The story behind the case is as intriguing as the arguments themselves.  A strange alliance had formed:  Ted Olsen and David Boies were the attorneys on either side of the infamous Bush v. Gore case, in which the Supreme Court issued a bizarre “one-time, non-precedent-setting” decision that halted the Florida recount of the 2000 election, and effectively handed the election to George W. Bush.  Ted Olsen had argued for Bush’s side of the case, and he would go on to become Attorney Solicitor General during Bush’s presidency.  There is no mistaking Olsen’s politics: He’s a conservative.  So one might expect that Gore’s counsel in Bush v. Gore, David Boies, would be a man of liberal leanings….but this is not the case.  In fact, Boies had been the president of his school’s Young Republicans…and his legal interests seemed to lie in the areas of anti-trust and intellectual properties issues, more than in anything distinctly partisan, political, or liberal.

But there’s no debating that the men had argued as bitter rivals during the Bush v. Gore case, so it might come as a surprise that they now, as a matter of personal choice and initiative, decided to take up the fight to legalize same-sex marriage, working together on the same side of the courtroom aisle.  As I said, it may surprise you…but it shouldn’t.  Whatever the politics of these two men may be, they both are experts in Constitutional law…and to read Olsen’s recent essay for Newsweek, it becomes apparent to even the most casual reader that the body of American law clearly supports only one side of the argument.  I STRONGLY urge everyone to read Olsen’s essay here, or watch this clip where he explains his motives.  For the purposes of continuing this essay, I will summarize:

Olsen…had an issue he couldn’t quite reconcile. As a conservative, he had long been against the idea of gay marriage…and as a lawyer, he had never really inspected the issue.  Eventually, this represented an ideological “imbalance” that could not be maintained.  He examined the issue himself, in terms of both the history of our nation and the law…and he simply could not find a legal argument against the legalization of gay marriage, and he found several supporting it.  So he talked to conservative friends, particularly friends who were also attorneys and legal experts, and he put before them a simple proposition:  Provide me with a legal argument why same-sex couples should be denied the right to marry.  They couldn’t.  Many of them admitted it.  They were able to provide religious arguments, and some “it just seems wrong” arguments…but nothing legal, nothing constitutional.  Upon further reflection of the social and economic benefits of marriage within a society such as ours…Olsen realized something else:  He not only found that denying gay citizens the right to marry was clearly unconstitutional, but he also found considerable societal merits to allowing same-sex marriages.  He even found social benefits that appealed to him as a conservative.

With these personal discoveries in hand, Olsen allied with Boies, and they challenged Proposition 8.

Nobody had much of an inkling as to the legal “chances for success.“  But they should have.  They won.

The decision, once read, makes it very clear just how obvious, from a legal and constitutional perspective, this issue really is.  Again, I suggest reading it here, but seeing as it is a 138-page ruling, I will provide a summary of its contents:

PLAINTIFFS’ CASE:

After a brief description of the contents of Proposition 8, and the legal history surrounding it, the ruling begins describing the case against Proposition 8 on page 5.  It couldn’t be simpler, and it is PURELY legal.  In fact, not only is it a purely legal argument in nature…it is purely constitutional in nature (that is to say, it is based on constitutional arguments and not merely based on statutes and/or case precedent).

First, Proposition 8 violates the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution., because the State is denying individuals the freedom to choose who they will marry.  Period.

Secondly, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, because the State is denying a right to one group (gays and lesbians) that it provides to another (heterosexuals).  Period.

That’s it.  That’s the entirety of the plaintiffs’ argument.  That’s why I have long wondered why this battle has taken so long to be decided…the law, the CONSTITUTION, seems so very clear on this point.

PROPONENTS’ CASE:

The case in support of Proposition 8 is, well, let’s just say it doesn’t appear to be legal in nature.  Which is, of course, interesting….because this is a legal proceeding to determine whether or not a LAW is CONSTITUTIONAL or not.  One would assume that the LEGAL defenders of the measure would bring some LEGAL arguments to court…if they existed.  Their argument was as follows:

First, since the stated purpose of Proposition 8 is to protect heterosexual marriage and not to “attack the gay lifestyle“…it does no harm to gay citizens.

