Plus Ca Change, Plus C'est La Meme Chose

Rick Santorum, on the 700 Club:

[T]he consequence is very clear. Marriage loses its significance. People will stop getting married. Homosexuals will not get married; heterosexuals will stop getting married. And that to me is the real threat to the American family and to the culture generally.

Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia, on introducing an anti-miscegenation amendment to the Constitution in 1911.

Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery to black beasts will bring this nation to a fatal conflict.

Breaking the Law

Last week a writer in the NY Daily news argued that there's nothing in New York State's domestic relations laws which requires (or even implies) that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. As near as I can figure out, that 's true.

However, the state Health Department has decreed, without any supporting law, that this is not the case. This article here suggests that New York courts have only recognized male/female marriage, but without any context I have no idea what that means.

So, as near as I can figure out the Mayor of New Paltz is following the law, and the state's Health Department has decided it gets to make up the law.

And, besides, if same-sex marriage is already illegal, why is the New York State Legislature considering passing apparently redundant laws to make it illegal for a second time?


...CA Supreme Court refuses to take immediate action.

Nerd Pickles

When Nedra Pickler quoted John Kerry, she neglected to inform us that she was putting the quote in the wrong context in order to mislead her readers.

Scalia vs. Scalia

Geekable catches Scalia invoking the rulings of foreign courts.

Unprecedented Cooperation

Josh Marshall has a few comments on the latest 9/11 commission shenanigans. At issue is the White House arguing that the separation of powers means that Bush doesn't have to cooperate at all, and therefore we should all be amazed that he's cooperating at all.

But, this is just an attempt to reframe the issue from "what Bush SHOULD DO" to "what Bush CAN DO." Even if we swallow the separation of powers argument whole, it has nothing to do with the fact that the person who was at the helm of the ship on 9/11, particularly one who has turned it into his raison d'etre, should want to do anything and everything he can do help us figure out what went wrong on that day and what we could do about it the next time. The unwillingness of him and his people to do this is disgraceful.

If any of them are concerned about criminal culpability, I'll be more than happy to let them exercise their right against self-incrimination under the 5th amendment to the Constitution. But, aside from that, this has absolutely nothing to do with what they can do, and everything to do with what they should do.

Do the right thing.

Decency

Clear Channel is still running Michael Savage.

Howard Stern and others on his show quite regularly say things which cross the line into racism and homophobia, but it's usually done in the spirit of fun. I think reasonable people can disagree on just how offensive some of the things on his show are, but he's got nothing on Savage, or even Imus, where the racism is just mean.

Go John and Joe

Link:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nearly 5,000 Transportation Department workers face a furlough on Monday, a possible result of two senators using an expiring highway bill to force House Republicans to accept a two month extension of an independent investigation of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

``We all have a choice here to make,'' said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who along with Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., was using the highway bill as leverage to win an extension for the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, which is scheduled to finish its work on May 27.

He said the choice was between ``minor'' disruptions in highway projects and ``telling the families of those who died on 9/11 that the commission will not be able to complete its work.''

....Hastert caves.

Alternate Universe

Jim Henley has a post about contemporaenous opposition to the Kosovo intervention. I don't bring it up to debate that issue specifically, but to discuss the alternate universe the conservatarian crowd seems to have lived in from 1993-2000. In that universe, the lefty press, the "liberal media," and everyone to the left of Richard Nixon, were united in lockstep behind every single action taken by Bill Clinton.

The truth is, of course, the "liberal media" was brutal in their treatment of Clinton. And, the genuine lefty press, such as the Nation, Democracy Now, etc..., were even harsher. Aside from the merits of any particularly Clinton criticism, I'm just tired of idiots pretending that the media is tough on Bush but was soft on Clinton. It's just ridiculous.

Proud

According to Josh Chafetz, only 1 (guess which) Dem senator has come out in favor of FMA. A few more have punted, but still. Now might be a good time to make a donation to the DSCC.

I've been Profiled!

It seems so silly.

Torture Lou!

Go!

Laughable

I don't know what the hell to make of the claims by Tony Blair that intelligence officers always act within the bounds of national and international law.

I mean, even this liberal sure as hell hopes that isn't true. And any person with an IQ above 50 knows it isn't.

