Leader of Free World Endorses Same Sex Marriage

Let's praise President Obama's decision to come out and finally endorse marriage equality. It was the right and the decent thing to do and no matter what, if any the political costs, it is a moment of huge cultural significance for the United States. For other cultures, it sends a powerful message that gays and lesbians deserved to be treated fairly and equally. 


The problem politicians have been dealing with over the last several electoral cycles always centered around the issue of "civil unions" for gay couples, a growing awareness that gay couples sought stability ad legal rights for their union. But marriage has been a recent phenomenon and was actually promoted the most forcefully in the beginning by people like neo-conservative Andrew Sullivan. We saw the more conservative strain of thinking on this issue emerged with Ted Olson's advocacy against Proposition 8. Even Dick Cheney this year lobbied for gay marriage in Maryland. It has been a tough hurdle for politicians to move from the idea of civil unions to marriage.


While President Obama's discussion of it tonight seems almost like an afterthought to those who follow the issue, its impact will be large, especially among communities who resist the notion of equal rights and protections for gays and lesbians such as the African-American community.


David Frum wrote today that this put the Democrats as the party of modernity as he sees the GOP slump into the reaction of social conservatism and anti-modernity.


I've read dozens of assessments about the political impact of this statement on the election. Some lament he said it after North Carolina passed its Amendment One ,banning same sex marriage. I lament he said it after the death of Maurice Sendak,who had a relationship with a psychiatrist for fifty years, and never saw it recognized and never heard the President of the United States said that such a relationship should be honored. Some say he solidified his support among the young, who heavily favor same sex marriage. Others say he has given fuel to social conservatives and unwittingly united the conservatives behind Romney. Still other observers felt it was a mixed bag--acceptance of gay marriages has gained rapidly over just the last two years and the President avoided looking hypocritical or weak if he didn't come out in support, while the social conservatives would oppose him no matter what. 


For the immediate return, President Obama brought in $1 million in less than 90 minutes after he made the announcement. Standing in a field with an oil rig, Mitt Romney told a group of about 200 people he had always believed a marriage was for one man and a wife. (Like most things Romney says, it isn't true.) He accused the President of flip-flopping on this issue, another great laugh. But,I thought he was vicious in his statement that he was against hospital visitations by gay partners. How brutal do you want your society to be?


I am sure the lightning rod of President Obama's statement will be his justification of his change of mind on his Christian beliefs and his view about the Golden Mean. He got personal in his discussions like most people eventually do when discussing gays in citing the people who work for him who have stable family relationships and also how his daughters thought it was a no-brainer. Younger people think anyone who doesn't accept this reality is a dinosaur. But I am sure we will see the endless preachifying on this for the next week. We will also see Willard appear at Jerry Falwell's college for the commencement address, a certain venue for his pronouncements on family values.


Dan Savage was less than joyous about the President's statement because President Obama still said that the issue should be decided at the state level. But those who support the President's approach said that he has indicated that such state actions have to be limited by federal authority. What is being set up by supporters of marriage equality is the Supreme Court case--another reason to vote for the President. President Obama's approach also runs counter to Romney's goal of federalizing the definition of marriage through a constitutional amendment. We saw the Administration reject defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) this year and we should expect this issue to play out over the next few years. So I am not impressed by Dan Savage's critique. 


The criticism of the Log Cabin Republicans was bizarre. On this issue they praise Dick Cheney and felt that President Obama had been cowardly in not supporting equal marriage prior to the North Carolina vote. However, they back Mitt Romney who was all for the Amendment 1 vote.


PPP has found that a majority of people who already oppose President Obama always believed he supported equal marriage rights. So it certainly didn't surprise them. What surprised Washington pundits was that he didn't wait until after the election so as not to risk negative electoral consequences. Clearly Joe Biden was the trial balloon and that just created pressure on the White House to endorse the idea sooner rather than later. But when is it the right time to do the right thing?


President Obama already has the most progressive record concerning gays and lesbians in our history. While holding back would be somewhat disappointing to the gay and lesbian community, it would be understandable and wouldn't lead to any negative consequences in light of his strong record of achievement.