Secondly, it’s really about protecting the children, because legalized gay marriage would mean that teachers might teach children that gay marriage exists, and that it is equal to heterosexual marriage…and children should not have to hear such things: “We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our own kids that gay marriage is ok.”

Third, a primary goal of the State is to encourage procreative sexual relationships (in marriage, or out of wedlock…intentional pregnancies, and accidental ones)…and to encourage people procreating to enter into heterosexual marriage, which they deem to be the “statistically optimal” environment for procreative sex and for childrearing.

Fourth, since California does allow domestic partnerships, even though these partnerships are not equal in legal rights and privileges, they have given gay citizens a “choice,” so the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated.

PROPONENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT:

When the supporters of Proposition 8 asked for summary judgment, the judge asked them a simple question:  Even IF it were true that the State’s only interest in marriage were procreative, how would allowing gay people to marry harm procreation?

Their response:  That’s not the “legally relevant question,” and then when pushed further…”Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know.”

The motion was denied, but not before proponents promised to provide TWENTY-THREE reasons that same-sex marriage is harmful to heterosexual marriage.  The judge notes in his ruling that later…they would only produce one witness and that “he provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.”

WITNESSES:

Without going into detail on each witnesses’ testimonial, the plaintiff’s in this case brought forward EIGHT lay witnesses, as well as NINE expert witnesses.  The proponents…called only one.

The judge indicates that the questioning focused on the following points:

“WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO

RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX;

WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN

DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS; and

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE

MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST.“

The four plaintiffs in the case testified about their personal wishes to be married, and how they felt they had been harmed by the Proposition 8 campaign, and by the practice of banning same-sex marriage.

The nine experts talked about the social, economic, and psychological benefits of marriage, both to the individuals forming the union, and to society at large.  They also discussed historical limitations to marriage, such as those based on race or other prejudices, and drew comparisons.  They established that no meaningful differences exist between heterosexual and homosexual couples, except in terms of procreational sexual activity.  They testified that, statistically, same-sex couples are every bit as stable and lasting, and every bit as capable of raising well-adjusted children.  They testified that they can see no reason why same-sex couples ability to marry would in any way hinder or discourage heterosexual couples from marrying.  Their experts showed that parents with no “biological link” to their children, as is the case with adoptive parents, actually outperform biological parents in some situations.  They clearly showed that “domestic partnerships” are not equal to marriages in any social or legal way, nor do they enjoy the same cultural esteem.

And…perhaps most importantly…the experts told the court the obvious truth:  the true motive behind the Proposition 8 measure, and historically all measures like it…is FEAR.  They discussed the pervasive attempts over the years to brand homosexuality as “immoral” and homosexuals as a “danger to children.“  The experts even used some of Proposition 8′s proponents’ arguments against them; During the public campaign to gain support for the measure, Proposition 8 advocates told the public that homosexuals were “more likely to molest children” and that failure to pass the measure would cause the states “one-by-one to fall into Satan’s hands.”

The proponent’s sole witness, David Blankenhorn, well, he held to the idea that the primary purpose of marriage is to “regulate filiation” (ie. control sex so that it is used for making babies in an optimal environment), and then…

…he conceded that legalized same-sex marriage would be beneficial to California, and to gay citizens, and a “victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion“…

…he conceded that, while he thinks same-sex marriage could somehow “weaken” heterosexual marriage, he could not say how or why it would do so…

…he conceded that, while he holds that parents with a biological link to their children are preferred, studies suggest that adoptive parents can actually outperform biological parents in “providing protective care.”

CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS:

What follows in the ruling, is the judge’s determination for credibility for each of the witnesses.  He found the plaintiffs and the other four lay witnesses for the plaintiffs to be credible, and the plaintiffs’ nine experts to be “amply qualified.”

