Forcing the regime to let the rest of the world save its people would have a devastating effect on morale. Burma’s leaders are so isolated and irrational that they actually believe their own propaganda about being the only group that can hold the country together. It’s possible that the junta would collapse out of sheer humiliation. It’s also possible, though it seems unlikely to me, that Burmese military units would be ordered to engage the foreigners. Shots might be fired, people might be killed. No one knows what will happen if British sailors and American airmen arrive on soggy Burmese soil. Hanging over the question is, of course, Iraq. No one expects an intervention to go smoothly anymore; now we expect it to go terribly wrong. I doubt the American, British, French, Australian, and other governments, with or without U.N. consent, will decide to invade Burma with boxes of oral rehydration kits and high-energy biscuits. But if the fear of Baghdad and Falluja is what keeps foreign powers from saving huge numbers of Burmese from their own government’s callousness, that will be one more tragic consequence of the Iraq.
On the other hand, if it’s going to be done, it should be done quickly. I know all the arguments why we shouldn’t. But there are at least a million counterarguments why we should.
A brief, decisive international effort to reach the starving and sick seems important to me. If it helps demystify this vile regime, great. But in its demonstration of humanity, it is also a great way for the US to enhance its soft power in the developing world. People remember who saved them. And sometimes, a bottle of water can mean a lifetime of gratitude. Bonus Burma blog here.
Bee Wilson considers the world food crisis. Money quote:
Even now, there is no over-all food shortage when measured by global subsistence needs. Despite the current food crisis, last year’s worldwide grain harvest was colossal, five per cent above the previous year’s. We are not yet living on Cormac McCarthy’s scorched earth. Yet demand is increasing ever faster. As of 2006, there were eight hundred million people on the planet who were hungry, but they were outnumbered by the billion who were overweight. Our current food predicament resembles a Malthusian scenario—misery and famine—but one largely created by overproduction rather than underproduction. Our ability to produce vastly too many calories for our basic needs has skewed the concept of demand, and generated a wildly dysfunctional market.
Wholly apart from the particular holding on same-sex marriage -- which
is plenty important in and of itself -- it strikes me that the most
significant legal development in the Court's decision is that it is (to
my knowledge) the first time any state or federal court of last resort
has held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is
suspect and thus subject to strict scrutiny under a constitutional
equal protection clause.
A fantastic article this morning by Dahlia Lithwick on those "activist" judges. Here's the lede:
When it comes to gay marriage, California is a hotbed of activism. Their activist Legislature has twice passed bills that would legalize gay marriage, and their activist governor has twice vetoed those bills. That same activist Legislature also enacted a ban on same-sex marriage in 1977, and its activist citizenry passed a statewide ballot initiative in 2000 doing the same thing. While polls show that Californians are increasingly supportive of gay marriage, other activist citizens have been collecting what now amounts to 1.1 million signatures to amend their constitution in November to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But then today the state's activist Supreme Court got in on the activist action, finding in a 4-3 decision that the California ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." That makes everybody an activist in California, just by virtue of the fact that they are acting. (Let it be noted that it's particularly activist of the state Legislature and its citizens to be banning and legalizing gay marriage all at the same time.)
The notion that courts have to do nothing in the American system - other than transcribe legislation - is a very strange and unconservative notion. Yes, they should exercise prudence and restraint. But they are there for something. And if they are not there to protect tiny minorities from majority oppression, what the hell are they there for?
Isn't it awesome that we haven't had to think about the Clintons for a day or so? The relief. Meanwhile, 538 reports that Obama is poised to clinch the pledged delegate majority on Tuesday even if Michigan and Florida are seated. And for those still in detox from Clinton meth, here's a bunch of self-centered, self-critical, anonymous emails from Hillaryland. My favorite:
"There was not any plan in place from beginning to end on how to win
the nomination. It was, 'Win Iowa.' There was not the experience level,
and, frankly, the management ability, to create a whole plan to get to
the magical delegate number. That to me is the number one thing. It's
starting from that point that every subsequent decision resulted. The
decision to spend x amount in Iowa versus be prepared for
February 5 and beyond. Or how much money to spend in South
Carolina--where it was highly unlikely we were going to win--versus the
decision not to fund certain other states. ... It was not as simple as,
'Oh, that's a caucus state, we're not going to play there.' That
suggests a more serious thought process. It suggests a meeting where we
went through all that."
