gay marriage ruling, the sequal?

So you probably have read that the California Supreme Court has ruled that gay marriage is a protected right under the California state constitution. Since I worked at for a Massachusetts legislator when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made a similar ruling and helped my boss when there was Constitutional Convention regarding the issue, I wanted to clear up some confusions people might have.

1. Like the SJC, the California supremes based their ruling on their state constitution. This means that even if all nine U.S. Supreme Court justices think it was a terrible opinion and disagree, they can't do anything about it. State courts are the final arbiters of their own state constitutions, and while the U.S. Supreme Court can declare a state constitutional provision to be in violation of the Federal constitution, if a state constitution grants the people more rights than the federal constitution (for example, many states have a constitutional right to quality education), that's that state's business. It's called federalism.


2. And since the ruling is based solely on state case law and the state constitution, it will have zero effect on other states or the federal government. Now, I am sure this case will have some persuasive effect on other liberal states' justices, just as Goodridge had on the California justices. But DOMA is still the law of the land until some gay couple from California or Massachusetts moves to another state and seeks recognition of their marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. [I doubt anyone will challenge DOMA until the ideological makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court becomes at least 5-4 liberal]


3. Unlike federal judges and Massachusetts' justices, California's are popularly elected. If Californians don't like how these justices rule, they can vote against those justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage when their terms are up. And they might even be able to recall them like they did to Gov. Gray Davis.


4. Also unlike Massachusetts, the California legislature twice passed bills granting Californians same-sex marriages. Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bills twice, in 2005 and 2007. In Massachusetts, the legislature essentially sat on its hands during the years that the SJC considered Goodridge. Arguably, had MA legislators passed a civil union bill, Goodridge might have turned out differently.


5. In Massachusetts, in order to amend the state constitution, the legislature must meet in Constitutional Convention (state House and Senate together) and vote for the same amendment in two successive sessions. That still is yet to happen since Goodridge came down. California, by contrast, allows any yahoo who collects enough signatures (and these days has a lot of money to get said signatures)to get a state constitutional amendment on the ballot. In fact, there is already a initiative in the works to overturn the CA Supreme Court's decision, an initiative that Schwarzenegger supports. So does John McCain


6. In California, the court overturned a proposition that enacted a state law banning gay marriage. In Utah, the people voted for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This means that even if the Utah Supreme Court agreed with the reasoning of California's supremes, they couldn't strike down Amendment 3.
7. Barrack Obama's support of civil unions and support of the California court's decision are not inconsistent. Although the court said that civil unions would subject same-sex couples to "second class citizenship," Obama is supporting the rights of states to decide the gay marriage issue for themselves. Obama's federalist argument is something Bob Barr, author of DOMA and now presumptive Libertarian Party candidate, agrees with even though he himself is opposed to even civil unions.


8. This will not help the GOP in November. Bush already milked gay marriage for all it was worth to conservatives in in 2004, especially in swing states like Ohio and Missouri. Those states can't have another constitutional amendment on the ballot this year to say the same thing. And California won't be in play for Republicans any time soon, no matter how much John McCain wishes it so.


9. Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey allow for civil unions for same sex couples (Hawaii used to as well); only Massachusetts and California (as well as Canada, Great Britian, South Africa, and few other countries) have legalized gay marriage.

I hope that clears things up. Any questions?

adding insult to injury

As you probably have heard, there were two major natural disasters in Southeast Asia this week: the massive earthquake in China and the massive cyclone in Myanmar. While China's oppressive government has won praise for its handling of the earthquake--immediately sending thousands of aid workers, tons of equipment, and the Premier himself to the epicenter (apparantly learning from George W. Bush's mistakes)--Burma's military junta has not. Perhaps one can understand their reluctance to allow U.S. military aircraft to drop things over their country, but the world is hard pressed to understand junta's prevention of NGOs from being able to distribute their own aid as they see fit. But now comes the icing on the proverbial cake.

Myanmar announced Thursday that a constitution won massive support in a referendum -- a claim slammed by a leading rights group as an insult to the country's people.

The document, which critics say will cement nearly four decades of military rule, was approved by 92.4 percent of the 22 million eligible voters last Saturday, said Aung Toe, head of the Referendum Holding Committee on state radio. He put voter turnout at more than 99 percent.

While the junta is content to have hundreds of thousands of people to die needlessly because of their paranoia, they hold a sham election (reporters saw military "officials telling voters outside polling places, 'Don't forget to put the tick, the right mark,'" on their ballots....and "[v]oting officials also would sometimes pull aside the curtains protecting the privacy of the voting booths.") to justify their iron grip on the country. And while we are at it, let's look at the particulars of this "popularly enacted" constitution.

