Considerettes

The California State Supreme Court decided yesterday that the millennia-old understanding of what marriage is, isn’t.

California’s Supreme Court quashed a ban on gay marriage in a historic ruling here Thursday, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America’s most populous state free to tie the knot.

In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.

“Limiting the designation of marriage to a union ‘between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute,” California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.

When the debate on a state constitutional amendment defining marriage was in full swing here in Georgia, those against the measure argued that we already had a law in Georgia making same-sex marriage illegal. They said that, therefore, we didn’t need to change the constitution. But the Left in this country has decided to use the judiciary to do an end-run around when they generally can’t get past the people or their representatives, and then they complain when they’re met on that battlefield.

The California situation is a bit more convoluted. The article gives us that history.

Thursday’s ruling came after a long-running legal battle that erupted in 2000 when California voters approved a law declaring that only marriages between men and women could be legally recognized.

In February 2004, the city of San Francisco defied state law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, arguing that existing laws were illegal because they violated equal rights legislation.

A court later halted the issuance of licenses and declared that same-sex marriages that took place during this period were void.

However, San Francisco and civil rights activists waged a legal case arguing that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional and that the law should be struck down.

In 2005 the San Francisco Superior Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that there was no justification for refusing to allow marriages.

But the decision was overturned in 2006 by the California Court of Appeal, which ruled in a 2-1 decision that the state’s desire to “carry out the expressed wishes of a majority” was sufficient to preserve the existing law.

California lawmakers have also voted in favor of gay marriage but the bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said that the matter is for the state’s court system to decide on.

So in summary; the people said they didn’t want same-sex marriage, their alleged “representatives” decided they did want it, the governor stopped it, tossed it to the judiciary, and the judiciary ruled successively for it, against it, and now for it again.

And they’re calling this potentially historic.

Legal analysts say Thursday’s court ruling could have wide-ranging implications for other US states, noting the California Supreme Court’s history of landmark rulings.

Sorry, but this highly politicized process doesn’t sound like any sort of resounding history. Leon Wolf at Redstate picked out the money quote from the decision, and finds that the court didn’t really rule on constitutional grounds at all!

And, in fact, it ain’t over yet. Over a million signatures have already been collected to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November. If this gets on the ballot, given the voting history, it’s sure to pass. Expect histrionics from opponents.

And remember what this issue did in 2004 for George W. Bush. It brought voters out in droves to vote on this issue, and while there were in the booth, most pulled the lever for Bush. Could this put California in play for McCain?

Technorati Tags: California, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, California State Supreme Court, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Georgia, constitutional amendment, George W. Bush, John McCain

Popularity: 1% [?]

Townhall.com puts out, among many other things, a one-minute daily commentary by one of its contributors. This past Monday’s one was done by Michael Medved discussed the rising tide in the world as expressed by more pro-American leaders in countries such as Germany, England, Canada, Italy, Ukraine, France and others. (Sorry, no transcript, but it’s only 60 seconds to listen to.)

This seems to turn on its head the idea that our standing in the world, because of George W. Bush, is in decline. Indeed at this moment in time it appears to be on the rise. While those folks can’t vote in our elections, it will take away one of the Democrats’ talking points.

Technorati Tags: Townhall.com, Michael Medved, post-American, George W. Bush

Popularity: 1% [?]

(And I’m not sure whether it should be routed through the Self-Delusion Agency or Committee on Unwarranted Optimism…)

Bob Barr has just announced his candidacy for President on the LIbertarian ticket.

“My name is Bob Barr and I’m a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America,” he told a small room of reporters, pre-empting them by raising the obvious question himself: “You might say Bob Barr, why are you running for president?”

[…]

“Look, I’m in it to win it,” said Barr. “I’m not getting in this race to make a point. … I’m not getting into this race to be a spoiler — I’ve got better things to do.”

Well, apparently not.

This is the counterbalance to Ralph Nader that, I’m sure, Democrats have been waiting for.  But Barr, while he has name recognition going for him, is dropping another name that may make some folks wary of voting for him.

remains a candidate for president even though Sen. John McCain has surpassed the minimum number of delegates to win the nomination.

"Ron Paul tapped into a great deal of that dissatisfaction and that awareness," Barr said on the website. "Unfortunately, working through the Republican party structure, it became impossible for him to really move forward with his movement. But we have to have … a rallying point out there to harness that energy, that freedom, in this election cycle."

Of course, that name could also tap into a constituency that has been trying to "revolt" against the presumptive nominee, to little or no avail.  My hunch (and that’s all it is) is that Barr could indeed become a real spoiler for McCain if he can successfully get the Paul supporters on his side.  For now, they’re rather busy, so the extent of this support will probably only be known after the Republican convention. 

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article notes that the Libertarian candidate in 2004 got a little over 3% of the vote with no name recognition.  (Anyone know who Michael Badnarik is?)  Barr could easily do better.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Shire Network News #129 has been released. The feature interview is with Patti Patton-Bader, founder of Soldiers Angels, which organizes a surprisingly vast array of methods by which you, the ordinary civilian at home, can show real support for the troops. Whether it be by sending care packages, baked goods, blankets and cards, providing practical assistance for soldiers families, assisting chaplains with their work, or even organizing voice-activated laptop computers for wounded soldiers, Soldiers Angels can help you to help the troops. Go visit www.soldiersangels.org. You will also find news there of the Mom of the Year award that Patti received on Mother’s day in the US.  Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary.  (OK, not so serious this week.)

