From the AP via ABC News:

Superior Court Judge Carol Ball sympathized with plaintiff frustration that the 91 year old law had not been applied recently, but was only reactivated in the wake of the ruling to permit same sex marriage but noted the law is being applied equally. The state is also blocking marriages if couples are underage in their state of residence.

The plaintiffs are considering an appeal.

In related news, on Tuesday, a federal bankruptcy court in Washington State upheld DOMA. An American lesbian couple who married in Canada will not be permitted to file bankruptcy as a married couple in the US. I have not read whether they will appeal. I would have to guess that a couple in bankruptcy proceedings cannot afford a costly appeal.

Meanwhile, I’m waiting to hear whether the Louisiana anti-marriage equality amendment will be decided by a vote on the Sept. 18 ballot. I had thought keeping track of the ultimate decision was confusing enough when there were two suits. In one article, I read there were three cases each with its own appeals. I understand there will be an important ruling on one of the appeals tomorrow.

The Washington Post is running a contest called “2004 Best Blogs - Politics and Elections Readers’ Choice Awards”. These are the categories:

• Best Rant
• Best Democratic Party Coverage
• Best Republican Party Coverage
• Best Campaign Dirt
• Best Inside the Beltway
• Best Outside the Beltway
• Best International
• Class Clown
• Most Original
• Most Likely To Last Beyond Election Day

What? No best cartoons? Never mind.

Nominate “Alas, A Blog”! In all categories. That’s right, both inside and outside the beltway. Both best Democratic and best Republican coverage. I don’t generally know any campaign dirt others don’t know, but vote for us in that category anyway. Of course, we will be here after election day, so type “Alas, a Blog” in that box too.

Click here to enter their poll. They will be taking nominations until Sept. 3rd, so nominate us now.

As many have heard, ultra-conservative Maryland radio talk-show host, Alan Keyes, jumped in to replace Jack Ryan in the race for the Illinois Senate. Although few believe Keyes can beat Democratic Nominee Obama, Keyes is fulfilling the universal expectation that he will be outspoken on the campaign trail so as to maximize media attention.

Keyes seems to have decided to fixate on this attention grabbing issue: slavery! He first alluded to slavery when criticizing Obama’s views on abortion. (For the story, read The Sun Times.)

Now, Keyes is discussing slave reparations. Keyes previously argued vehemently against monetary reparations for slavery. Yet, days after being booed by African Americans at the Bud Billikan parade, The Chicago Tribune reports:

Based on his justification for federal reparations, I gather Keyes proposes descendants of slaves continue to pay Illinois State income and sales tax, city and county taxes and local real estate taxes. After all, there was no slavery in The Land of Lincoln. It’s also not clear when he is proposing we start the clock. Is he suggesting we excuse all current living descendants of slaves and their children? Or, does he mean we excuse taxes for children and grandchildren, but not great-grandchildren, of former slaves? (The civil war ended in 1865. Are any grandchildren of slaves still alive and paying income taxes?) I doubt these details will be ironed out before the election in November.

Yes, I would like Keyes to clarify this idea a bit more. One question I really want answered is:

If you honestly support monetary reparation to this generation of African American descendants of slaves, isn’t this an unjust method to distribute the money?

The US income tax is progressive; social security taxes are regressive. Low income Americans currently pay plenty in social security taxes, but little in income tax. So, applying your proposal, low income African Americans would receive next to nothing in reparations. In contrast, high income African Americans would receive fairly generous monetary benefits.

If you wish to erase the lingering negative effects of slavery, wouldn’t it make more sense to design a program to benefit low income African Americans at least as much as a high income African Americans?

Asking that question, I realize the question I really want answered is this:

Aren’t you proposing a method of doling out reparations that no-one would support?

I guess we do know at least one African American wouldn’t get the income tax break. Obama. He is not a descendent of slaves.

Today, Matt Yglesias commented on Jonah Goldberg’s piece on Yucca Mountain, a proposed repository for radioactive waste. Both Matt and Jonah discuss the impact of this proposed repository on the future of nuclear power generation. Using nuclear power would reduce our need for fossil fuels to generate electricity, and thereby reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. This is one reason some favor the repository.