But President Obama did us the service as a country to lay bare the reality that when we are discussing these issues we are discussing the lives of real people and real people who inhabit every rung of society and work in every political administration. And it is long past time to recognize this fact and live with it. Contrast this administration's attitude to the homophobia generated during the AIDS epidemic in the Reagan years. 


If it helps those of us who are not gay to be more empathetic and sensitive to these issues, the President has done an enormous service for us all. Today gave us one example of what real political leadership is.


Now if Joe Biden would say,"Weed is awesome."

Prop 8 Follow-up and Other Random Acts of Sanity

The hard right's heads exploded with the decision ruling Prop 8 unconstitutional. One Free Republic post decried how our culture has become a sewer. Others moaned why vote anymore.

And Pat Buchanan said gay marriage was unnatural. And Newt said that the decision ignored the wishes of millions of people.

In the last few days, we've been treated to some nice reminders about our better angels. Judge Susan Bolton striking down the most egregious portions of the Arizona immigration law. Mayor Bloomberg speaking at Governor's Island with a full array of religious leaders giving us a little history lesson on religious tolerance in Manhattan. In defending the construction of the alleged mosque near the site of the Twin Towers, he reminded the audience that the early leaders of New Amsterdam denied Jews permission to build a synagogue and that early Quakers were forced to leave the area after they were denied the right to worship. Aside from the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish community backed the decision to allow the construction of the cultural center in large numbers so much so that the Muslim community has been spending the last days thanking individual Jewish leaders.

Before we hear that Obama is allowing The Gay to infiltrate our government and banning the worship of Cheezits, it's useful to point out who the three judges who have ruled for gay marriage have been. The Boston judge who ruled that DOMA, the federal ban against gay marriage, was unconstitutional is Judge Joseph Tauro,a Nixon appointee. The Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court who penned the opinion upholding gay marriage in that state was Judge Mark Cady, a Republican appointed by Governor Branstad. And last night's hero, Judge Vaughn Walker was first appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan and elevated by George H.W. Bush. And, of course, the lead lawyer in the courtroom was America's most famous conservative attorney, Ted Olson, former Solicitor General of the Reagan Administration and the man who made George W. Bush president at the Supreme Court.

Apparently these remnants of the old Republican Party appreciate that the GOP's greatest achievement and legacy to the nation was the 14th Amendment. This has been so woven into the tapestry of our culture that we need to be reminded from time to time that you can not vote away someone's fundamental human rights. That's why it is stunning to see three sitting Republican Senators ask for hearings on the 14th Amendment as it applies to birthright citizenship. Even Alan Keyes, who has for years ventured off into our political fringes, appeared as the voice of reason yesterday objecting to any re-examination of the 14th Amendment.

Rights by plebiscite can lead to dangerous things like a vote on torture, which would have passed in the George W. Bush Administration, or on depriving illegal immigrants due process, which would pass in the most Republican areas of the country today. As Vaughn Walker wrote yesterday,you can not deprive people of their rights because of dislike, prejudice, or religious superstition.

It's now a race to the Supreme Court between the Massachusetts DOMA case and the California Prop 8 case. I would urge everyone to read Judge Vaughn Walker's Findings of Fact in the final opinion. He presided over a trial and during that trial the anti-gay side had ample opportunity to raise all their objections and evidence to the harm gay marriage would do to the institution of marriage, to the state, to the culture. Evaluating all the witnesses and their expertise, Vaughn Walker wrote out 80 Findings of Fact, which cumulatively demolished the anti-gay position in very measured, cool prose. His analysis of the quality of the anti-gay witnesses was more unrestrained and contemptuous.

The Findings of Fact provide a little guide to how to argue this issue to the layperson. But for the future appeals, it provides a bedrock of the case, which will be extremely difficult to overturn. The 9th Circuit Court--the next stop--will have to pay Walker due deference on the Findings of Fact and will only be able to adjust the Findings of Law. Legal experts believe that the 9th Circuit will fast track a decision, thereby setting the stage for the Supreme Court. For this, Judge Vaughn Walker already has peppered his decision with references to cases decided by Judge Kennedy.