On the other hand…the judge points out that the proponents withdrew all but one of their witnesses, citing that their experts feared for their “personal safety” if the proceedings were broadcast.  The judge also mentions that once it had been established that the proceedings WOULD NOT be broadcast in any way…proponents still only produced one witness.  And that witness, Blankenhorn…while a self-proclaimed expert in “marriage, family, and child well-being,” he had no degree in sociology, psychology, or anthropology…and even Blankenhorn admitted that his knowledge came from “read[ing] articles and ha[ving] conversations with people, and tr[ying] to be an informed person about it.“  In the end, the judge determined that Blankenhorn’s testimony did NOT constitute “expert testimony” and was therefore “inadmissible opinion testimony” since Federal Rule of Evidence 702 dictates that expert testimony must actually contain actual “FACTS OR DATA” that were gathered using “RELIABLE PRINCIPLES AND METHODS.”

And then…to drive home the point that Blankenhorn’s testimony was not based on data that had been properly gathered, on pages 41 through 49 the judge points out (and provides research citations) all the places where Blankenhorn was factually WRONG.

AND SO ON:

The next 55 pages of the ruling concern themselves with the many “Findings of Fact” noted during the course of the trial…and are followed on page 109 by the “Conclusions of Law.“  After a lengthy and thorough examination of each side’s key positions, Judge Walker concludes:

1 - Preserving the “definition of marriage” as being between a man and a woman?  He writes: “Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law…tradition of restricting an individual’s choice of spouse based on gender does not rationally further a state interest…”

2 - The need to “act with caution” when implementing social changes?  He writes: “Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial sufficient to rebut any claim that marriage for same-sex couples amounts to a sweeping social change…the evidence shows beyond debate that allowing same-sex couples to marry has at least a neutral, if not a positive, effect on the institution of marriage and that same-sex couples’ marriages would benefit the state.”

3 - Opposite-sex parents are superior in parenting, and would be harmed by same-sex couples being allowed to marry?  He writes: “The evidence supports two points which together show Proposition 8 does not advance any of the identified interests…same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents are of equal quality…and Proposition 8 does not make it more likely that opposite-sex couples will marry and raise offspring…”

4 - Allowing same-sex marriage would violate the First Amendment rights of those who oppose gay marriage to disagree with the practice, and who wish to teach their children to reject same-sex marriage?  He writes: “These purported interests fail as a matter of law.  Proposition 8 does not affect any First Amendment right or responsibility of parents to educate their children…Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex.”

5 - The state has an interest in treating same-sex couples as different from opposite-sex couples?  He writes: “Here, proponents assume a premise that the evidence thoroughly rebutted: rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same.  The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”

6 - Catchall…any other reasons?  He writes: “…proponents, amici and the court, despite ample opportunity and a full trial, have failed to identify any rational basis Proposition 8 could conceivably advance.”

He goes on to say, “In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate. See Romer, 517 US at 633; Moreno, 413 US at 534; Palmore v Sidoti, 466 US 429, 433 (1984) (“[T]he Constitution cannot control [private biases] but neither can it tolerate them.”).”

And in his conclusion: “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

CLOSING THOUGHT:

I suppose the issue of gay marriage has always been somewhat of a mystery to me.

It would seem, in a nation of laws (and lawyers!) that there would be enough people knowledgeable enough on the subject of the law, on the Constitution, on Due Process…that such a clear-cut legal issue would have been resolved long ago.  But it hasn’t…

It would seem, in a nation full of people who were at one time discriminated against in the exact same ways, using the exact same arguments…I’m talking to you, Native Americans, women, and African Americans…that there would be a multitude of people able to say, “Hey!  I know what you are doing…we have seen these tricks and faulty arguments before…you did this to us, and we’re not going to let you do it to someone else!“  But that hasn’t happened either…

The fact that it is still yet to be resolved shows the sheet power of prejudice when mixed with tradition and/or religion.  It renders citizens blind to their own hypocrisy, as many of them will completely reject the discrimination of the past, while actively calling for discrimination in the present.  At one point, those opposed to marriage between black and white citizens quoted moral, scientific, and biblical rationales…and if you went up to your average Proposition 8 supporter, they would tell you that that is WRONG…and then they would turn around and use the same “moral arguments,” bogus science, and biblical references to condemn same-sex marriage.