So,Matt Yglesias wonders:

I also don’t know the precise reason for Mr. Goldberg’s interest. However, one doesn’t need to be concerned about global warming to be interested in the Yucca Mountain repository. Whether or not we build more nuclear power plants, the US needs to find a better place to store the radioactive waste we created some time ago. Millions of gallons of waste are currently store at facilities like Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge and other locations in this country.

Having worked near Hanford, I am familiar with some issues associated with storing radioactive and hazardous waste using our current facilities. I thought up a few search terms, and googled to find links describing a few situations that have caused concern over the past few decades.

Issues at the Hanford site alone include:

• Waste leaking from million gallon tanks at Hanford. For information, refer to this PBS report. and this DOE report.
• Tanks that accumulated, and suddenly released hydrogen gas. Since hydrogen at sufficient concentration is flammable, these events lead to concerns that tanks could explode if sparks were generated should a sufficiently large suddenly release occur. Sparks are not ordinarily generated in tanks. However, the concern was profound. For background, read this 1990 report discussing 101-SY and other tanks. According to this 2001 Tri-City Herald report, tank 101-SY was taken off the federal watch list. )
• Waste stored in K-basin at Hanford. The basins, which are about 400 yards from the Columbia river, were built during the 50’s. They currently store decomposing fuel rods, and there are concerns over potential contamination of the environment. This 2004 Tri-City Herald report discusses progress on the clean up effort at K-Basin.

I am relatively unfamiliar with the pros and cons associated with using Yucca Mountain as a repository. However, I do know we that we Americans need a safe permanent storage facility for the waste we have already created. If we do not create a better facility, issues similar to the ones that have occurred at Hanford, and other sites will recur.

For more information:
Visit the: Washington Department of Ecology. The DOE’s office of waste management maintains a web page listing of “hot topics”, and LanderCounty.com supports a web site discussing many of the issues associated with storing waste at Yucca Mountain.

On Saturday, August 14, The New York Times ran an editorial discussing the recent California Supreme Court ruling which voided the same sex marriages performed in San Francisco. Their editorial included these words:

Referring to their comment about activist judges, David Blankenhorn, of Family Scholars, asks, “What could the editors be thinking?” He answered his own question as follows:

Was this what the editors were thinking? It is often difficult to guess what a writer may have meant by a short, rather vague clause. I tend to guess they probably meant what I understood when I read their word.

What did I think when I read those word? I thought they meant to suggest:

Conservatives often label judges “activist” after rulings they dislike. In this ruling, we have clear evidence these California judges are not activists. Had these judges wished to legislate from the bench, they would have interpreted the law to validate Mayor Newsom’s actions. Surely, at a minimum, activist judges would not have voided the marriage licenses. Instead, these judges interpreted the law as it is written.

Could the editors have meant something else? Of course. Is it an accusation? I didn’t read it as such, but possibly, it is. Mostly, I think it’s a fairly vague clause. The editors of The New York Times could have said whatever they meant more clearly, then we’d know for sure.

As many know, the case to decide the constitutionality of restricting marriage to heterosexual couples is pending in California. We shall learn then how these apparently non-activist judges rule on that case. If they rule to extend marriage to same sex couples, based on their interpretation of the California constitution, will conservatives label them activist? Or will they realize that sometimes constitutions guarantee a right conservatives happen to dislike? We do not know.

Earlier this week, KATC3 reported Judge Nadine Ramsey dismissed a suit to keep an anti-marriage equality amendment off the ballot. In that suit, opponents asked the amendment be kept off the ballot because it was illegally approved, and unconstitutional.

If I understand the opponents’ objection correctly, in Louisiana, amendments are restricted to having one object. As a voter, I see the advantage to this type of restriction. When I vote for an amendment, it is easier to decide my vote if the amendment addresses one thing only. If several topics are allowed, then an amendment might have one clause banning liquor sales while another might permit gun control. I might, in principle, support one and oppose the other. (Yes, it’s an absurd example, but that’s the sort of thing that would be possible. )

Regarding the Louisiana anti-marriage equality amendment, opponents say:

As with all amendments, various people have argued over what the amendment means. As usual for anti-marriage amendment, the discussion revolves around the meaning extra clauses discussing the ‘legal incidents of marriage’. HRC provides some discussion.