The early bet is that a Supreme Court decision would be 5-4 in favor of gay marriage as the case has been argued so far. The deciding vote would be Kennedy, who has already penned decisions affirming rights of gays. But since this is the Roberts court, anything can happen. They could bring back slavery after the Citizens United fiasco, where foreign corporations gained more rights than average American citizens.

Public Policy Polling today came out with a poll that even surprised them. In the 27 Senate races they are monitoring for the 2010 midterms,24 of these races show moderates abandoning Republicans in greater numbers than they did McCain in 2008. Perhaps, the strategy of obstructionism is being perceived for what it is--an attempt to stop anything that might benefit average Americans.

Tan Man Boehner railed against the Jobs Bill because it favored those special interests groups-- those policemen and teachers. I'm sure he's just annoyed Nancy Pelosi called the House back next week to vote on the bill. He wants to relax and catch up on his golf. But House Republicans came out with their new jobs bill of their own--cut the corporate tax rate in half. At the same time, they have strenuously opposed cutting taxes for small businesses. Doesn't anyone feel some real "special interests" are at work here.

Ezra Klein appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show the other night to say that the Republicans have shrewdly backed the Democrats into a corner on the tax issue. I disagree. The Democrats are going to push forward in September their plan to raise the taxes on the top 1% and enshrine tax cuts for the rest of America. Republicans will have to publically defend the tax cuts for the upper brackets rather than get away with the scare tactics of massive tax increases across the board. If Republicans filibuster, then they would seal a tax increase for the entire country. Something I'm sure Democrats will point out everyday. And if Democrats cave, then they can say they sacrificed for the middle class and the Republicans will still be saddled with backing the very rich.

For the mid-terms, the Democrats would be well-advised to adopt a simple slogan such as "Who is working for you?" Make the choice plain and dramatic. Democrats this year are inheriting an atmosphere of total distrust of government. People forget that one other legacy of the Bush-Cheney years was the total collapse both here and abroad in faith in our federal government. Despite all the achievements of the Obama Administration and the House this past year,there is enough disinformation out there that arguing precise policy positions seems reactive. This is what the Republicans are banking on. But instead, every day the American public is treated to the negative behavior of Republicans in Congress. Whose on your side? That question is easier to answer than the pros and cons of a new Consumer Agency.

Senator Debbie Stabenow has introduced bill S3706 in the Senate to rectify the situation with the 99ers. This admits it will be almost impossible to pass. But it can serve as an organizing point for the unemployed, who are beginning to become more active.

It is rumored that Elena Kagan will be confirmed today. We've had another week of smears by some Republican Senators. So the radical, pacifist, sharia law-loving, homophile will get to take her seat in the fall session. She's probably receive in my view approximately the same vote total she got when she was confirmed as Solicitor General.

And, yeah, A-Rod hit his 600th. Next up he'll surpass Sammy Sosa this year.

Judge Walker Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional

That ole'14th Amendment gets in the way. Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled Prop 8 on both Equal Protection and Due Process grounds. The decision is likely to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The over-100 page opinion can be accessed at www.Prop8Trialtracker.com . Walker clearly has argued his opinion with the appeals process in mind. Kudos to Ted Olson and David Boies for a magnificent job in arguing the case for same sex marriage. Judge Walker, a George H.W. Bush appointee, played an active and aggressive role in challenging both legal teams to back up their arguments. In the summary stage of the trial, he was a real star.

Here's the conclusion from the decision.

Conclusion
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

Remedies

"Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

"Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendents from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendents that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors..

Conclusions of Law

"Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Yesterday, sensing defeat, the lawyers for Proposition 8 requested Judge Walker to withhold the ruling until the appeals process has begun. They argued--it would be unfair to other gays?! This from the side who tried to portray gay males as pedophiles and child sex abusers. The religious unChristian Right is already up in arms. The ruling was just and well-argued.

Now on to DADT. DADT already has been repealed by the House by 40 votes. It needs to wait for the report from the armed forces and ratification by the Senate.

I'm sure today's decision will become a great fund-raiser for conservative and religious groups. The so-called conservative constitutionalists will probably go into high gear to eradicate the 14th amendment--now we have Mexicans and gays involved--it's a winner. Aside from the sacred Second Amendment, I'm not sure there are many amendments left that conservatives approve of.