Nothing So Strange

I just watched the DVD of Brian Flemming's movie Nothing So Strange. It's an interesting movie. It's about the aftermath of the Bill Gates assassination, during which some "conspiracy theorists," unhappy with the official investigation into the murder, try and goad authorities into reopening the investigation and try and come up with their own alternative explanations.

The movie was quite good and quite relevant to the current situation. It really struck what I thought was the right balance. The investigators have only a couple solid reasons to question official reports, but mostly they resort to speculation and plausible "alternative explanations," though the solid reasons they have are more than enough to raise an eyebrow. The fact that the authorities quickly wrap up the investigation and seal the records is another reason to be suspicious. On the other hand, since they are left with little but speculation - sometimes reasonable, sometimes quite silly - it's easy to dismiss them.

The truth is, we don't know a lot about what happened on 9/11. There was little media or public interest in finding out the truth. There's plenty that is "known" which seems to be contradicted by fact, and plenty of things which are left unexplained. This frightening Gail Sheehy article lays out some things.

In the early days of this weblog I defended some of the tinfoil hat-types because at least they were asking the questions the nobody else was. And, it's hard to really know how to react when the Washington Post considers efforts to thwart the 9/11 commission to be essentially minor news. I have no idea what the Bush administration wants to hide, but I do know that the self-appointed guardians of our national discourse have been letting them get away with it for far too long.

It was the Day That Changed Everything, and for some reason no one seems to give a shit.

Moonie Thursday

John Gorenfeld looks into the fact that the CDC is enlisting the aid of members of the pro-gay-genocide cult.

Rosie Gets Married

The recent legal troubles of Rosie O'Donnell gave her, and should give us, a deeper understanding of why marriage rights are so important.

Would the media giant Gruner & Jahr have decided to sue Rosie O’Donnell over the downfall of Rosie magazine if same-sex marriage were legal? Bizarre as it might sound, Rosie believes the answer is no, and her explanation is both fascinating and plausible.

“If you are a heterosexual talk show host and you’re sued by a major corporation, anything you have said to your husband is privileged information,” she said in an interview on my radio program on Sirius OutQ. She was referring to two rights of marriage that few of us ever think about—until we’re sued for $100 million, or brought to court for something far more minor. One is the spousal immunity privilege, which, if you watch enough Law & Order or The Practice, you know means that, in general, a husband cannot be compelled to testify against his wife and vice versa. The other is known as the privilege for marital communications, which protects confidential correspondence between spouses. These are just two of hundreds of rights granted by marriage—rights that gay couples don’t have.

“If you are a homosexual talk show host,” O’Donnell continued, “and you’re sued by a corporation, anything you have ever said and/or written to your spouse/partner/wife is allowed to be entered into the record. It is totally unfair.”

She believes that Gruner & Jahr’s lawyers were well aware of that inequity and exploited it to their advantage.

“Any and every thing I wrote to [my partner] Kelli, you know, which they were using against me, some of my essays—you know, when you get into a deep, dark place and you say, ‘You know what honey, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.’ Well, if the honey is the same sex as you, that is evidence in a trial, and that’s hard to believe in America ... . And if they didn’t have access to some of those letters I wrote to Kelli, I don’t think they would have sued me. Because, innately, what they were thinking was that I would rather give them money than show the truth of my darkest part to America ... .”

The Question

The members of our sacred press corps are a wee bit slow, but eventually they start figuring things out. And, they've finally figured out the question which will be asked of just about every Democrat between now and November - "What's the difference between a civil union and a marriage?"

Edwards got a version of it yesterday.

Speaking to reporters yesterday afternoon, Edwards explained that he personally opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions, and believes each state should set its own marriage policy.

When asked why civil unions could not simply be called marriages, Edwards said, "My answer is the same."

Asked why states, not the federal government, should decide policy, he replied, "Because it's something I think should be decided by the states."

And when asked to explain his personal opposition to gay marriage, he snapped, "I'm done with that question."

I knew this would happen. This distinction was always a sham, because it's a distinction without a difference. Unless the candidates can articulate what the difference is, it's a losing strategy. Until they can articulate the difference, the press will keep asking.

California Supermarket Strike About to End

Calpundit informs us about the details.