Presumably, if the amendment bars same sex marriage, and then does something else too, that would be more than one objective. On the other hand, as usual, some claim the second clause doesn’t really do much a all. In that case, presumably, there would only be one objective. (But, then one must ask, what’s the purpose of the second clause?)

The Judge Nadine Ramsey did not decide on the “multiple objective” issue, but stated the case should have been filed in Baton Rouge, not Louisiana. See KATC3

Despite that ruling, the amendment will not appear on the Sept. 18 ballot, because of the outcome of another suit. AP News reports:

Evidently, Civil District Judge Christopher Bruno so ruled because Sept. 18 is not a statewide election. We don’t know whether this particular amendment will appear in a later election.

Is George Bush warming to the idea of states recognizing same sex civil unions?

365Gay.com reports:

Bush still backs an amendment banning marriage equality. Presumably, we will hear more on the President’s evolving position between today and the election.

Calif. Court Voids S.F. Same-Sex Marriages

The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that SF mayor Newsom overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples. This part of the ruling was expected.

They also ruled 5-2 to void the marriages performed between Feb. 12 and March 11. This part of the ruling was not unexpected, but some thought the court might let the marriages stand.

While the marriages have been set aside, the ruling actually addresses the narrow question about local authorities power to bypass state, judicial and legislative branches. Specifically:

So, from a legal point of view, this ruling is not about the constitutionality of banning or permitting same sex marriage, per se. The “honest to goodness” same sex marriage cases have been filed, but will likely not reach the California Supreme Court for a year.

===
Added later.
Eugene Volokh comments on the ruling:

I’ve discovered Catholic World News, which often runs articles that amuse me. Usually, I don’t expect anyone else will find them amusing — I sort of figure you have to be a former Catholic to give a hoot. (Still, learning that a Nigerian Cardinal has banned jerry curls in church has just got to make everyone smile!)

Every now and then, an article touches on American politics. We hear about Bishops telling parishioners how to vote. We hear about threats to cut off communion. So, how are Catholics planning to vote? According to Gallop, it turns out:

Now, Catholics know that all Catholics must attend mass regularly, right?

Taken together, people who call themselves Catholic seem to support Kerry 51-45%. (The reported margin of error for the poll is ±5%.)

Now, I want to learn who non-practicing Protestants are voting for!

Michael Graham of the NRO seems upset.

Evidently, it bothers him that Bruce Springsteen has become politically active. Worse yet, Mr. Springsteen has the gall to discuss politics offstage. Mr. Graham laments:

I have always disliked entertainers unexpectedly turning paid performances into political advertisements. If I pay good money to listen to a concert, I want to hear a concert. I’ll also admit, I’m envious that famous people can publicize their view with such great ease. After all, Ted Koppel should clearly be televising my views!

Nevertheless, I don’t understand how anyone can think they have a valid reason to object when an entertainer decides to become politically active offstage. Musicians and actors have just as much right to discuss politics as lawyers, businessmen, owners of professional baseball teams or a paid political flaks turned editorial writers, like Mr. Graham.

So, I have to ask myself: “What, other than envy, could explain Graham’s suggestion that Mr. Springsteen does not have a right to campaign in swing states simply because Graham likes Springsteen’s music?”

Maybe readers can suggest other reasons.

No matter what the reason, I have some advice for Mr. Graham and others who squirm when musicians reveal their political views. If you no longer enjoy listening to any musician’s tunes for any reason, stop listening! Spend the money NRO pays you on CDs by musicians who share, or once shared, your views. Like Sonny Bono and Britney Spears.

NEW ORLEANS (AP)

William Graham was accused of pretending to make referrals, breaking appointments, and generally stalling women until the time limit of a legal abortion has passed. In some cases, the women had later term abortions. However, Graham successfully stalled a few long enough, and they are giving birth. The Times Picayune reports:

If you read the article, this guy was clearly lied a whole bunch. He was just wrong in, oh, so many ways.