But in the end they will fail.  Because it’s not about their pious, self-proclaimed “moral authority.”  And it’s certainly not about their religion.  And the science and social data is not on their side.

It’s about the law.  We are a nation of laws.  We are all bound by these laws, and sheltered by the protection they provide.  We are fortunate that these laws are applied in a way that is designed to treat us all equal…and that will not allow some among us to be treated as “less equal” for very long.

…and there are always plenty of links, so let’s get started…

POLITICIANS BEHAVING BADLY:

• Representative Gregg Harper’s (R-MS) organization, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, has been recently called “bipartisan” by Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE).  When asked by Polico’s reporter, “What in the world does the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus do,” one might reasonably expect would be an answer along the lines of, “we support the rights and interests of sportsmen, fishermen, and hunters, in Congress.“  What one might NOT expect, was Harper’s response: “We hunt liberal, tree-hugging Democrats, although it does seem like a waste of good ammunition.“  Very nice…very responsible…very bipartisan.
• Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN), known most for conspiracy theories verging on the truly bizarre, has declared that she will not run for the presidency in 2012.  Which makes sense…since she may not even be able to win re-election for the seat she currently holds, as the residents of her district have grown more than a bit weary of her embarrassing statements, and the negative attention they attract.  However, Bachmann did provide an interesting recommendation for who she thinks SHOULD run:  Representative Steve King (R-IA).  That’s right…she’s recommending the man who brought us such hits as being the only vote against a resolution stating that it was wrong to use slaves to build our Capitol,  sponsoring his own resolution “recognizing the importance of Christians and the Christian faith,” and very recently stating that gay rights are a “purely socialist concept.”  Way to really think it through, Michele…he is a winner.
• I guess Republicans just LOVE Twitter.  It’s also being reported…that they love setting up fake Twitter accounts and webpages, where they pretend to be particular Democratic legislators and candidates.  They then use these fraudulent accounts to misinform and offend voters.  Twitter has caught on and is trying to close all the accounts being used by Republicans in this way.  I think I may know why they like Twitter more than actual blogs:  on Twitter nobody expects you to actually use facts and defend your position…you can get away with just blurting out a few words of nonsense.
• The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has put out an ad, claiming that Republicans have wasted over 1,000 hours in the Senate, through exploitation of parliamentary rules and procedures.  The DSCC does little to show how they arrived at this figure…but I would guess that much of what the GOP has fought for in Congress also qualifies as a waste of time.  Need examples? This clip, a spoof on the iPhone commercials, has been making the internet rounds, and I think it nicely sums up the kinds of platforms and positions the GOP is using to distract our attention, delay progress, and otherwise hinder real issues from being addressed:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_IAN081P8I

THE MEDIA -- HACKS, PUNDITS, AND OTHER INVETERATE LIARS:

• A Telling List: Want to see clips of the “Top Ten Distortions Perpetrated By FOX News?“  Well look no further than this link.  It includes such highlights as accusing an Obama czar of condoning statutory rape, editing a clip of Joe Biden quoting John McCain…so that it appeared as if Biden said the quote, editing a clip of Barack Obama so it appeared that he supported a European-style health care system…when he was actually opposing the idea, AND directly repeating, verbatim, GOP talking points as if they were news.  Enjoy…
• Glenn Beck, Part 1: A Hollywood charity is mounting a push to encourage more Americans to volunteer.  Since Obama has also supported volunteerism as important, Glenn Beck could only imagine one thing:  That Obama is using Hollywood…to turn us into Communist China.  No, I’m serious…here’s what he said: “Celebrities are coming together to make it cool to volunteer. Disney gives you a free day at the park. This is all fine, but doesn’t it seem a little bit convenient that all of this comes out now at the same time the Obama administration is calling for it? Obama controls the message through the media he holds in his pocket. Or in his little hand. And soon if you disobey, he’ll just go [Beck slaps his hand]. Now the message will be embedded in television shows. Isn’t this great? Aren’t you proud of what we’re doing? Oh, this certainly is change.“
• Glenn Beck, Part 2: Why is it that every time I write about something Glenn Beck said, I feel the need to also say, “No really…that’s what he said?“  Well, Beck was busy this week providing more ammunition for whomever is filling out the civil commitment papers on him, claiming that progressives/liberals…wait for it…have historically tried to take away everyone’s individual liberties, and could also be called “tyrants” or “slave holders.”  <<Sigh>>…
• Neocon Frank Gaffney has claimed in the past that Obama was some sort of “secret Muslim,” that there is evidence connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing (there isn’t, of course, and shame on you if you didn’t know that), that Sarah Palin learned foreign policy just by living in Alaska, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (but that the media hid this “fact” from us), and that Democratic officials who criticized former President George W. Bush…should be hanged.  I tell you all this…so it will be of no surprise that Gaffney has no more decency than he has sense.  In a recent appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews, he told Ron Reagan…that his father would be ashamed of him:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMOBQZwDMAE

• John Stossel of the FOX Business Channel recently condemned Lou Dobbs’, of CNN, for Dobb’s ongoing “rants about immigrants wrecking America.“  Dobbs has now responded, and rather unkindly: “Fox Business News - their new hire John Stossel -- weighing in with his own brand of myopic idiocy and no information whatsoever sat down with self-described rodeo clown Glenn Beck…what a self-important ass…He doesn’t understand basic economics…He’s just a silly little trick waiting to do some sort of Libertarian flip…Immigrants wrecking America -  I’ve never said anything close to that. As a matter of fact, I embrace immigrants to this country, I welcome them, I want more -- and as a matter of public policy, we need them. In no way am I restrictionist, and to hear this ass continue his act over at Fox News. I just can’t wait until he starts blowing bubbles in the air -- that’s about all he’s equipped to do.“  That’s right Lou, you never said the “immigrants are wrecking America“…oh, except the time you accused them of bringing leprosy here…oh, or the time you claimed they were forming a conspiracy to take back their old national territory…oh, and remember the time you said they were a threat to the entire middle class, and working people everywhere?  Dobbs…before you start trying to play “friend to the immigrant,” and “holier than thou” with John Stossel…you might want to watch some your own clips on YouTube.
• How better to wrap up the “Media Gone Wild” segment of the post, than with an Ann Coulter item.  During her appearance on Joy Behar’s talk show, she stated that all Presidential assassins have been liberals: “As I have not only witnessed in my own life but described in ‘Guilty’, every presidential assassination or attempted presidential assassination was committed by some kind of left-wing loon, communist, anarchist, communitarian, or they had no politics at all.“  Behar attempts to point out that this statement is indefensible and patently false…but Ms. Coulter has never been the one to stop talking so that someone else can point out HOW WRONG SHE IS:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHBR8GYwtiM

COURTESY OF THE PENTAGON AND THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX:

• Apparently, there are at least 220 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Prison…which have been found to have had no ties to terrorism, 9/11, or to pose any other kind of threat to the United States…but we’re still keeping them in prison.  The Supreme Court is preparing to look at this problem…yet another in a list of how Bush’s use of the military prison conflicts with seemingly EVERY aspect of Due Process listed in our Constitution.  A reminder: the base/prison is technically “American soil” and the Constitution does not say that it applies only to “citizens” but rather to all “persons.”  On a related note, a group called New Security Action, with the support of a number of retired generals and other veterans, has released a series of ads pointing out that Congress should step aside and allow Gitmo, which has come to represent nearly everything wrong about the Bush-Cheney way of thinking, to be closed.
• No surprise: Turns out the Pentagon was engaged in a highly organized program to sell the American people on the Iraq War and other Bush security policies.  Big surprise: Well…it wasn’t so much an “ad campaign” or a “public relations program“…as it was a series of psychological experiments being performed on the American citizenry.  Bonus surprise: One of the chief architects of this program?  He still works at the Pentagon in the same position.  Scully…Mulder…where are you when we need you?
• Most people were a bit surprised at the unmitigated gall of the 30 Senate Republicans who voted against Senator Franken’s (D-MN) bill, which would punish government contractors if they tried to keep employees from reporting rape.  Turns out, they’ve got company -- the Defense Department also doesn’t like the bill…because they would hate to have to do without KBR, Blackwater, and other companies that threaten/coerce/bribe victims of rape to be silent.