The trial itself should be made into a televised play. It had drama, humor and sparkling legal talent on display. Sort of the Snopes trial of the 21st century.

And if you're still against gay marriage, then don't marry one. It's simple and saves the taxpayer alot of money in court fees.

Sunday Chelsea Blues

Now that Venezuela has larger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, does that mean CITGO is going to fund American elections? CITGO for Dennis Kucinich. I can see Hugo Chavez make the case.

Bloggers have been writing about the SCOTUS decision favorably, taking an absolutist position on the First Amendment, something I have always done until recently. But we know from the Founders views about corporations--they are only to exist with the permission of the state and for a limited time--the 1st Amendment wasn't considered for our corporate overlords. We have our own history to rely on for periods when corporations could virtually dictate politics. The stench got so bad that both parties realized something had to be done. Others claim let the voters decide. Preliminary polls are favorable to the ruling. Yet the same polls show the public believes Washington is a cesspool of special interests and lobbyists.

What's curious about all this is that the Supreme Court has always preserved its integrity but refuses to preserve that of other government institutions and seems to be oblivious of the real world harm all of this will do. The House is readying a sheaf of laws to regulate corporate involvement in politics but I'm doubtful they can pass both chambers. Allan Grayson and Barney Frank claim they can neutralize the effects of the bill through corporate regulation. I again am doubtful.

The more I read the decision and the background to the case the more infuriated I become. The Rehnquist Court, which I was no fan of, repeatedly handed down decisions stating that the Court had to defer to Congress on the means it chose to regulate its affairs. It made several rulings upholding the rights of states and Congress to curtail abusive corporate practices in campaigns. So not only did the Court blow away the early laws against corporate financing but they also dismiss out of hand (and without mention) all the recent cases some of their conservative colleagues had decided. The plaintiffs in this case did not ask for such a sweeping ruling. In fact, the Court asked them to come back with their opinion on a Michigan state law regulating corporate contributions, a case which had nothing to do with the circumstances of their complaint. In short, it was a rigged game. Conservative bloggers disingenuously argue that the case was about Citzens United attempting to screen their Hillary Clinton film thirty days before the election. In fact, the Court asked them to come back on something totally different so they could blow away all laws on the issue. The rapid scheduling of the case--each side only had 30 days--makes one suspicious of the motive of the majority. They found a convenient patsy in Judge Kennedy, the only one of the majority who believes in the First Amendment, as Judge Stevens showed when he eviscerated Roberts with all the cases where he restricted whole categories of speech.

This is why I'm skeptical about the Olson-Boies case for same sex marriage. Final statements will occur in March. But the last two days of the trial raised some concerns. the anti-gay proponents tried to mount their case and they were eviscerated by the Olson team. But they in offhand comments raised the prospects they would put forward studies showing the usual litany of complaints about gays being sexual predators,etc. , all of which the expert witnesses destroyed to the satisfaction of reasonable thinking people. But what they are going to do is to try to raise the some say-others say argument and in case of doubt you can't allow same sex marriage. The other line of argument they have been coming back to is to argue that since Houston elected a lesbian Mayor and there are now Hate Crime statutes on the book that gays and lesbians do not suffer discrimination as a "class" of people and therefore one can't rule on the grounds of discrimination.

I doubt the current Judge will fall for this. He has been so engaged and questioning of witnesses that I suspect he will rule for Olson-Boies. But conservative columnist and Prop 8 activist Maggie Gallagher wrote a column calling it a kangaroo court and the Wall Street Journal published extensively excerpts of all the anti-gay witnesses. By the time it reaches this Supreme Court, the bogus scholarship will be accepted as evidence and the Roberts Court will figure out a way to decide the case not on its merits. Here they are liable to write an opinion that it is society at large to decide these matters and therefore the people must decide through the ballot box. That's why I have believed from the beginning that Olson, the last respected conservative lawyer in the country, doesn't realize how radical right conservatives have become and has underestimated the corruption to the law this has done.