It doesn’t sound as though he’s going to jail.

Newsday.com reports a favorable ruling in Washington State:

King County Superior Court Judge William L. Downing also issued a stay, so there will be no licenses issued until the state Supreme Court rules.

The Judge specifically discussed children:

I’m crossing my fingers and hoping marriage equality comes to Washington state soon.

—-
PDF from the Seattle Times.

Proud Parenting.com reports more than fifty couples signed up for Domestic Partner status in Maine last Friday:

It’s not marriage equality, but it’s a step forward.

Missouri Votes Tuesday On Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

So, if you live in MO, vote tomorrow, Aug. 3. Get your friends to vote. That’s all folks!

Distracted by HR3313 and the FMA, I missed HR4892, “The Family Marriage Law”:

This bill was introduced by Ernest Istook (R-OK) and 35 others on July 22. Evidently, it was a back up plan — introduced just in case the Family Marriage Amendment failed to pass.

In “Is Rep. Istook trying to overrule Marbury v. Madison?“, Eugene Volokh seems dubious about the constitutionality of granting original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. He is puzzled by the bill’s other provisions and language. He concludes:

Anti-marriage equality congressional representatives sure are creative. I’m not sure what they’ll try next, but I predict we’ll see anti-equality bill HRWXYZ soon.

I’m obviously fascinated by the subject of HR3313. The act is novel, and may or may not be constitutional. I was planning to re-post again when I’d accumulated a sufficient number of opinions. I am prompted to post by acomment by none other than Maggie Gallagher, a vociferous opponent of same sex marriage.

Maggie Gallagher suggests the law is likely is unconstitutional and would fail to block same sex marriage:

If her diagnosis is correct, opponents are wasting their time pushing the bill. That is, they are wasting their time if their purpose is to enact a law that will prevent same sex marriage. Ampersand and others have suggested introducing this bill is a political ploy.

Focusing on the law itself, questions seem to fall into two groups: Is the law constitutional? If constitutional, what are the effects of such a law?
Read the rest of this entry »

Maggie Gallagher recently posted a synopsis of reader email. One item struck me:

I am not surprised to learn children suffer when homosexuals marry opposite sex partners, become parents, and later find they can no longer tolerate the situation. I would not be surprised to learn these children suffered before, during and after their mommy and daddy’s divorce. Likely mommy and daddy suffered too.

This is one of the reasons I support legalizing same sex marriage.

As many read on Friday, (while I was nursing a really bad cold), Congress passed HR3313. This opinion from Oxblog:

For more, visit Oxblog.

I hope this law is unconstitutional. The idea that Congress can pass a law preventing the courts from ruling the constitutionality of a law is scary. I don’t care what the law is about. (Well, unless maybe the appoint me supreme monarch of the US!)

Likely, some of you are aware that Spain may be the next European Country to enact same sex marriage. The government passed a preliminary resolution on July 7; it seems likely same sex marriage will be available next year. (See Washington Blade.)

The Roman Catholic Church is not pleased. Last Month, The Pope expressed his displeasure during a meeting with Spain’s Prime Minister Zapatero. Today, Expatica reported:

I’ve Googled trying to find details describing the precise nature of the injustice. I have failed.

The Expatica article does list these three objections:

To point 1, I would responds, that marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is also the “expression of a love which represents the communion of two people”. Regarding point 2, I wish he would elaborate on the specifics of this complementary nature. What exactly is it? Why does it need to be demonstrated? If it needs to be demonstrated, why must it be demonstrated through marriage? Every marriage? Point 3: How does it represent a threat to the social order?

Maybe the Bishops have given answers to these questions. However, it seems whatever they are saying is alienated 1500 Spanish Catholics who sent letters renouncing their faith.

It looks like the Catholic Spain will, indeed, enact same sex marriage.

The FMA was voted down. Now we move on to H.R. 3313, The Marriage Protection Act.

This bill scares me, and not just because it prevent full recognition of same sex marriage. DOMA already interferes with that. While I don’t like DOMA, it’s not flat out terrifying. In contrast, the Marriage Protection Act has the potential to wipe out the separation of powers.
Read the rest of this entry »