It really does sound like the Bush administration in Iraq. But this is the clincher: for the "experience" candidate,
There was not the experience level,
and, frankly, the management ability, to create a whole plan.
"If you send in Western military forces, then you risk the backlash from
the people, from the legacy that was left in Africa because of the era
of colonialism."
And there's no colonial issue in the Middle East? Or religious one?
...the speech, and the accompanying ad released today, was organized around a description of how the country will look in 2013, after McCain's first term. This puts him in the odd position of talking in the past tense about the future, which both causes his promises to sound more arrogant (if not naïve) than they have to and robs him of the forward looking rhetoric a speech like this could lean on (that of, for instance, Barack Obama). The ad, with its prominent "2013" theme, makes this problem particularly evident. It is frankly reminiscent of this recent spoof of Obama. Why not speak about these goals as things you want to achieve, and tell us why the agenda as a whole suits the needs of the moment? Surely those needs, as McCain understands them, would make for a more coherent narrative than remembrances of days to come.
Contra Noam, Rick Hertzberg thinks the McCain Obama unmoderated debates are a great idea:
Obama’s biggest advantage, even bigger than all that no-strings Internet money, is that the policies he advocates are far more appealing than McCain’s. A face-to-face, man-to-man debate, unsullied by preening moderators determined to prove their toughness and boost ratings, would almost have to focus on policy.
Bob Barr, who wrote DOMA, supports the California ruling on federalist grounds. Meanwhile, a very sharp analysis here. Money quote:
The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the correct way to
characterize the fundamental right question is whether there is a
fundamental right to marry from which same-sex couples are
unconstitutionally excluded, rather than, as the state argued, whether
there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. The court referred
to Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, its landmark 1948 ruling striking
down the state’s law against interracial marriages. In Perez, the court
had not treat the question as whether there was a fundamental right to
interracial marriage; rather, the question was whether different-race
couples were being wrongly denied the fundamental right to marry.
Most economists believe that in the long run, the 2003 cut in the capital gains rate reduced revenue rather than raising it. For that matter, even the Bush administration's budget admits as much. Keeping the rate at 15 percent rather than letting it revert to 20 percent, it estimates, would cause a revenue loss of $79 billion over the next decade...
A low capital gains rate hinders the free market by inducing people (especially very wealthy ones) to find ways to take earnings as capital gains instead of ordinary income. In other words, it encourages them to do things that would not make economic sense otherwise. A modestly higher rate would discourage such wasteful avoidance.
If we could cut real spending, i.e. defense or entitlements, I'd be eager to keep taxes where they are. But at some point, we cannot keep deferring debt to the next generation. McCain seems to have forgotten this. Or rather pushed it out of his mind for political reasons.
Expect gay marriage opponents to ask the court to postpone the effective date of its order until after November, so that they can put the question to voters.
The California court cited the 1948 Perez v Sharp anti-miscegenation law ruling prominently in its decision today. If you believe that courts should have no role in opposing public opinion in areas of social policy, then the polls at the time make for interesting reading. Ten years after the 1948 ruling, Gallup fund that 94 percent of white Americans opposed inter-racial marriage. As late as 1967, when Loving vs Virginia was decided, a majority opposed it. That remained the case through the 1970s. In fact, the Perez v Sharp ruling was fifty years ahead of public opinion.
Yes he can! From his remarks today, an Obama-like theme:
If I am elected President, I will
work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. I will
listen to any idea that is offered in good faith and intended to help solve our
problems, not make them worse. I will seek the counsel of members of Congress
from both parties in forming government policy before I ask them to support it.
I will ask Democrats to serve in my administration. My administration will set
a new standard for transparency and accountability. I will hold weekly press
conferences. I will regularly brief the American people on the progress our
policies have made and the setbacks we have encountered. When we make errors, I
will confess them readily, and explain what we intend to do to correct them.
He's also hoping to reduce our presence in Iraq drastically in his first term:
By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen
and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her
freedom.
Most? So we're down to less than 70,000 troops by then?