This week will be Barack Obama's State of the Union address. Bets on who heckles him. Obama will support a deficit reduction commission to appease the deficit hawks and may call for a freeze on discretionary spending. At the same time expect a full-throated defense of the stimulus package,the auto bailout,the health care bill and calls for stronger regulation of the banking industry and the creation of a Consumer Protection agency. An we will hear about North Korea,Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and terrorism. Democrats are disappointed in Obama because he is not more FDR. But FDR did not have the Saudis, Chinese and Japan owning America. FDR did face an entrenched reactionary opposition with almost the identical economic theories and beliefs as today's Republicans. But the situation FDR faced was more dire. The remnants of FDR's reforms, which were allowed to survive the Bush-Cheney years, stopped the full impact of a financial collapse. Add to that Obama's stimulus package and the brakes have been put on without the benefit of a recovery.

But the U6 unemployment rate is still 17.5%--in short we are a couple points away from Depression. African-Americans and Hispanics are already in a Depression with unemployment rates in the high twenties. Also, unlike in the Great Depression you have a sizeable portion of the population which still receives social security, medicare and medicaid as well as government and military pensions. A good bunch of these people are the teabaggers and the base of the Republican Party. Even with $14 trillion of private assets wiped out by the Bush-Cheney great Recession, this portion of the population are and will be relatively immune to the total financial devastation done to others. If White unemployment dips below 9% again, then don't expect any sustained enthusiasm for necessary economic or financial reform.

Barack Obama faces the situation FDR did in 1937 when FDR felt the Great Depression was essentially over. He started deficit reduction and tax cuts only to see the situation worsen. President Obama has to walk a tight-line on this while facing resistance among the public and on the Hill. But there are other problems. The American economy can never recover on its old foundation. Western Europe, Korea and China are all leading now in Green technologies and ending their dependence on oil. While Obama has put this in motion with some aspects of the stimulus package, the forces arrayed against any Energy Bill or Climate Change legislation dwarf the resistance to health care reform. With the new Supreme Court ruling expect the oil industry to make a full-court press on this issue. Unfortunately,this may doom us to an economy which has no future viability.

The inability of the American system to make critical choices for its own survival is quite amazing. The Health Care Reform argument is no longer about protecting those less fortunate then ourselves--a good argument anyway--but it's about an economic necessity. You can not have a modern society where a major illness automatically brings bankruptcy to individuals and families. You can not have a modern economy when one-quarter of it is spent on health care costs. You also can not continue to have a modern economy if you are almost exclusively dependent on oil. From my oil friends, we can expect a $200 barrel of oil very soon in our future.

But Gov. Pawlenty's favorite business Sam's Club is laying of 125,000 workers. Now even the WalMarts of America will not hire. Rep. Boehner can taunt Obama "Where are the jobs?" But he knows. The Republicans with their Blue Dog allies are making a bid to save the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and will make a bid to cut tax rates for large corporations. None of which will create a single job.

Maybe our role in the world has already been decided for us. We are to be the policemen of the world with a $1 trillion military-terrorism budget, while other countries such as China benefit from our military actions without taking any of the consequences. But the American people be damned. If you got a job be grateful, you can always be replaced. If you were thinking about retirement, forget about it. If you want to get educated, then make sure you're rich. You, my friends, are on your own. And your young, eloquent, smart President, we have him boxed in at every turn.

If Obama is slightly successful, the United States will enter into a prolonged period of 8% unemployment and will start to cut entitlement programs. If he doesn't succeed in his programs, we could de-develop in a short time.

Bummer Wednesday

The late Bayard Rustin and I joked about creating the Committee to Preserve White People in Basketball. Finally, the European leagues started to supply talented players to the NBA so the urgency somewhat diminished. But today out of Augusta, Georgia comes an announcement that there will be an All-American Basketball League that will ban foreigners and blacks. The league will play summerball in twelve cities. Maybe Rush Limbaugh can buy one of the franchises. The owner, a Mr. Moose, said that," It's not that we are against any race. It's just that whites are a minority now." This isn't what Bayard and I had in mind. And with our Senate, maybe we can restore slavery.