It's hard not to believe that this is really just short-sighted on the part of management. To the extent we take the "fear of Wal-Mart" argument seriously, this is just going to bite them in the ass. The source of Wal-Mart's strength isn't their low labor costs, though they have that too, it's their market power which allows them to squeeze every penny out of wholesalers. There's not much the supermarkets will be able to do to fight that.

When it comes to labor - you get what you pay for. Shopping in California supermarkets is different than in many places. Frankly, the workers are just of a better quality. You get good friendly service. The jobs are careers, and people treat them that way.

There are two fundamental ways to compete - price and quality. Wal-Mart will win the price competition game every time, even if Safeway cuts salaries and benefits. But, if they cut salaries and benefits then people may as well go buy their groceries at a Wal-Mart superstore. What will be the difference?

The Dems and Hate Amendment

I'm quite disappointed in the response of many of the Democrats on the issue of marriage rights and the Hate Amendment. I recognize that politics is always to some degree local, and at the end of the day of people can't get elected there isn't too much point in fighting courageous but self-defeating fights. On the other hand, people respond to leaders, and leaders are people who can get people to follow them despite disagreements. We need a few more leaders.

As I've said many times, I'm not a fan of the "I'm personally against same-sex marriage but we should leave it up to the states and I'm for this civil union thing which is just like marriage under a different name" position. I'm against it in principle and perhaps more importantly I'm against it in practice -- I don't for the most part think it's sensible practical politics either. But, I recognize that it is the default position of the Democratic party and it's sadly the best we're going to do.

However, I'm quite disappointed in the respone by the Herseth campaign to this issue. It's both offensive and legal gibberish. Herseth first came out strongly in support of the preznit on this issue:

Herseth backs the president on both counts.

'I agree with the president on this issue. Marriage is between a man and a woman,' she said."

which sounds like an endorsement of the FMA.

The campaign then released a statement to Kos which sort of backed off, but really makes no sense at all:

Stephanie and her campaign team understand the reaction to yesterday's news. Stephanie's position on the amendment is consistent with her position of the Defense of Marriage Act -- she believes the issue ultimately should be left to the states, whether they decide it individually under federal legislation or collectively within the ratification process. In this election year, we truly hope this issue doesn't distract from important discussions on issues like lowering the cost of health care, creating jobs, and getting our economy moving in the right direction.

the "federal legislation" part means in the context of being subject to DOMA. But, as for the amendment she's taking a non-position. I support the right of the states to participate in the amendment ratification process too, but it doesn't mean I support or reject any particular amendment.

The Herseth campaign should sit down with Daschle's people and come out with a position which is consistent with the principles of the Democratic party.

Loving v. Virginia

1967:

The State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so. Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages.

Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should follow the approach we have taken in cases involving no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection Clause has been arrayed against a statute discriminating between the kinds of advertising which may be displayed on trucks in New York City or an exemption in Ohio's ad valorem tax for merchandise owned by a nonresident in a storage warehouse. In these cases, involving distinctions not drawn according to race, the Court has merely asked whether there is any rational foundation for the discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of the state legislatures. In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race.

The State argues that statements in the Thirty-ninth Congress about the time of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment indicate that the Framers did not intend the Amendment to make unconstitutional state miscegenation laws. Many of the statements alluded to by the State concern the debates over the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, which President Johnson vetoed, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted over his veto. While these statements have some relevance to the intention of Congress in submitting the Fourteenth Amendment, it must be understood that they pertained to the passage of specific statutes and not to the broader, organic purpose of a constitutional amendment. As for the various statements directly concerning the Fourteenth Amendment, we have said in connection with a related problem, that although these historical sources "cast some light" they are not sufficient to resolve the problem; "[at] best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States.' Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect." We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished....

The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.

There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense."

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

II.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

NYT - Jews Control Hollywood

You know, I really can't believe this NYT article. You don't have to be Jewish to think Gibson's slasher porn flick, which rehabilitates Pilate to slam the Jews, is goddamn offensive. You don't have to be Jewish to think, after reading and watching Mel Gibson's interviews, that he's a total lunatic that no one in their right mind would want to work with.

Meticulously detailing everyone being interviewed's ethnic and religion background is really quite bizarre.