Another thing worth noting about the California court:
All seven members of the California court have been confirmed by the voters. Kennard -- confirmed 2006 with 74.5% Corrigan -- confirmed 2006 with 74.4% Werdegar -- confirmed 2002 with 74.1% Moreno -- confirmed 2002 with 72.6% Baxter -- confirmed 2002 with 71.5% George -- confirmed 1998 with 75.5% Chin -- confirmed 1998 with 69.3%
Six of the seven were originally appointed by Republicans.
... more firings. McCain loses another staffer, and has pledged to re-vet his entire staff. Not the best news for the Republican hopeful. And did Bush's Nazi silliness unwittingly stomp on McCain's big speech today?
The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into "marriage." It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally.
The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could
distinguish between "marriage" (as a religious institution) and "civil
unions" (as a secular institution) -- i.e., that California law
could leave the definition of "marriage" to religious institutions and
only offer and recognize "civil unions" for legal purposes -- provides
that it treated opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. The key
legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining "marriage" for religious purposes.
And this:
No rational person can criticize the Court's decision here without
having at least a basic understanding of the governing California
precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that
understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of -- and
contempt for -- how the law works.
Okay, this one put me over the edge. Yes, I wept too:
I live in Texas. Rights for gay folks around here are
sometimes hard to discern. Daring to hope for a future of equal marriage
rights often just feels futile. So you just tuck that precious hope in
the darkest corner of your heart and cover it with the thickest of armor.
Because in the absence of the dignity of equality, it’s all you
have. And they can’t have it.
Today, I celebrated with my Californian brothers and sisters
from a thousand miles away. I saw their faces, I read their stories and I
wept with them. And I dared to hope for myself and my fellow Texans, just
a little. My little hope has outgrown its dusty confines.
The central question was whether the representative
nature of the California state government, including its initiative
provisions, would be upheld.
They were not. The California
Supreme Court asserted its ultimate power today in a way that is
shameful and deeply destructive of the ability of a free people to
govern themselves.
Does Hewitt know that the California state legislature, presumably part of California's representative democracy, has already voted twice to grant marriage rights? Does he know that the governor of California is backing the court? Or does he not care? How is it a "puscht" [sic] when the court actually upholds the legislature's decision? He's not the only one uninformed:
Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, accused the court of usurping the role of the legislature.
"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy
equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil
unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme
Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own
decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."
The salient question is: if the federal government section in DOMA is repealed, as Obama has promised, will the feds recognize civil marriage for residents of California and Massachusetts? If not, why not? Nada from McCain. He hates this stuff.
David Corn says the Edwards endorsement doesn't matter much:
Having John Edwards at his side during the general election will help Obama to a limited degree. But that won't do much to populist-ize the likely Democratic nominee. Obama--as would practically any Democrat--will come across as a populist and working-class advocate not by campaigning with Edwards but by campaigning against McCain.
But it would be a mistake for Obama to adopt any of the anger of Edwards' 2008 run. 2004? Sure. But there's a difference, and an Obama lunge for the Shrum line would be disastrous.
It seems to be taken for granted that John Edwards had some stranglehold on the working class white vote. But this was not really the case. The working class vote was not a particular strength of John Edwards in either relative or absolute terms.
Edwards’ working class appeal is more limited than it appears. Appearances, however, are important. While the endorsement may not help Obama with actual working class voters, it will help in the realm of media perceptions, which is the only game that matters at this point (sadly). The chattering classes perceive Edwards as having significant working class appeal. Thus, we’ll hear over and over this week about how Edwards — West Virginia aside — strengthens Obama’s working class street cred. This chatter, in turn, will help strengthen the resolve of superdelegates and other party establishment figures who are beginning to coalesce around Obama.
The possibility of talking to Iran's leadership is regarded by the Republican nominee as "unacceptable":
"The belief that somehow communications and positions and willingness to
sit down and have serious negotiations need to be done in a face to
face fashion as Senator Obama wants to do, which then enhances the
prestige of a nation that's a sponsor of terrorists and is directly
responsible for the deaths of brave young Americans, I think is an
unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the
knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments
that are necessary to preserve this nation's security."