Obama's honeymoon is over. That's the headline today. Stop. Replay the tape. Didn't anyone listen to the interview this week with Arlen Specter about why he changed parties? Specter insists that upon inaugeration the Republican Caucus in the Senate held a closed meeting to demand absolute loyalty in voting against the stimulus package--which a broad range of economists supported. I would say the honeymoon stopped on day one. Or howabout the private meeting of the Republican caucus with the "captains of industry" to tell them not to invest until after the 2010 elections.

Speaking of white people. Republicans now have a Senator who posed nude for Cosmo, Diaper Dave Vitters ,whose New Orleans madam claimed had "exquisite taste in lingerie" and a Senator who pays the husband of his mistress hush money from campaign funds Senator Ensign. This gives white people a bad name.

We got the aid airlifts up to 200 yesterday, twice the number of the day before. People cheered, "USA! USA! USA!" when American rescue workers pulled live Haitians from the rubble. We opened two more airports in Haiti to accomodate more aid relief. But as this week is going, Haiti was hit with another 6.1 quake dashing some of the progress made. But, never fear, the Mexican Mole Men are coming to Haiti. Pound for pound this Mexican rescue team is considered the world's best at discovering living people buried under rubble. They excelled in the Asian tsunami disaster.

The Prop 8 trial continues with Boies and Olson checking off all the boxes on all arguments against marriage equality. Today's hearing had testimony on why gays can not be "converted" back to heterosexuality. This is important because of the anti-gay arguments that homosexality is a lifestyle choice and predetermined. Boies ran a videotape of the deposition of one of the defense witnesses who withdrew. During the testimony, Boies led the witness to run through the religious attitudes against homosexuality and got him to admit--frequently--that these beliefs were based on prejudice. This is a central point for Olson and Boies to prove to overturn Prop. 8. Of immense curiosity and legal wrangling was the demand by the Olson team for documents which showed how other anti-gay marriage efforts were connected and the interlinkage of personnel organizing these efforts. So far the anti-gay lawyers had to fork over 20,000 pages of documents but are fighting about the relevance of documents about other states. So far, Olson and Boies are wiping the floor with the opposition. It's such a pleasure to watch good attorneys work. I am getting very curious about what the anti-gay lawyers can possibly turn up to defend their case. Every strawman so far has been burned to the ground.


For those interested in a real expert on terrorism in the Islamic world, the person to consult is Dr.Olivier Roy, research director at the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS). The two books, which are appropriate for understanding the new generation of unassimilated terrorists, are Globalized Islam and Islamist Networks: The Afghan-Pakistan Connection. Roy has done the pioneer studies of how marginalized Muslims in Europe become drawn to terrorism.

Garry Wills weighs in with Bomb Power:The Modern Presidency and the National Security State, which analyzes the concentration of power within the Presidency. The last two chapters "the Unitary Executive" and "American Monarch" are the heart of the argument on today's problems.

Last Thoughts of the Day

I've left the live-blogging of the trial today--missing a new UCLA professor, who is considered the "rock star" of gay, lesbian and transgender studies. I'll catch up tomorrow. But one of the factoids that struck me was that if gays were allowed to marry, then one witness said they would only constitute about 2% of the married population. Hardly reason to run from the room. Asked about de-valuing hetersexual marriage, I'll paraphrase one witness," It's unlikely that Bruce will say to Ann after 30years, since Joe and Frank are getting married, that's it for us--we're getting a divorce."

But concerns about the timing of the case can be found in Margaret Talbot "A Risky Proposal" in the January 18, 2010 issue of The New Yorker. Talbot goes into the reservations voiced by the A.C.L.U., the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights about the strategy of this case. They argued the Supreme Court doesn't get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of the states. While Olson seems focused on Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case on interracial marriage, these advocacy groups were concerned about Bowers v. Hardwick, where the Supreme Court stunned gay rights advocates and upheld Georgia's antiquated law against sodomy. It took the Supreme Court seventeen years before it revisited the issue in Lawrence v. Texas, when it overturned by 6-3 Texas' sodomy laws. Two-Ton Tony Scalia said that the court had aligned itself with the "homosexual agenda" and that Americans are "protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