THE HEALTH CARE CARNIVAL OF DESPAIR:

• Amidst all the talk about a “public option,” few are paying attention to a development almost as big.  Democrats are very close to being able to strip away the anti-trust exemption given long ago to the health insurance companies, which has allowed them to behave as a monopoly.  Want to know why this is so important?  We know how the free market is SUPPOSED to work…but when a company is allowed to monopolize an industry or a region, then there is no competition to force the company to have fair pricing and offer good service…which leads to our situation today where the health insurance companies have high rates, giant profits, deny service, and mistreat customers.  Also…check out this map.  Yes, it’s disgusting: most states’ residents, RIGHT NOW, only have ONE or TWO insurers that they are ALLOWED to choose from.  “Free Market Capitalists“…are you listening?
• First it was “fat babies.”  Then it was “thin babies.”  Then it was “spousal abuse.”  What new excuse for denying coverage did we find out about now?  Yup…insurance companies, almost all of them, will not allow you to purchase a policy with them if you have been treated for RAPE.  To them…it’s just another “pre-existing condition.“
• The push for the public option is in full swing, and polls show it is working.  More of the public supports it each day, the House is within about EIGHT votes of being able to pass it, and we heard the surprising news today that the Senate may be within TWO votes.  Seriously: TWO VOTES.  Here’s a new ad, featuring Heather Graham, explaining why the option is necessary:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvaJYYeXf70

• Interesting fact courtesy of Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY): 55 of the Republicans opposing the public option because it’s “government-run” or “socialism“…they’re currently ON MEDICARE.  Weiner says, “Even in a town known for hypocrisy, this list of 55 Members of Congress deserve some sort of prize. They apparently think the public option is ok for them, but not anyone else.“  Yes, indeed.

GAY RIGHTS…OR THE LACK THEREOF:

• Wow:  It’s rare that someone actually ADMITS that their argument against gay rights and/or gay marriage is hollow and baseless.  Ross Douthat, conservative columnist for the New York Times, was asked while sitting on a panel for “young, bright, neo-cons” what he thought about gay marriage.  His response:  “I am someone opposed to gay marriage who is deeply uncomfortable arguing the issue in public.“  He explained that his reason for feeling “uncomfortable” discussing the subject, was because his argument against it is purely religious, and that it therefore represents “a losing argument.“  He even went so far as to recognize that because he is embarrassed that he has no real, factual objection to gay marriage…and because he is embarrassed to say what his objection really is…perhaps that means he needs to change his position and support gay marriage.  Wow.  Again…wow.
• Related to the previous item, a mailing sent out in Maine is attempting to persuade residents of the state to vote “Yes” in the upcoming ballot item to prohibit gay marriage.  The reasons that it proposes? I happen to have FiveThirtyEight.com’s summations of the reasons…first, the mailing claims that the new law permitting gay marriage “won’t make gay marriage equal to straight marriage. Instead, it will create a new kind of marriage in which gay people and straight people are equal.“  Well, besides not making much sense…that’s certainly not going to “stir up” too many people.  The second reason it offers: “…we may not have proven any connection between gay marriage and public education, our opponents haven’t disproven the connection, and it’s their fault that the subject came up.“  Impressive…that doesn’t really say anything, does it.  I mean, it sounds like it’s saying something…but then it just…doesn’t.  And third, the mailing offers that, “if gay marriage is upheld, then marriage will exist solely to make people happy.“  Well, it’s hard to see how that’s true…would gay people marrying suddenly make heterosexual marriages “meaningless” and about nothing more than “happiness?”  And hell, I know some people who will tell you that marriage has nothing to do with happiness at all…I’m sure they were just kidding…
• Meet Philip Spooner: Want to hear a86-year-old man…lifelong Republican…and WWII veteran who fought on D-Day…defend gay marriage with all his heart?  Yeah, me too:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEbJBFWIPk

• Despite the calls from Republicans that protecting gay Americans was the equivalent of protecting practitioners of  pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia…the new Hate Crimes Bill has passed.