Obama should not, in my view, concede the premise here. He should have a debate about whether in fact it is a good idea for the president of the United States to keep dialogue with our enemies as an option. What you see in McCain's and Bush's rhetoric is an idea that diplomacy and statecraft are somehow about conferring legitimacy on people and regimes anathema to us, as opposed to advancing the West's interests by a variety of methods: force of arms, diplomacy, alliances, etc. They seem wedded to a dramatic rather than pragmatic view of foreign policy.
But the result of Bush-McCain's position these past seven years has been the empowerment of Iran in the region, a vast increase in Tehran's pull in Baghdad, and Iran's rapidly advancing admission to the nuclear club. How could talking actually make things worse than they have gotten under Bush? What I'm saying is just that these are debatable issues - and McCain's desire to rule them out of bounds is an attempt to prematurely shut down a debate the American people have every right to have.
My Beloved, Samantha, just asked me to update my Facebook page to confirm that I'm engaged to her. My mother just called for the third time this morning and choked out through her tears, "I promise this is the last time I'll call this morning, but I understand that the proper
protocol is that the mother of the bride pays for the wedding." I've left a message for our minister to see if he is available in 30 days to officiate our wedding.
This marriage will allow us to be recognized within the state as we are recognized in our neighborhood, in our church, and with our friends: as a family with all the rights, protections, and responsibilities that come with that commitment. This marriage would allow us to expect acceptance rather than anticipate discrimination of our family. Marriage would protect our children. Marriage would attach recognition to what we know is true, that the love that brought us together as a couple and binds us a family matters just as all families matter. Families comprise neighborhoods, churches, friends, and the state. Families are why we have civil marriage in California and why our family deserves the same recognition.
I'm attaching a photo of our family. From left to right is Sophie (turned 8 last Friday), Samantha, Anneliese (4.5), and me. I figured since I've viewed your wedding photos, you should see a photo of my family. We are all looking forward to our marriage next month!
Gay American Lee Moulton reacts to a California Supreme Court decision to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage at the California Supreme Court May 15, 2008 in San Francisco, California. By Justin Sullivan/Getty.
Politically, I suppose this is bad news for the Democrats, but not nearly as much as in 2004. For one, it's not coming out of a candidate's home state. (How lucky was John Kerry to come from Massachusetts in the year of Goodridge?) For another, John McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment: He can't demagogue this, and he won't. And finally, the issue's simply becoming less volcanic as the issue is normalized. The way things are going, Mitt Romney will be leading a pro-gay marriage campaign by 2016 or so.
The opinion is entirely based on claims under the California Constitution, and does not rely on federal constitutional claims. This means that the U.S. Supreme Court cannot review this; and it also means that a state constitutional amendment -- which seems likely to be on the ballot this November -- could overturn the decision.
Without McCain-Feingold and without the Internet, Clinton would have crushed the opposition. But she didn't. And Obama caught the next generation's wave. Josh Green has a great article in the June Atlantic on Obama's fundraising. Full of new reporting, it helps put into focus the extraordinary breakthrough the Obama campaign represents in online campaigning. I learned an awful lot. Money quote:
Obama is a gifted politician by anyone’s measure, but what distinguishes him from earlier insurgents is his ability to fully harness the excitement that his candidacy has created, in votes and in dollars. Three forces had to come together for this to happen: the effect of campaign-finance laws in broadening the number and types of people who fund the political process; the emergence of Northern California as one of the biggest sources of Democratic money; and the recognition by a few Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and venture capitalists that the technology and business practices they had developed in their day jobs could have a transformative effect on national politics.
The Field poll questions have remained the same during the six
surveys analyzed here. In 1985, only 30% of those polled supported same
sex marriage. This increased to 38% in 1997, and the average for
surveys in 2003-2006 showed support by 43%.
While only 25% of those born before 1940 are in support, that number
has grown by 5% over these years. Those born in the 1940's are
supportive at 40%, also a gain of 5%. Similar 7 and 8% increases are
found for those born in the 1950's and 1960's, reaching above the 40%
threshold. Those born in the 1970's and 1980's are in support by 51%
and 58%.