Gay activists note that California passed in 1964 an anti-black referendum. They fear a Supreme Court case before its time. Today, there are 7 Catholics on the Supreme Court and only two days ago Pope Benedict issued another anti-gay statement. Instead, activists wanted a chance to win a few referenda on the issue and wait until the composition of the Court changes. But people who support Olson's approach point out that some 40% of Americans support gay marriage and more than 50% support civil unions. This compares to only 20% in favor if interracial marriage during the time of Loving v. Virginia. Younger Americans support gay marriage at about 58% and that percentage is growing every year. Scholars on the issue point out that if people are converted in one direction, it's always toward gay marriage. In five years, they expect a majority will support gay marriage because of generational changes and "attitude adjustments". It should be noted that the young seem to be less supportive of the right to choose concerning the abortion issue.

Today, only five states permit gays to marry, while five others such as California have civil union or domestic partnership laws, that confer some of the same benefits without the freighted significance of marriage. But, a few words of caution, after the Supreme Court of Hawaii found that a ban on gay marriage was discriminatory, 29 states passed amendments prohibiting gay marriage. And the backlash culminated in 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which Bill Clinton signed into law. A marriage was defined as between a man and a woman. Ted Olson firmly believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. I agree with him.

Can we read anything in the Supreme Court's prohibition of television and Youtube at the trial? Perhaps, they did not want to color their own opinions. But I believe in the words of Olson it would have been a teachable moment because the only ones who appear normal and solid citizens are the gay couples and the professional experts. The anti-gay lawyers reek of bigotry and hypocrisy. And worse, they are ill-prepared and are relying on the court simply to reaffirm the traditional prejudice of the society. What puzzles me is that the Judge keeps asking about why the state should be involved in marriage in the first place? He's looking for a backdoor escape that might not exist.

Perry v. Schwartzenegger demonstrates why the courtroom is a fair better venue to resolve issues of basic rights than the ballot box. But I do find Olson a bit naive when he talks confidently about how the Supreme Court will take this case seriously and will not want religious attitudes cloud their judgment on the case. Like many old-time conservatives, Ted has lost touch with how theocratic the right has become. But in this courtroom we are getting to hear the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians, the latest studies about the habits of long-time same sex couples and how child abuse has little to do with gay male behavior in particular. And, alas, we're learning that lesbians and gays seem to be born that way, contrary to the beliefs of the religious right.

God,Guns,Gays,Gitmo and Girls-more Sotomayor

In full throated campaign cry, Barack Obama was in Nevada last night defying his critics to prove that Sotomayor was not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. On the AC360 blog at CNN, Dave Gergen called his pick "one of Obama's finest hours". Noting that Sotomayor first won confirmation to the federal bench by unanimous consent and then to the Court of Appeals by 67-29, Gergen notes that Republican party-builders know the heavy price they paid with Hispanics when they sided with the anti-immigrant Proposition 187 inCalifornia. They have never recovered.

The Washington Post this morning covered the national celebrations among the Hispanic community on the nomination. Forming 15% of the population,Hispanics are the largest minority and one that went 2-1 for Barack Obama in the last election. To be a competitive party, Republicans need to secure 35-40% of this vote, something which they will not do if they mount an attack on the first Hispanic woman nominated to the Supreme Court.

(*For history's sake, technically the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court was Benjamin Cardozo.)

But never fear, reader, the party of torture and the lack of empathy is trudging down the lonely path by attacking Sotomayor as an affirmative action candidate (notwithstanding her excellent academic credentials and many,many years on the bench.) To make the case, they reeled out anti-immigration king Tom Tanredo who accused her of being racist. Karl Rove,a college dropout himself, suggested on Fox News that she was not "intellectually strong"--like,say, Harriet Meirs, and that she was not respected by her colleagues. Richard Viguerie issued a call for an anti-Sotomayor campaign: "This is an enormous opportunity for conservatives to define President Obama as a radical liberal in a way Republicans have so far failed to do." Viguerie said it was a good time to re-identify the conservative movement and replenish the coffers with donations.

n May 1, Bill Kristol spoke at the Washington Federalist Society and suggested she would be hard to oppose , pointing out she was first appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush. he told the audience he didn't believe she could galvanize meaningful opposition and he didn't encourage a full-scale campaign against her. Knowing Kristol's almost absolute fallibility onall things political and domestic,the attack ads began even before Sotomayor was nominated.