The constitution would bar Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the detained leader of the country's pro-democracy movement, from public office. The military refused to honor the results of the 1990 general election won by her National League for Democracy party.

These people really have no sense of shame whatsoever. And obviously they aren't Buddists, because Karma really is a b!tch.

crackdown at the speakeasy

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (DABC) is punishing liquor serving establishments harder than during the Olympics, where there was a rash of drunk driving deaths and violent crime...oh wait, never mind about that last part.

So, how are they getting so many citations? Trickery and entrapment say critics.

State undercover liquor-control agents made lewd propositions to a waitress, then waved a $5 bill at a boisterous woman in a Clearfield club, daring her to expose herself in what they later explained were tactics to fit in with the crowd.
At an American Fork restaurant, agents badgered a waiter into bringing them a round of beers, then ticketed the eatery for serving alcohol without a required meal.
And in a Salt Lake City pub, three agents ordered shots, two purposefully left the table, then they cited the server for delivering too many drinks.
[...]
Sam Granato is a Salt Lake restaurateur who also is board chairman of the DABC, whose staff prosecutes liquor violations uncovered in stings. He calls the tactics described above as "devious," but says he has no control over them because the agents are under the supervision of the Department of Public Safety.
It seems he is not alone in feeling powerless. For the past several years, state undercover agents have had uneven oversight and little training.
Only two agents on the 15-member team have been on the liquor squad for more than a year. And although the state of Utah generally sends agents to annual liquor-control workshops conducted nationally, no team members have received that training because of the high rate of turnover.

This seems to be an easy fix if there is anything suspect going on: give DABC control of their investigative agents, hold those agents accountable, and train them.

As for some of the tactics used by agents, Scott Duncan, commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, said changes are in store.
"Something went terribly wrong," said Duncan, who is Michaud's top boss and has been in the job since July 2006. "There are rogue cops out there, but I've been around long enough to know that [agents] do what their supervisors expect them to do."

But it isn't just bar owners fighting back against the perceived underhanded tactics of DABC agents.

But citing "ticky tacky" prosecutions, Rep. Curtis Oda, R-Clearfield, recently sponsored a bill that would have transferred prosecution powers from the DABC to the Utah Attorney General's Office. Oda withdrew the bill after DABC board Chairman Granato pledged more cooperation with businesses.
In April, for the first time in memory, board members agreed (4-to-1) to impose a fine of $1,200 as penalty for serving alcohol to underage decoys. In the past, such violations brought a five-day suspension. Granato said because servers already are being criminally charged for providing alcohol to minors, he doesn't favor closing down establishments and taking away the livelihood of all employees.

irony or poetic justice?

It seems the radical presidency of George W. Bush has had some drastic effects that he would regret:

National membership in the [ACLU], which fights for freedom of speech and religion, equal protection, due process and privacy, has doubled since Bush took office in 2001 - an extraordinary spurt of growth for the 88-year-old institution. [...]
The ACLU counted about 250,000 members in the final year of Bill Clinton's presidency. Today, the organization has about 500,000 card-carriers, 2,500 of them in Utah.
Fundraising has increased in kind. According the IRS, the nonprofit had about $44 million in annual revenues in the 2000 fiscal year. In the fiscal year ending in March of 2007, it collected more than $80 million.

By the end of Clinton's second term, Utah's ACLU chapter had only 1,300 members.

To its credit, the ACLU has stayed extremely ideological but definately not partisan. Both parties have found its positions annoying and objectionable. It is considering helping the polygamists in Texas, is against voter ID laws but for eliminating campaign finance regulation (save disclosure laws), against the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegence, against the public displays of the Ten Commandments, against torture, against warrantless wiretapping, against "extrodinary rendition," for same sex marriage, and for Rep. William "$90,000 in his House office freezer" Jefferson (D-LA) [he declined their offer of help]. Its members include likely Libertarian Party presidential nominee ex-Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), who lead the impeachment battle against Bill Clinton .

Their role as Gadfly and legal harrasser of the Bush Administration will ensure that future Administrations will think twice before attempting to expand their powers, let alone exercise those claimed by Bush during his 8 years....especially with all of those new members and new donors.

fun with scripture

Trust me, this will be a good quote, but I have to lay some background first. So yesterday was Pentecost, the day were the apostles were able, thanks to the Holy Spirit, to speak the native languages of all of the Jews assembled in First Century Jerusalem, telling the listeners about all of the cool stuff God had done. Some witnesses believed this "speaking in tongues" to be a miracle, others, that the speakers were merely inebriated.