There is no question what the future will be like. The question is whether the court has catalyzed it. The good news is that the Obama candidacy will doubtless increase the number of younger voters in California; the bad news for marriage equality is that will increase the number of African-American voters. Maybe the court's invocation of the anti-miscegenation precedent will help. But we have a big task on our hands - a $20 million minimum commitment. The prize is immeasurable: the establishment of equality in the most populous state of the union.
"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage ... and then sit down and talk with them. If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We
can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not
feeling that they need anything from us."
Grow up, Mr President. Be an adult, like your defense secretary.
"Their family relationship" is the most striking phrase in the ruling - even for me, as a gay man. It rightly identifies what is at stake. What a radical notion: that we can form a family!
Or that we are already part of one. Another worries:
As explained in one of the dissents, the California Court's majority basically ruled that, because the California legislature has recognized domestic partnerships (i.e., civil unions), the California Constitution requires that the state also recognize gay marriage. We should expect, in response, that other, less progressive, states will move to curtail or prohibit civil unions. Those who oppose gay marriage will argue - with some force now - that the only way to prevent a court from recognizing gay marriage by judicial fiat is to prevent civil unions. Because otherwise, a state court may bootstrap a gay marriage right onto any (democratically created) civil union laws.
The decision is an arrogant, impatient one. My gay friends are impatient, and I understand their impatience. But the Court should have trusted the people.
Drum has information on the ballot initiative that would reverse today's ruling:
...the initiative to strike down their ruling has already gathered over a million signatures and is just waiting for verification from the Secretary of State before it goes on the November ballot. It's 14 words long, identical to the wording of Prop 22 back in 2000: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This time, however, it's a constitutional initiative, not a statutory initiative, so if it passes it will be immune to court challenges.
Prop 22 passed overwhelmingly with 63% of the vote. Has 13% of the state decided to relax since then and allow gay couples to live in peace? We're about to find out.
That was eight years ago before marriages had become legal in California and Massachusetts. The current polling shows the state evenly divided.
(Photo: Christmas Leubrie wears a pro same-sex marriage button on her dress as
she awaits a California Supreme Court decision to overturn the ban on
same-sex marriage at the California Supreme Court May 15, 2008 in San
Francisco, California. By Justin Sullivan/Getty.)
"I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
...this is not the final word. We are not yet sure whether a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in the California Constitution received enough signatures to make it on the ballot in November.
But whatever you are doing right now, stop for a moment to celebrate an important change. Now one of ten Americans live in a state in which gay people are accorded full equality under the law.
So four years - almost to the day - since couples began marrying in Massachusetts, the California Supreme Court has handed the marriage equality movement its biggest win yet.
As usual, the lazy critics are uninformed. The California court has not over-ruled the legislature: in fact, the legislature has voted for full marriage equality twice already. And the court has not "created" a right to marriage for gay couples. It has argued that if the state has conceded that domestic partners should have, under state law, all the benefits and responsibilities of married couples, the designation of a separate and distinct category must be suspect, under strict scrutiny, to the inference that the designation is based on a desire to deny gay couples equal dignity and recognition. This is the same point I've made in the past; isn't constructing a separate and distinct category an example of pure animus? You have conceded the substance, but cannot concede the name. Since no heterosexual couple's rights would be affected in any way, what exactly is the rationale for maintaining the distinction? Except bias?
One other political note: the Republican governor of the state, Arnold, has already come out against the ballot initiative designed to reverse this ruling. And the initiative will not be able to affect the thousands of marriage licenses that will be granted before then. So the legislature, the governor and the court have all now supported equality. So back to the people ... for one last chance to keep the stigma in place.
Two early passages in the California decision stand out. First: this is a technical question about whether the separate-but-equal domestic partnership law violates California's constitution, not about enacting civil marriage itself:
It also is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution...
Those are the court's italics, not mine. But on the deeper question, the court is unequivocal in arguing that our modern understanding of sexual orientation - that it is an orientation, not a choice, an identity and not an act - makes the equal protection of gay families a core value:
This is manna for the Obama campaign, sent straight from Heaven. Who wouldn't want to run against this president this November? By conflating Bush and McCain on this, the White House has done the Democrats a massive favor.
May 11, 2008 - May 17, 2008
Site Meter 