Conservatives have already stepped in it by denouncing Obama's use of the word "empathy". After all, their hero, Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court in the word of President George H.W. Bush for his"empathy and good humor." Senator Sessions promptly shot himself in the foot when he went on cable news yesterday and said clearly that courts make policy, a line used against Judge Sotomayor for her comments to a conference on judicial interns. To make matters worse,the American Bar Association has rated Sotomayor as a solid moderate on the bench. The reporting side of the Wall Street Journal reviewed her over 4,000 decisions and found she defended corporate interests most of the time.

The Washington Post said an all-out assault on Sotomayor by the Republicans could alienate Hispanic and women voters, deepening the GOP's problems after two crushing electoral cycles. But sidestepping a court battle would deflate the party's base and hurt efforts to rally conservatives going forward. John Weaver, the former campaign adviser to John McCain, confirmed,"You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that we need to tread very carefully." Need and will are two different things.

Both Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine received calls about the appointment beforehand from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. Both senators need to be on board as a preventive measure in case the Republicans go complete kamikaze and decide to filibuster.

Followers of Rev. James Dobson have opposed Sotomayor as do the Christian Defense Coalition and the Faith and Action groups who are militantly anti-abortion. Concerned Women of American also weighed in about her "immodest bias"--this is the reverse racism tag--when she said "A Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a while make who hasn't lived that life."

Better yet for those of us who notice that conservatives are still fixated on the 1960s and Saul Alinsky type figures and Bill Ayres, conservatives have found that Sotomayor's senior thesis at Princeton was on Puerto Rican identity. In the thesis, she wrote about the long history of Puerto Rico's status to the United States, covering the Commowealth debate led by Munoz Marin and the various independence efforts. Naturally, in this thesis written in the 1970s, the FALN, the Puerto Rican terrorists are mentioned. And Sotomayor suggests she favors (at that time) independence for Puerto Rico as a way to preserve its culture, noting the disappearance of indigneous culture when both Hawaii and Alaska became states. Ergo, like Barack Obama, she is linked to terrorists.

So far the best line in all this was Rush Limbaugh's line about Barack Obama being a reverse racist. One blogger asked "If you're part white and part black, how can you be a reverse racist?" Never mind, as the great Robert Anton Wilson frequently said,"There is no room for rationality in politics." But you have to feel a little sorry for Pat Buchanan, who now looks lost and weepy about everything.

You can bet the screaming will continue because the screaming hasn't stopped since Obama was elected.

You would think conservatives would rejoice at the California Supreme Court's upholding Prop 8 banning gay marriages. You could also imagine the outrage if Obama had nominated the sole dissenter Carlos Mareno to the Supreme Court. But The California court decision was a small detour on the road to gay marriage. The Court begrudgingly allowed California voters the right to decide the issue at the ballot box. But they also did not backdown from its vigorous support of gay rights and even the use of marriage to describe the legalizing the 18,000 who did get married. Not the most courageous decision but the California court planted the seeds for reversal right in the middle of the decision.

Enter former Bush administration solicitor general Theodore Olson--also the lawyer for the McCain campaign-- who has filed suit with co-counsel David Boies of the Bush v. Gore cases to overturn Prop 8 and re-establish the right of gay couples to marry. The suit filed on behalf of two same-sex couples asks the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to issue an injunction that would stop enforcement of Proposition 8 and allow same sex couples to marry while the case is being decided.

Interviewed by former American Spectator reporter Byron York about conservatives objecting to his asking the court to overturn the will of the people, Olson responded:" It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution. The constitution protects individuals' basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote. If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution. We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy and I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation."

Asked why he took the case, Olson said," I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation, and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions. I thought their cause was just."

Olson was also the lawyer in the McCain campaign who was most vocal in denouncing the "birthers", who claim that Obama was foreign-born, saying it was "utter nonsense". He also came to the defense of Harold Koh, nominated to be State Department counsel, who was denounced by Fox News as allegedly supporting Sharia Law.

The game is on. The creaking sound you hear is the Republicans closing the casket lid on themselves.