So it was up to (Simon) Peter to set the doubters straight: "You are wrong to think that these people are drunk. After all, it is only nine o'clock in the morning.">(Acts 2:15)

They can't be drunk because it is too early in the morning? We all should try lame arguments out like that on people. Of course, Peter went on to talk about how this all was prophesized in the book of Joel. But when I heard this reading yesterday at church, I had a hard time not laughing out loud.

the second wave?

In 2006, voters' dissatisfaction with Bush, and the economy, the war, etc. lead to the Democrats regaining control in both chambers of Congress after a dozen years in exile (notwithstanding the brief period that Dems pretended to have control in the Jeffords 50-49-1 Senate). It was a wave of discontentment that swept incumbent Republicans out of office (and nearly cost a dozen more their jobs) all over the country...except in Utah. That wave seems to have lapped up against the Wasatch Mountains, the Green and Colorado Rivers and western desert.

Amazingly, things look even worse for the Republican Party this year nationally. At best, they will only lose 3 more Senate seats and two dozen House seats. At worst, Democrats could have a filibuster-proof majority in the US Senate. Even more incredibly, Utah Republicans are getting concerned about their prospects.

Perhaps worried that President Bush's poor approval ratings and a dragging economy could harm GOP candidates in November, the Utah Republican Party is starting a public campaign showing what is right about Republicanism and how GOP officeholders have brought prosperity, freedom and well-managed government to Utahns.
The new program comes as Republicans meet in their state convention Saturday in Orem. There, thousands of state delegates will talk about immigration and other political issues, as well as cast ballots for intra-party contests in the 2nd and 3rd Congressional Districts.
[...]
Meanwhile, state party bosses want to remind Utahns why they've voted Republican for years.

Party leaders have faced criticism this election season as a number of GOP candidates and their supporters claim the party bosses favored incumbent Republicans, especially in a number of intra-party legislative races.
[...]
GOP state party chairman Stan Lockhart will submit a resolution before state delegates Saturday that outlines "what Republicans believe." It echoes what he told the Salt Lake County GOP convention last Saturday, that "it is not by accident" that Utah is one of the best managed states in the nation and that a number of Utah communities are rated as fine places to live and raise a family.

"We are going to get out our message — we have the best economy in the nation, we are the best managed state, most livable, best for the family, best place to start a business. Republicans helped create this atmosphere."

So what is the Utah Republican party's quasi-platform?

It quotes passages from the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. But it also makes statements of principles that are not found in those documents, as well. Among the principles:

• A belief in God and a government based on "moral foundation with honesty, integrity, morality and accountability."


• "Individual religious expression, including prayer, in public and private."


• Individuals, families and charities should help the needy, but "support a government safety net if all else fails."


• There should be public, private and homeschooling education, with competitive excellence in education.


• Simplified tax code with elimination of the estate tax and a broad-based tax rate.


• Environment, air, water and land are the heart of existence and must be protected "through balanced management."


• Oppose abortion except to "preserve the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest."


• Traditional family is the fundamental unit of society, with parents responsible for bringing up their children.

I wonder what the party's leadership expects to achieve with this document and what they plan to do to tout it? Or will they simply try to contrast it with the Utah Democratic Party's platform?

The phrase "competitive excellence in education" will likely be construed by Democrats (and perhaps Republican challengers) as official party support for vouchers, which the voters resoundingly rejected last fall all over the state.

Similarly, "honesty, integrity, morality and accountability" can be used as a bludgeon to compare certain incumbents ethical lapses, and more importantly the lack of ethics enforcement by the legislature's own or by the Attorney General.

Does this mean I think that the GOP in Utah will lose control of the legislature or any statewide offices? Extremely doubtful. But I do think that in this political climate, (additional) incumbents will fall in November.

superD's in Utah

The local papers today discuss what's the hold up with superdelegates, in particular why haven't Utah's decided whom they'll vote for. In particular, they go after Utah's lone Democratic Congressman, Jim Matheson, who last cycle didn't even attend the convention in Boston. But I would rather focus on the other supers, because it is more interesting.

Both candidates have support among Utah's superdelegates. Utah Democratic Chairman Wayne Holland and former U.S. Rep. Bill Orton have endorsed Obama, citing his big win in the state primary and his ability to energize new voters. Obama will also have the support of an as-yet-unnamed superdelegate that Holland will select at the state convention on Saturday.
Clinton has the backing of Utah Democratic Committeewoman Helen Langan and former state Sen. Karen Hale, although they have said they are giving Obama's campaign a second look after his victory in the state primary in early February. Langan said Wednesday that she is remaining a Clinton supporter.
"If I say anything different, it will be after the primaries," Langan said.