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News, asking you to "Consider This!"

We have a full-blown international crisis on our hands.  The world does not know how or why this situation continues to get progressively worse, nor does it have any satisfactory solution to the problem.  Scientists from across the globe have put their heads together and come up with precious little to solve something that primarily affects them, but its ripples can be felt throughout our everyday lives.

I speak, of course, of the plight of the Kilogram.  More precisely, the question of, "What is a kilogram, exactly?"  The story in The Los Angeles Times detailing this conundrum starts out like a James Bond novel.

Forty feet underground, secured in a temperature- and humidity-controlled vault here, lies Kilogram No. 20.
It’s an espresso-shot-sized, platinum-iridium cylinder that is the perfect embodiment of the kilogram — almost perfect.

In the more than a century since No. 20 and dozens of other exact copies were crafted in France to serve as the world’s standards of the kilogram, their masses have been mysteriously drifting apart.

The article goes on to say that some kilograms have been apparently sneaking out at night and hitting the Taco Bell drive-through and thus gaining weight, while others have apparently been watching their carbs.  The fluctuations have sent the scientific world into chaos.  "In essence," says the Times, getting to the heart of the matter, "no one really knows today what a kilogram is."

I thought that the Metric System was (allegedly) supposed to make everything so much simpler.  And yet here we are now, totally unaware of what a kilogram is!  It’s a unit of weight, for goodness sake!  I’m sorry, but if it’s that easy to forget what a kilogram is, I’d say that’s a good argument for bringing back the English system, or, as England has pretty much abandoned the English system, the American system.

That’s right, once again, America is going to have to come to the rescue of the world.  The military will have to be deployed, bringing gallons, yards and ounces back to a world gone mad.  Once again, people can extract their pound of flesh, give an inch and take a mile, rename the two-and-a-half-centimeter-worm, and stop having to sing,

You gotta have heart
Kilometers and kilometers and kilometers of heart

And since everybody knows that a pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of lead, there’s never any question as to how much a pound is.  As difficult as it may be to have to change so drastically, and as much as I know many countries loathe American intervention, I know you’ll thank us someday.

As for England, we’ll let you call it the "English System" again.  It’s only fair since you have, in at least one respect, stuck with those good old measurements.  Instead of the Euro, you still pay your bills in pounds.

Consider that.

Popularity: 1% [?]

A woman in southern Israel was killed by a Qassam rocket today.

A 70-year-old Israeli woman was killed early Monday evening from a Palestinian Qassam rocket which crashed into the backyard of a residential home in Yesha – a small community belonging to the Eshkol Regional Council.

Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.  Someone ring up Jimmy Carter and see if we can’t get him to stay a while in Yesha in the interest of the promotion of peace.  Worked in Sderot (for as long as he was there). 

Hat tip and other events of the day in Israel from Meryl Yourish.

UPDATE: Another post on Yourish.com by Soccerdad, notes that Carter was reached for comment.  Unfortunately, it was "content free".

Technorati Tags: Middle East, Israel, Islamic Jihad, Jimmy Carter

Popularity: 1% [?]

When he simply doesn’t want to be.  Dealing with people who have it in their heads that they really should’ve been the other gender is becoming less shocking in our culture these days.  The next step, however, is being taken in Philadelphia.

For school officials in Haverford Township, the challenge was daunting: What do you do when a 9-year-old student, with the full support of his parents, decides that he is no longer a boy and instead is a girl?

I’m wondering how many other life-altering decisions these parents have allowed this third-grader to make.

The government schools are more than willing to be codependent in this matter.

Parents of a third-grade student at Chatham Park Elementary School approached the administration on April 16 to ask for help in making a "social transition" for their child.

The Haverford School District consulted experts on transgender children, then sent letters to parents advising them that the guidance counselor would meet with the school’s 100 third-grade students to explain why their classmate would now wear girls’ clothes and be called by a girl’s name.

Some parents are, as one might expect, upset that the school is requiring that everybody else’s third graders now will receive this specific kind of sexuality training at this young age.  And they sprung this information on the parents at the very last minute.

"Why is the school introducing this subject to 8- and 9-year-olds?" wrote the parent who started the blog thread, which had been viewed more than 3,000 times as of yesterday. "Why were we not notified sooner. We received the letter today, the discussion at school is tomorrow."

This is not going to be very politically correct of me, but the group most in need of counseling at this point is the boy and his parents, not the rest of the 3rd grade.  This is not like complaining that you think your hair’s too curly or your nose is crooked.  This is indeed life altering, and allowing a 9-year-old to make this change seems like a huge mistake.  Fortunately, surgery is not involved, but changing fundamental identities at this point does not sound wise.

This also says something about our culture, that younger and younger children are, somehow, coming up with this idea and getting their parents to go along with it, whether those parents come along easily or kicking and screaming.  Something tells me that the Dr. Spock generation is less likely to put up a fight.

Technorati Tags: transgender, Philadelphia, Haverford School District, sexuality

Popularity: 2% [?]