survive as a civil institution unless all have equal rights to it. It’s the law of the land, at the most fundamental level, being a consequence of our Constitution.

It matters not if Steele can reframe the issue - the issue has already been practically decided, and the franchise will be open to all within the next few years. Demographics are key here.

Stopping Sotomayor?

I hope the GOP does try to stop this nomination. It would be a boon for the Democrats. There is no cogent argument to deny Sotomayor’s appointment, as she is much more moderate than the GOP’s recent appointments. An attempt to attack this appointment would demonstrate the bankruptcy of the GOP, and make 2010 much more attractive for the Democrats.

If the GOP is smart, they will let her go without too much fuss, and save their ammunition for a fight that can be won, or at least one that does not involve repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot. The next nominee will probably be much further to the left, and with a much more forceful legal personality. If the GOP objects here when there is no reason, they will be the party that cried wolf, and future filibusters will be doomed to fail.

Obama may get more SCOTUS appointments than any president in decades - it should be fun to watch.

Sotomayor's race

Sotomayor came from a single-parent household, and grew up in the projects, yet she applied herself and achieved in academia and beyond. There is little doubt that her perspective on the challenges faced by average Americans is somewhat more informed than the previous two justices appointed to the court. Sotomayor was appointed by GHW Bush, and has been a moderate and restrained judge throughout her tenure on the bench. There is no reason to suppose that her life experience makes her a sexist - and certainly not a raving one. There is good reason to believe that she is familiar with facets of the human condition that the other justices may not be.

GOP retrenching

Colin Powell represents what the Republican Party could have been if it had stuck to the rule of law and properly administered the government. That opportunity was wasted, but driving him from the party is nothing but a gift to the left. He was one of the few principled and respected Republicans left - that’s why he could not endorse McCain-Palin.

Independents are the only way to win elections - if even Colin Powell cannot be accorded a conscience, then woe be to the party. It will indeed be a long road home.

GOP not entertaining enough? That's laughable...

Apparently some folks here are too close to the comedy to see that the GOP itself has become an incredibly "entertaining" organization. I don't think this is the big problem that the GOP needs to address - as many other posters noted, there is lots of entertainment being produced with a right-wing perspective.

What is lacking is any principled opposition or constructive alternative to the Democratic agenda. The GOP is not losing in virtually all demographic groups because of a lack of entertainment value. It is losing because it does not speak to the very real concerns of the citizens of the USA.

The closing paragraph of this column encapsulates the GOP confusion:

If conservatives want to win this battle, they need to put more energy into creating entertainment that strikes a responsive chord with the majority of Americans who are “sick of politics” because they don’t see how government and public policy matter to their lives. I believe that a majority of Americans, if they get a chance to see both sides of the argument presented in a way that entertains them, will come over to the conservative side in a decisive way. But conservatives have to make the effort. Right now, the left is winning the battle because they are creating entertainment — and the other side is just boring them.

Americans are "sick of politics", but not because they don't see how government and public policy matter - in fact, you have this one exactly backwards. People are sick of politics because they see precious little attention payed to governance and public policy, and far too much energy spent on divisive personal politics. A majority of Americans, when given the opportunity, have already demonstrated no desire to "come over to the conservative side in a decisive way". It is not because they are bored with the GOP. It is because the GOP has willfully and repeatedly failed to address the very real imperative to govern and manage public policy in keeping with the welfare of our nation.

Jon Stewart is not a news source for the youth of the USA solely because his show is entertaining. His show is also informative and insightful when it comes to the major policy issues of the day. The GOP has no answer to an honest debate on the issues. Focusing on the superficial has been the big problem, and will continue to be the problem, so long as the GOP fails to recognize political reality and address the very real concerns of voters.

Barking Wingnut - Jennifer Rubin

Given the complete lack of competence demonstrated by the previous administration, I am quite delighted and satisfied at the improvement that Obama represents.

Perhaps there is a competence gap between his campaign skills and his governance skills. With practice, his campaign skills proved to be stronger than anyone expected. I suspect his governance skills will likewise exceed the expectations of most observers.

Obama has taken deliberate and pragmatic action to implement his agenda, and has shown wisdom, flexibility and charm in the process. There will be compromises and setbacks, and there will be reversals and failures. This is not a surprise. Regardless, Obama will continue to advance his agenda, and will adapt and respond intelligently to the challenges he faces.

I would note that impugning Obama's competence is a pretty funny gambit coming from Jennifer Rubin. At least, if it weren't so sad, it would be funny.