Local readers know that Misty Fowler is probably going to be the "as-yet-unnamed [Obama supporting] superdelegate that Holland will select" a pledged delegate for Obama because Sen. Obama asked for her to be nammed his superdelegate. A well deserved trip to Denver for Misty, who worked her butt off (and represents the hundreds of others from Utah who also toiled for Obama) for over a year to get the Beehive State to go for Obama. (I hope Bob gets it as well)

So next we have Bill Orton, the former congressman from Odgen who ran for governor in 2000. My State Senator, Scott McCoy (who I am proud to has read this blog) is mounting a campaign to kick Orton off. And Orton's fighting back:

McCoy sent an email to hundreds of state delegates, informing them that [...] "Because Bill Orton endorsed my Republican opponent in my [2006] Senate race, I don't think he deserves to be our Democratic National Committeeman any longer. On this, I hope you will agree too," McCoy wrote in his e-mail.
[...]
Orton said Jarvis is a longtime family friend and volunteered on his gubernatorial campaign in 2000.
"My endorsement of my friend . . . didn't cost Scott McCoy any votes. But if I had abandoned my friend after he had asked me to help him out, I very well could have lost a close friend," Orton said.
[...]
"I'm very proud of that record I have in helping the party and helping Democrats," Orton said.
Orton also points out that McCoy backed a member of the gay Log Cabin Republicans in a Salt Lake City Council race. The council races are officially non-partisan.

Now that's interesting and I will be curious to see what happens.

But let's get back to our two Hillary supporting superdelegates: Helen Langan and Karen Hale. Both now work for Ralph Becker. And Becker is backing Obama. Obviously, Hale and Langan are entitled to their own opinions, and Becker isn't the kind of guy that would demand that they vote in lock-step with him. But Hale's waivering statement, combined with Langan's "call me in June" statement seem to mean that they too will vote for Obama in August.

So where does that leave Jim Matheson? Well, maybe Obama himself cornered Jim just off the House floor after the presumptive nominee made a surprise visit to the House today. The House is a treasure trove of superdelegates (235, more than were at stake on Tueday), 66 of whom are "undecided," with lots more that could flip Obama's way. There are many districts which Obama carried where the Member hasn't voiced their opinion. And many others, especially in the leadership (cough Pelosi cough) who are all-but-in-name for Obama.

Who knows what Obama's negatives will be like in late August, but I doubt they will be a bad as they were for John Kerry in 2004 and Denver is certainly not Boston in terms of optics. If I were to bet, I would expect Jim to show up to Denver and cast his vote for Obama along with the rest of the Utah delegation (save those Hillary pledged delegates).

why the nomination battle is now over

Jason The and Chris Bowers (along with many others) have rightfully wondered why in the world last night's results in Indiana and North Carolina were somehow definitive even though nothing fundamentally changed. I offer you this theory: TV pundits are wedded to polling.

Right before New Hampshire, polls showed Obama winning by double digits, as did the exit polls. But Clinton pulled out a narrow popular vote victory (the two ended up with the same number of delegates from the Granite State). This shocked and rocked the media's world. It enabled her to further "shock the world" in Nevada (with a nine-point popular vote win but tie in delegates) and in turn be shocked by Obama's giant win in South Carolina, where it was his turn to vastly out perform the polling. Obama didn't get a bounce out of Super Tuesday, because lots of polls had him barely winning or more narrowly losing states like California, even though he netted about 100 more delegates than Clinton did due to his small state strategy.

After Obama's 11-state romp (which also surprised the media to a degree), he promptly lost Texas and Ohio by more than expected from the polls. Ditto in Pennsylvania. This, coupled with Rev. Wright's sad exploitation of his 15-minutes of fame led to a media narrative that Obama was in serious trouble.

But then, Obama's victory in North Carolina was akin to those during his late February winning streak (and more importantly, bigger than the polling projected by about 6 points). The real mind melter, however, was the fact that Obama only lost Indiana by about 22,000, despite being projected to lose it by about 5-10%.

Obama has in particular the mayor of Gary and Lake County party officials to thank for delaying reporting their results so that Obama could dramatically "come from behind" when all the votes had been cast hours beforehand.

So to sum up, it is the psychosis of the punditry that was masterfully manipulated by Obama and his supporters that made this end. And it was the masterful manipulation by the Clintons and their supporters (and a function of the calendar) that enabled this race to last two more months past its mathematical conclusion.

And since media narratives drive the polling questions, and in turn, their perception of the public, look for national polls (which are irrelevant because over 95 of those polled will have had their chance to vote already) to show Obama with a big lead over Clinton and McCain (which is also irrelevant because Obama and the Dems haven't even begun to lay into Mccain--or McCain and the GOP into Obama) now.

[Oh and FYI: 1.25M+ Hoosiers voted yesterday for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. In 2004, John Kerry received 969,000 the state of Indiana...in the general election. Meanwhile, John McCain only mustered 77% of the vote in Indiana]