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.

Levity on Torture

Pardon the levity. True torture is, in fact, a serious issue. In the few instances where torture was committed — Abu Ghraib, for instance — the United States was correct in punishing the culprits. But that was an exercise of individual juvenility and cruelty, not official, state-sanctioned intelligence gathering of high-value targets.

This paragraph leads me to believe that you have not familiarized yourself with the nature of the activities carried out under Bush. The documents that are publicly available clearly show that torture was an exercise of official, state-sanctioned power, in direct violation and contravention of the law. Torture was used with official approval from the highest levels of the government, despite valid objections that it was illegal. True torture is a serious issue, and torture with direct approval from government agents demands punishment for the culprits.

We will never have a mature national discourse regarding proper interrogation and what does and does not constitute torture until we can differentiate between the two, embrace the “slippery slope” dilemmas as necessary points of contention, and move past the slanderous pastime of political posturing.

There is not a debate about what constitutes proper interrogation, and what constitutes torture. These are well established categories, which the Bush administration knowingly and wantonly violated. Claiming that the techniques are not torture is simply ex post facto justification for illegal activity. There may be some debate about the details, but there is clear evidence that torture was used under direct authorization from the Executive, and the government must be held accountable for this activity.

Tea Parties - Back to the Dark Ages?

The consequences are predictable and could be catastrophic: a collapse of faith in the leadership classes, a massive anti-intellectual uprising, the beginnings of which we may be already witnessing.

Now I understand the Tea Party movement. It is simply the advocacy movement for a return to the Dark Ages. Thanks for making that crystal clear!

Bureaucrats from here to eternity...

In the near future, a nameless bureaucrat may determine what kind of medical treatment you receive.

I hate to be the one to tell you this: they already do. They work at the HMO.

Why should I prefer a bureaucrat with a profit motive, rather than one with a public health motive?

That's the question I want a clear answer to.

Dramatic Licenses for Drivers

Driving for efficiency is really not difficult, but where are the “cars that people want to buy?” All I see is Jazz giving a trip report on his tour of Manhattan.

Hyper-milers have been refining the techniques of fuel efficiency for some time, starting with the very basic things you have noted, and rising to fairings and tailpipe modifications, along with computer tweaks and other more involved modifications.

Still, I don’t see much evidence here that this was an “Eco-Friendly Auto Show”…

Debating the Bottom Line in Health Care

The bottom line in the health care debate is that America collectively spends too much money on health care, and does not get the best care possible. A large portion of the public has not been served by the current market in health insurance, and one would expect this problem to continue under any plan that does not mandate universal coverage. Depending on employers (and hence employment) to secure health coverage is a poor model for health coverage, and it is past time that cradle to grave coverage be part of every American’s birthright. Our health system is broken, and the market is not going to fix it.

Tea Party Fever

I still don’t see any clear description of what the Tea Parties represent aside from a protest against government taxation. Meeting on tax day and using the tea party metaphor make that connection pretty clear.

Obama & Co. can’t really be faulted for spending - it is exactly what they promised to do. What the Tea Parties seem to me to represent is a frustrated fringe of the GOP that is politically disenfranchised and unable to contemplate cooperation with Obama.

Tea Parties apparently have been all about tax cuts for the rich and cutting government spending on social programs. These are not popular policies with voters. I encourage the Tea Party movement as a way to expose the shallow, naive and incomplete policy program that the GOP has been flogging since 1980.

A Tempest in a Teacup

I’m not sure where Jennifer learned the definition of “massive”. This outpouring was anything but. Take Columbus, OH for example. 7,000 show for the Tea Party - but 60,000 showed up for an Obama rally in November. The Tea Party attendees were even outnumbered by McCain turnout (10,000), which was never termed “massive”.

This was a modest protest, over-hyped and overplayed in the media, and truly nothing to get excited about unless you are part of the 24-hour news cycle.

How Dangerous is the Truth?

I’m sure you would love to have history and culture white-washed for your consumption, with no critical perspective on any aspect of our nation. What you call “revisionist” culture is really just a diversity of views being represented. Picking on the perspectives you don’t like is fine, but calling them “revisionist” and “poison” is just hyperbole.

There is an equally troubling trend to pretend that America can do no wrong, and should not be subject to criticism. This is much more troubling to me than the idea of a play or movie that calls into question American actions.

As Socrates might say, the unexamined life is not worth living. Culture is a big part of how we examine the life of our nation. “Revisionist” or not, examining our history with a critical eye is an important part of helping America fulfill her promise.

Tea Party Pooper

Have fun at the “Forth of July” event. I’m glad to see people being politically active, but not expecting these events to make any significant impact. Idaho is a very reliable state for Republicans that is moving slowly toward supporting Democrats as demographics change.

What strikes me as rather silly is pretending that there is some similarity to the original Tea Party in Boston. There is no taxation without representation to object to here, and the tax rates for most Americans have just been cut. The lack of a focus for these events is very clear - there are many different agendas represented, and the only common theme is that the GOP is out of power.

Unless the GOP can articulate a common theme, a central message, or at least a general idea of where they want to take America, there will be no impact on electoral politics from these Tea Parties.

Scalia the Homophobe

Scalia is a homophobe. How is it cowardly to call out a Supreme Court justice for doing harm to our Republic?

Scalia has demonstrated that he is not an impartial arbiter of the law:

In a dissent in the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court struck down an anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional, Scalia said the Court’s majority “signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”

Clearly Scalia believes that the government should restrict the rights of homosexuals. This is not the position of a person who understands the proper role of government in a Constitutional Republic.

Attacking Frank may be all the rage these days, but in this instance, Barney has the formula right. Scalia needs to be constantly shown for the hateful and idiotic jurist that he is. His decisions are typically poorly reasoned, with tortured justifications being the norm. Since impeachment is a political quagmire, shaming the justice is the most practical way to show distaste for the contempt in which he holds his fellow citizens.

True Christians?

It’s nice to see a Christian who understands that followers of Jesus have strayed from the path, and wants to correct the error.

Penny Pinching at the Pentagon

Ditching the F-22 to get moving on the F-35 is a prudent move. Reducing the explosion in Pentagon spending is necessary and Obama’s plan appears to do a very good job of setting priorities.

Wingnut Ghetto

I’ve seen many different means and methods for organizing a bookstore. Why continue to shop at a bookstore that you believe is racist?

I’m amused that you are blaming the left for the labels applied to books. It wasn’t so long ago that similar labels were being applied to people by law, with the full support of the GOP.

And isn’t the right of the bookstore owner to use whatever categories they choose?