Prop. 8 OVERTURNED

In what is probably the most important judicial ruling in the history of LGBT-rights in America, Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the US District Court for the Northern District of California has declared amdendments to California’s constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman unconstitutional under both the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. The final two paragraphs of the ruling:

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,see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants 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 pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

This sets a precedent that could hasten the overturning of anti-gay amendments in some twenty states.

Constitutionality of Prop. 8 to be decided tomorrow

The verdict for Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the challange to California’s ballot-initiative driven amendment to their state constitution mandating the recognition of only those marriages involving one man and one woman, will be announced by Judge  Vaughn R. Walker of the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

I would say “Cross your fingers,” but that wouldn’t do any good, and would in fact encourage pernicious patterns of thought. One of the steps towards salvation prescribed by Spinoza is the distinguishing between those things under our control and those things outside it, and this verdict is outside of it. So we should not worry over it, even if it comes back in favor of the amendment. If that should be the case, our cares should be about what next step is to be taken, either to take the case to the Supreme Court, or to overturn it at the ballot. This verdict may be outside our control, but our reaction to it is within it; should it come back against the amendment, we can allow ourselves to rejoice; and if for it, we can work and strive to undo its legacy through other organs. This is a fight our (my) generation will win, but only with time.

What 1.5 million people look like

FYI

The scripture Barak Obama paraphrased (badly) paraphrased while being sworn in as the 44th president of these United States appears to have been 1 Corinthians 13:11:

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.

Three…

Four days and counting

I think about throwing out that pitch at the World Series on [Oct. 30 2001, a month and a half after 9/11]. My heart was racing when I got to the mound. Didn’t want to bounce it. Didn’t want to let the fans down. My heart was pumping so hard, I wasn’t sure if I could lift my arm. I never felt that anxious any other time during my presidency, curiously enough.

George W. Bush, 2009, People magazine

Five days and counting

Six days and counting

You know what I mean.

Cry me a Northwest Passage

The word of the day is “ressentiment.”

Watch,as Sarah Palin bashes a journalist for daring to scrutinize a public official previously unknown outside the obscure and eccentric political circles of our most distant and least populace state on the continent:

“I knew it didn’t go well the first day, and then we gave her a couple of other segments after that,” she said. “And my question to the campaign was, after it didn’t go well the first day, why were we going to go back for more…going back for more was not a wise decision either.”

During one of those follow-up interviews, Palin took heat for appearing to be unable to name the newspapers or magazines she reads: “Um of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years,” was the Alaska governor’s response.

In the interview with Ziegler, Palin called that answer “too flippant” and suggested the question itself offended her.

…and blasts our sacred democratic institution of satire for doing their job:

“I did see that Tina Fey was named entertainer of the year and Katie Couric’s ratings have risen,” Palin said in the interview. “I know that a lot of people are capitalizing on, oh I don’t know, perhaps some exploiting that was done via me, my family, my administration — that’s a little bit perplexing, but it also says a great deal about our society.”

Now, would that be the “society” in “real America,” or the fake one where latte-powered-hybrid-limousine liberals like Tina Fey live?

The Alaska governor was particularly upset with an SNL skit during which Fey’s version of Palin said, “I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers.”

The line was a clear reference to Palin’s 18-year-old daughter Bristol and her fiancé Levi Johnston. The two announced shortly before the GOP convention that they were expecting a baby and had plans to marry.

Even if Fey’s comment does cross a line, one can hardly expect that no one would have made it, that the governor’s continued support of abstinence-only education in the face of Palin-Johnson’s joint failure to meet that standard would pass without comment.

And one has to concede Palin opens herself up to grade-C mockery when she makes such statements as:

The mama grizzly rises up in me, hearing things like that.

I had originally typed “grade-A” mockery, but then realized Palin more closely resembled a character from an unwatchable comedy; if someone tried to write her character, no one would believe it.

Unequivocal denunciation roundup

Goddamn it, Bill Richardson!

My pick for POTUS, and later Sec. of State, and finally Obama’s for Sec. of Commerce, is object of an investigation trying to establish whether or not he traded NM government contracts for political committee donations.

If Obama knew, have him face the full force of law, yadda, yadda. But Richardson’s probable corruption really sinks me. You never realize what trust you have left for politicians until it’s gone.

I, and the rest of the largely imaginary Democratic Freedom Caucus, hang our heads in shame.