It’s a step in that direction, but as long as the Federal DOMA exists, and our federal representatives are unwilling to take steps to cure the inequalities that exist under the laws, we’re still second class citizens when it comes to marriage.

Yes, lets celebrate the step, but lets not over state things. This effect of this decision is almost negligible. It is symbolically important, and will (no doubt) be a stepping off point but, for people who are currently DPs in CA, not much will change.

Nothing yet from McCain, though he arguable has the same stance on Gay Marriage as the Dems.

And nothing from Bush yet. (As of 3:30pm, Pacific).

A favorite meme of the right is to blame the ‘activist’ judges for ‘making laws’. This meme, specifically in this case, shows a poor understanding of the legal make-up of our society.

Yes, California voters passed prop 22, “defining” marriage. However, prop 22 did not amend the constitution of California, rather it altered the state statutes. For those of you keeping score at home, constitution trumps statute.

A state (or its voters) may pass a law stating that you can’t criticize the government. This would be a law, but would be trumped by both the State and Federal constitution which says you can’t do that. In California, getting an amendment to the constitution via initiative is, as you might expect, harder than amending the statutes. You need signatures from 5% of the population to do the latter, 8% for the former.

And, as I’ve pointed out, the rabid right already has (they claim) enough signatures to propose an amendment to the constitution in the next election. So, the California Supreme Court did not ‘make law’, it rules a law was not valid under the state constitution. The Supreme Court did not ‘make’ gay marriage, it said that there is no compelling state interest in having a separate but equal construct for straight and gay couples.

As an aside, the one thing that should annoy the right in this opinion, had they read it, is that the court has held that sexual orientation is a suspect class in California. This is a huge step which, admittedly, the court could have avoided if they wanted to.

One other thing. There has been squabble from the right about appealing this case to the US Supreme Court. However, unless I’m missing something, or the US Supreme Court becomes completely a political arm of the republicans, this won’t happen. There is no federal question here. It is purely a state law question and, as such, there is no jurisdiction for the US Supreme Court to hear an appeal regarding it.

Here is a sampling from BreitBart.

But, it may not last. The ‘Family values for thee, not me’ crowd has already submitted a proposed change to the constitution. And while I like to think CA, of all places, would not go for it, I have been surprised in the past.

Update: You can read the opinion here.

ABC.com has the episode, called ‘The Becoming’, up on their site for a little while. Check it out.

Here’s how the ADF explains it:

Now, under the IRS code, churches and pastors can distribute voter guides, run registration drives, hold forums on public policy and invite politicians to speak at their congregations. They can not, however, endorse a particular candidate or argue for or against one.

This last bit is what the ADF is trying to have changed. Their plan is clever. Urge churches to ignore the rule, get punished by the IRS, and then sue. The other side is that, if the IRS doesn’t enforce it, then the churches get to ignore the rule.

The solution, really, is much easier. Remove the ‘tax-exempt’ windfall for churches – and they can campaign all they want. Of course, the ADF wants churches to be treated like churches for tax purposes, but not have any other ‘rules’ apply.

Guadalupe Benitez went to two fertility specialists for artificial insemination. They refused to treat her, because she is a lesbian and not married (she is in a Domestic Partnership). They argued their religious beliefs exempts them from California’s civil rights laws.

And that is the larger issue, one which has been popping up again in again in medicine (and elsewhere): Can people chose not to treat (or serve) people merely because their personal religious views?

It should be noted that, from what I understand, Ms. Benitez chose this clinic because it had contracted with her health insurance provider. Also, the clinic treated her for 11 months before stopping.

Here is the Lambda Legal page on the case.

The argument (condensed) seems to be that the attorneys should have (happily?) accepted disbarment as a price for doing the ‘right thing’ (IE, telling the courts that their client, Andrew Wilson, had confessed to the crime Mr. Logan was convicted up.)

While it’s nice to say this, and sound so morally superior, the statement shows only a very 1 dimensional thought process. First of all, disbarment (if it occurred at all) is not the only concern. The attorneys client could and I’m sure would sue his counsel for malpractice. So, not only would they be out of their jobs, they would face a civil suit for a good amount of money.

Even then, you might say, ‘moral people’ would still do the right thing. The question comes, then, what next?

The betrayal of the privilege would not get Wilson convicted. The privilege belongs to Wilson, not his attorneys. So, while the attorney could have ignored the privilege, and divulge the information, it would not admissible against Wilson. In addition, and evidence found subsequent to the disclosure could arguable be suppressed.

And, unless Wilson would also have said (Yes, I did it), it is unlikely that the attorney’s statements, alone, would be enough to have gotten Logan out. Think about it: do we really want a system where an attorney, without other proof, could get someone out of jail by saying ‘my client said he did it’. Such a system would be ripe for abuse.

Instead of focusing on the ‘privilege’, I think it might be better to focus on how Mr. Logan was convicted for something he didn’t do. That’s where the problem stems: That Mr. Logan was charged and convicted with evidence that clearly must be erroneous, as we now know (or strongly suspect) that he is not guilt.

Oh, and the Bush flunkie who made the denial did not wait for the final recommendation by the EPA technical and legal staff. And he went against the recommendation of his own staff.

Please.

However, it seems to me, that if you were being called in front of congress to answer questions about why tapes of a disputed torture technique were destroyed, you might want to inquire about it before attending the hearing.

Yes. I get it. Hayden was not in charge when the tapes were made, or when they were destroyed. That said, he’s head of the friggen CIA. He should be able to find out information.

Muslims make up about 1 % of the population. Mormons (including Mr. Romney) make up around 2% (according to the 2001 ARIS survey).

So, are we to take it that Mr. Romney doesn’t want any Mormon’s in his cabinet? Or, at the very least, he’ll appoint at least one atheist before a Mormon?

Based on the numbers, of course.