MISCELLANY:

• The Nation, a well-known progressive magazine, is publishing a “companion piece” to Sarah Palin’s new book, “Going Rogue.”  It’s titled “Going Rouge” and features an almost identical cover, to match the almost identical title.  Some conservatives have complained that this might lead to some people purchasing The Nation’s book by mistake.  Perhaps they’re right…seeing as both books will likely be placed next to each other on a shelve in the “Humor” section…and due to the fact that many of the people seeking Palin’s book might not know how “rogue” is properly spelled.

That about wraps it up for this week in Reality Liberation.  Have a wonderful weekend, and we’ll see you on Monday…

To give you an idea of what often makes me so incredulous…here’s just a simple list of the top ten ridiculous and disconcerting things I read about JUST TODAY:

1 – Economics with Caribou Barbie: Wednesday, former Alaska governor and former VP candidate Sarah Palin performed her first paid speaking appearance since resigning as governor, in Hong Kong, for an investment firm.  While the press was not allowed at the gathering, smuggled-in recording devices quickly allowed the contents of her speech to be analyzed.  It is not surprising that she spoke for 90 minutes (although it is arguably surprising that anyone would listen for that long).  It is not surprising that she made repeated references to “Main Street, U.S.A.” and tried to play up her “down-homey-ness.”  It’s not even surprising that, despite claims during the Bush administration by her and other Republicans that it is unacceptable to criticize the president while on foreign soil…she did JUST that.  What is surprising…is her claim that the current financial crisis…is the result of “government intervention” and that THAT is the reason why it cannot be solved by government intervention.  When economists stopped laughing they were quick to point out…that the crisis was caused by the systematic removal of government controls and regulation that has been taking place since the Reagan administration, and by necessity…those controls (as well as new ones) must be put back into place.

2 – It’s Not News…It’s FOX News: Ratings are out…despite repeatedly being caught directly parroting RNC talking points…being caught inciting and sponsoring so-called “grass roots” protests…besides being clearly identified as allowing their pundits to use their network as a platform for conspiracy theories, racist sentiments, and wildly false claims…besides brazenly presenting right-wing biased “news“…FOX News placed ahead of all other cable news outlets with an average of 1,405,000 daily viewers.  By comparison, CNN was 21st on the list with 552,000 viewers.  FOX News was 4th, after Nickelodeon, ESPN, and USA…revealing the priorities of Americans to be cartoons, sports, bad tv dramas, and pandering to base instincts…in that order.

3 – This Just In From Bizarro-land: Orly Taitz, the “attorney” filing numerous claims (including two forged Kenyan birth certificates) questioning Obama’s citizenship…has had her latest case thrown out of court by the judge who threatened Taitz with sanctions if there are further “frivolous” claims and said that she “…has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as president of the United States.  Instead, she uses her complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the president is ‘an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.“  Turns out…Taitz was representing a client…without the client’s permission.  The supposed client, Connie Rhodes, says in a formal letter of complaint that she was never asked for permission by Taitz to file the legal suit…and never gave it.  Rhodes also writes in the same letter that she plans to file a complaint with the bar association.  Taitz…wait for it…thinks the Rhodes letter is a forgery.

4 - They Want To Believe: I don’t know what is more disappointing:  the above piece…or the recent study by Public Policy Polling that shows that 42% of Republicans…believe that Obama wasn’t born in the United States.

