Not to minimize the issue, but I note from the chart prepared by the Brennan Center that the measures appear to have already failed in 9 states (CA,CO,FL,GA,MD,MS,UT,VA,WA); and it looks as though the bills are already law in 2 states (DE,KS) and so appear to be pending in 8 others (IL,MA,MI,MO,NY,OK,SC,TN).

Posted at May 19, 2008 6:33 PM in response to CONFIRMED: 19 STATES HAVE VOTING REQUIREMENT COULD DISENFRANCHISE U.S. CITIZENS

There are some substantive rights that go with the decision(e.g., certain federal benefits accorded to legal marriages but not to domestic unions, recognition in other states).

But you are right about the underlying problem. Alas, there is little the Court can do about that. It can, and has however, removed the state sanction of the underlying societal problem. A small step perhaps, but one I think that must be taken.

Brown v. Bd. of Education did not make people immediately embrace each other regardless of race. It did however remove one important institutional sanction of racial segregation.

As you say, the societal problem remains. No mere name change is going to fix that. However, today's decision says the state cannot sanction the result of that societal problem. Further, as have other similar civil rights decisions, the decision makes available certain rememdies for denial of the rights that might not have otherwise been available.

As Lao-tzu said, "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step." Without the first step, there can be no journey. Hopefully today was one step.

Posted at May 15, 2008 7:45 PM in response to Marriage in California

A couple of notes. I am not yet clear through the lenghty opinion but I think the Court has struck quite a blow for freedom and equality.

Relative to the California Constitution's Privacy Guarantee:

"In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.

Slip Opinion at 66

and,

"Thus, just as this court recognized in Perez that it was not constitutionally permissible to continue to treat racial or ethnic minorities as inferior (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d at pp. 720- 727), and in Sail’er Inn that it was not constitutionally acceptable to continue to treat women as less capable than and unequal to men (Sail’er Inn, supra, 5 Cal.3d at pp. 17-20 & fn. 15), we now similarly recognize that an ndividual’s homosexual orientation is not a constitutionally legitimate basis for withholding or restricting the individual’s legal rights.

In light of this recognition, sections 1 and 7 of article I of the California Constitution cannot properly be interpreted to withhold from gay individuals the same basic civil right of personal autonomy and liberty (including the right to establish, with the person of one’s choice, an officially recognized and sanctioned family) that the California Constitution affords to heterosexual individuals. The privacy and due process provisions of our state Constitution — in declaring that “[a]ll people . . . have [the] inalienable right[] [of] privacy” (art. I, § 1) and that no person may be deprived of “liberty” without due process of law (art. I, § 7) — do not purport to reserve to persons of a particular sexual orientation the substantive protection afforded by those provisions."

Slip Opinion at 69.

Pretty powerful words. But wait, there's more.

In addressing the "Domestic Partnership is the same as marriage so what's the harm?" argument:

"Whether or not the name “marriage,” in the abstract, is considered a core element of the state constitutional right to marry, one of the core elements of this fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships. The current statutes — by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership — pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry. As observed by the City at oral argument, this court’s conclusion in Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, that the statutory provision barring interracial marriage was unconstitutional, undoubtedly would have been the same even if alternative nomenclature, such as “transracial union,” had been made available to interracial couples.

Accordingly, although we agree with the Attorney General that the provisions of the Domestic Partner Act afford same-sex couples most of the substantive attributes to which they are constitutionally entitled under the state constitutional right to marry, we conclude that the current statutory assignment of different designations to the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples and of same-sex couples properly must be viewed as potentially impinging upon the state constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry."

Slip Opinion at 81 – 82.

Only then does the Court go on to the Equal Protection argument:

"The current statutory assignment of different names for the official family relationships of opposite-sex couples on the one hand, and of same-sex couples on the other, raises constitutional concerns not only in the context of the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause."

Slip Opinion at 82.

My own humble opinion is that the Court did a pretty good job here. It is also worth noting that since the Court relied only on the California Constitution there is no available appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in this particular case.

People are people, rights are rights. Happy day!

Posted at May 15, 2008 6:55 PM in response to Marriage in California

I have always been proud to be a Californian, but today... well I have never been prouder. Happy day to all!

Posted at May 15, 2008 4:52 PM in response to Marriage in California

On reflection... I have come to the conclusion this is a bad idea. My rationale? Two words.... Lanny Davis.

Posted at May 9, 2008 6:00 PM in response to McAuliffe: Joint Ticket Would Be "A Great Idea"

A very good article. I thought the analysis in Mark Schmitt's piece is good as well.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/05/08/mark-schmitt-on-the-unity-ticket.aspx

Posted at May 9, 2008 5:47 PM in response to McAuliffe: Joint Ticket Would Be "A Great Idea"

I find solace in the comments that seem to show reality is finally settling in. Perhaps now the tone will change and Senator Clinton find her road out in her own time and fashion.

This can go a long way to jump starting the effort for the common goal of ending the eight-year disaster we've all endured.

As to the joint ticket. I think I need more time to make a more reasoned assessment. In the meantime, it seems I'll have plenty to read.

I will be perusing a series over at the New Republic that can be found here:

(http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/05/08/ed-kilgore-on-the-unity-ticket.aspx)

Posted at May 9, 2008 5:25 PM in response to McAuliffe: Joint Ticket Would Be "A Great Idea"

Hence my reference to Eugene Robinson.

Posted at May 9, 2008 1:52 PM in response to It Is Not Racism

It is racist and elitist and cynical and manipulative. It should be offensive to just about everyone.

It offends me and I've been mulling it over and over to find a way to articlate why. Fortunately, Eugene Robinson has captured it quite nicely:

"Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry."

(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/desperate_clinton_is_danger_to.html)

That's it! Apparently, her opinion of those "hard working white americans" she speaks of is actually so low that she believes they will never vote for a black candidate simply because they are white?

Rather than lift, she chooses to play to the lowest common denominator out of perceived self-interest without regard to the greater good or the ultimate consequence.

Cynical, manipulative, elitist, racist and very sad.

Posted at May 9, 2008 1:26 PM in response to It Is Not Racism

Dear Clinton Campaign,

Please see the following from today's NYT, and remember they endorsed you.

"But we believe just as strongly that Mrs. Clinton will be making a terrible mistake — for herself, her party and for the nation — if she continues to press her candidacy through negative campaigning with disturbing racial undertones. We believe it would also be a terrible mistake if she launches a fight over the disqualified delegations from Florida and Michigan.

The United States needs a clean break from eight catastrophic years of George W. Bush. And so far, Senator John McCain is shaping up as Bush the Sequel — neverending war in Iraq, tax cuts for the rich while the middle class struggles, courts packed with right-wing activists intent on undoing decades of progress in civil rights, civil liberties and other vital areas."

(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09fri1.html?ref=opinion)

Please.

Posted at May 9, 2008 12:22 PM in response to Hillary Campaign Emails Out "Electability" Power-Point To All House Dems