5 – Delay…Delay…Oh Good, More Delay: By now, you may have hear that the Senate Finance Committee’s version of the Health Care bill is bogged down as they go through the “mark up” process, where the approximately 500 amendments to the bill (which are often times ridiculous to the point of being bad comedy) have to be individually examined and voted upon.  While the clear intention of Republicans on the committee appears to be to “stall the bill to death,” Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) was more obvious than most in his tactics.  He has called for a “three day delay“…so that LOBBYISTS can read the bill.  This is amusing for two reasons:  one…he is brazenly stating both his intention to cause delay AND to serve the lobbyists’ interests.  And two…it is obvious in reading the Finance Committee’s version of the bill, that the LOBBYISTS WROTE IT, and are therefore already quite knowledgeable regarding its contents.  Jay Rockefeller (D-W.VA) pointed out that these delays, and the inexplicable content of many of the amendments, show that “If there’s anything which is clear, it’s that the insurance industry is not running this markup, but is running certain people in this markup.“  Thank you Captain Obvious…and by the way, at their current pace, the mark-up will be completed…in seven months…

6 – He Was Someone’s Son…Someone’s Friend: A Census worker was found in Clay County, Kentucky…hanged and with the word “FED” written upon his chest.  Local police think it MAY be a homicide…but aren’t ruling anything out.  Meanwhile, sane people are calling for a more “civilized dialogue” before heated, oft violent, anti-government talk leads to violence…and the “wing-nut panderers” on the right, denounce anyone making such a “call to reason” as a “crybaby.”  It is important to realize in the midst of all the “anti-government” venom…that government workers, like this poor individual, have their own stories:  Bill Sparkman was a cancer survivor, and while working for the Boy Scouts of America, he discovered a love of teaching.  While undergoing cancer treatments…he enrolled to get his degree in teaching and eventually became a substitute teacher.  Not some “evil government bureaucrat“…not some “vile socialist“…just a good civil servant and teacher, who wanted to help his fellow citizens.

7 – Tortured Logic: Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) has formulated an interesting concept.  Perhaps sensing that Americans are losing their vitriol towards gay marriage issues…but still have strong reactions to “socialism,” King proposes that : Gay Marriage…is socialism.  King says, “So in the end this is something that has to come with a, if there’s a push for a socialist society, a society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together, living collectively off of one pot of resources earned by everyone. That is, this is one of the goals they have to go to is same-sex marriage because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. They want public affirmation. They want access to public funds and resources. Eventually all those resources will be pooled because that’s the direction we’re going. And not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept in the final analysis.“  I’m not usual in favor of news laws regulating behavior or speech…but there certainly ought to be SOME penalty for abusing logic in this way.

8 – We Don’t Need No Steenking Warrants: Today, the Department of Justice’s assistant attorney general revealed that some of the powers that President Bush (and previous DOJ officials) asserted were given by the Patriot Act…really weren’t.  In addition, during the same Congressional Hearing…the assistant AG revealed that most of the powers granted (and assumed) weren’t even used to fight terrorism, but were instead used in drug cases and other criminal matters.  At one point, while the DOJ official attempted to justify the use of “roving wiretaps” which do not explicitly state who or what is to be searched,  Senator Al Franken had to point out that what the official was saying…CLEARLY VIOLATES the Fourth Amendment: “…’no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized’…That’s pretty explicit language.“  The assistant attorney general muttered, “this is surreal,” and then replied, “I would refer to the other branch of government,” by which he obviously meant the courts.  If there is one person who shouldn’t have to be read the Fourth Amendment, and shouldn’t be irritated at having to obey the Constitution…you would think it would be one of the country’s TOP LAWYERS.

9 – Isn’t She Delightful: Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) posted in a conservative blog that they are “proud to serve” with Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN).  Any smart, sane politician would be working to distance themselves GREATLY from the increasingly unpopular, idiocy-spewing, electorally poisonous Representative from Minnesota.  That’s your GOP leadership, ladies and gentlemen…it should be said that later, perhaps after coming to their senses, the post was removed.

10 – Asking For Trouble: President Obama’s nominee to head the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which is in charge of highway safety…is Anne Ferro.  Ferro…was a lobbyist for the “Big Trucking,” and has been called “an apologist for the trucking industry.”  Really?  You picked a trucking lobbyist?  Three words: easily-avoidable-mistake.  No excuse for it…

It certainly is a strange, turbulent, and maddeningly misinformed nation that we live in…it says a lot about us that so many still have hope for a more reasonable and better time to come.