Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest.
Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.
---- There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
---- There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
My understanding is that the CA court's ruling is that the statutory prohibition of same-sex marriage is in violation of the CA Constitution. Is this an accurate understanding?
If the CA Constitution contained a provision to prohibit same-sex marriage (a la our own SB 1608), how then would the court rule? What would be the next step?
If the CA Constitution contained a provision to prohibit same-sex marriage (a la our own SB 1608), how then would the court rule? What would be the next step?
The next step would be to get the Constitution out of people's bedrooms, Thomas. :)
I suppose if it were enshrined in the State Constitution, it would be to get the Constitution changed back. The court can only interpret what the Constitution says. That's why it's so important not to have bigotry encoded into our legal DNA (Constitution).
---- There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
---- There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
should be in the next Cabinet. He should be the Secretary of Kicking Ass. I think he could take Chuck Norris, if he wanted to. He just doesn't want to see Chuck cry.
The Senator doesn't drink. But one of the best times I had over the past year was at an Irish bar in Des Moines with the Senator, his staff, and 300 fans.
I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks
turned off by O's incredibly vitriolic style? I agree with most things he says, but his delivery is kind of silly, silly in comparison to the weighty subject matter he deals with. Why rely on fuming at the mouth, yelling and calling people names to vigorously get a point across? He is a bit of a Demagogue ("good night and good luck")--he's really not a far cry from being a (slightly more intellectually honest) Bill O with liberal stripes. Seriously. This isn't ESPN... (it's funny because most folks don't know he was a sports guy most of his career, hence his pretty noticeable lack of knowledge about institutional matters and political history. It's hard to watch when Chris Mathews has to constantly correct him on factual or procedural questions on Primary nights. Though, admittedly, Keith has learned a lot during the Primary this year and know knows a bit more about the process than he did when covering Iowa and New Hampshire, when the pros new the ins and outs and he obviously didn't.)
Countdown is one of the few programs I don't miss if I can help it. He's not like that every night, and he's not anywhere near as irresponsible or creepy as O'Reilly. And yes, I think a lot of people know he was a sports guy for most of his career - but, maybe I'm wrong. I was totally with him on this last special comment, especially.
used the wrong moment to express my feeling about Kieth O, because I too liked that special comment a lot.
But here's just a quick example of why i feel he is less than intellectually honest sometimes. He made it sound like Bush was "pulled" off the golf course by his handlers for political appearances after the UN terrorist attack in Iraq. In reality, he was pulled off (like any president would be in this kind of circumstance) so he could go be briefed on what happened to the UN in Iraq and go be President (i.e. release statement, call Kofi Annan, etc). That's what you do when an emergency comes up. So it wasn't for any kind of symbolic gesture or for appearances (like Keith makes it seem), it was because he needed to handle the devastating news of the attack from the office (or air force one, or the ranch--wherever he can talk to his advisers and make calls, etc)
Just one small part of his "special comment" (the main point he was getting across was spot on), but it makes me cringe when journalists or pundits (which Keith is mostly) distort reality. He does it all the time. He takes what people say out of context or blows simple things out of proportion. Like last night he taking shit about Bush's speech in Isreal (he was right to trash it) but for some reason he led the section with the tidbit that the Senator who said he wishes he could have talked to Hitler was a REPUBLICAN (oh no). It was 1938!!! The GOP and Dems looked very little like they do today. His urge to go partisan on EVERY issues makes him look silly when gets so aggitated and worked up about stuff like the Bush--GOP Senator is 1938 connection
Often, he articulates my disgust - on the teevee - about national issues. I confess that makes me feel validated. I have sat in front of the set and clapped for him.
Plus, I like Oddball and Worst Person in the World. It's snark at it's finest. :-D
I also enjoy that he has Rachel Maddow, Richard Wolfe, Eugene Robinson, Dana Milbank, and my other favorite talking heads without having to deal with Pat Buchanan or Chris Matthews trying to talk over anyone. Sweet. Complete Sentences on television. I like that.
Besides, I'm just a fangirl - I would swoon if any of the above named people including and especially Keith O came into view in person. Can't help it. Just part of who I am.
Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on two topics a lot of us had foolishly thought, had naively hoped, we would not again have to address… and a third topic nobody thought a president would ever seriously mention in public unless perhaps he’d just been hit in the head with something and was not in full possession of his faculties — how he expressed his “empathy” to the families of the dead in Iraq — by giving up golf.
The President has resorted anew to the sleaziest fear-mongering and mass manipulation of an administration — of a public life — dedicated to realizing the lowest of our expectations.
And he has now applied these poisons to the 2008 presidential election, on behalf of the party at whose center he and Mr. McCain lurk.
Mr. Bush has predicted that the election of a Democratic president could, “eventually lead to another attack on the United States.”
This ludicrous, infuriating, holier-than-thou and most importantly bone-headedly wrong statement came yesterday during an interview with Politico-dot-com and on-line users of Yahoo.
The question was phrased as follows: “If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what’s the worst that could happen, what’s the doomsday scenario?”
The President replied: “Doomsday scenario, of course, is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States.
The biggest issue we face is — it’s bigger than Iraq — it’s this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives.”
Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes ‘cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives’?’
They are those in, or formerly in, your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes.
Through your haze of self-congratulation and self-pity, do you still have no earthly clue that this nation has laid waste to Iraq to achieve your political objectives?
‘This ideological struggle,’ Mr. Bush, is taking place within this country.
It is a struggle between Americans who cherish freedom — ours and everybody else’s — and Americans like you, sir, to whom freedom is just a brand name, just like “Patriot Act” is a brand name or “Protect America” is a brand name.
But wait, there’s more.
You also said “Iraq is the place where al Qaeda and other extremists have made their stand — and they will be defeated.”
They made no “stand” in Iraq, sir. You allowed them to assemble there!
As certainly as if that were the plan, the borders were left wide open by your government’s farcical post-invasion strategy of ‘they’ll greet us as liberators.’
And as certainly as if that were the plan, the inspiration for another generation of terrorists in another country was provided by your government’s farcical post-invasion strategy of letting the societal infra-structure of Iraq dissolve, to be replaced by an American Vice-Royalty enforced by merciless mercenaries who shoot unarmed Iraqis and then evade prosecution in any country, by hiding behind your skirts, sir.
Terrorism inside Iraq is your creation, Mr. Bush!
It was a Yahoo user who brought up the second topic upon whose introduction Mr. Bush should have passed, or punted, or gotten up and left the room claiming he heard Dick Cheney calling him.
“Do you feel,” asked an ordinary American, “that you were mis-led on Iraq?”
“I feel like — I felt like, there were weapons of mass destruction. You know, “mislead” is a strong word, it almost connotes some kind of intentional — I don’t think so, I think there was a — not only our intelligence community, but intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment. And so I was disappointed to see how flawed our intelligence was.”
Flawed.
You, Mr. Bush, and your tragically know-it-all minions, threw out every piece of intelligence that suggested there were no such weapons.
You, Mr. Bush, threw out every person who suggested that the sober, contradictory, reality-based intelligence needed to be listened to, fast.
You, Mr. Bush, are responsible for how “intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment.”
You and the sycophants you dredged up and put behind the most important steering wheel in the world propagated palpable nonsense and shoved it down the throat of every intelligence community across the world and punished anybody who didn’t agree it was really chicken salad.
And you, Mr. Bush, threw under the bus all of the subsequent critics who bravely stepped forward later to point out just how much of a self-fulfilling prophecy you had embraced, and adopted as this country’s policy — in lieu of, say, common sense.
The fiasco of pre-war intelligence, sir, is your fiasco.
You should build a great statue of yourself turning a deaf ear to the warnings of realists, while you are shown embracing the three-card monte dealers like Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
That would be a far more fitting tribute to your legacy, Mr. Bush, than this presidential library you are constructing as a giant fable about your presidency, an edifice you might as claim was built from Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction because there will be just as many of those inside your presidential library as there were inside Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
Of course if there is one over-riding theme to this president’s administration it is the utter, always-failing, inability to know when to quit when it is behind.
And so Mr. Bush answered yet another question about this layered, nuanced, wheels-within-wheels garbage heap that constituted his excuse for war.
“And so you feel that you didn’t have all the information you should have or the right spin on that information?”
“No, no,” replied the President. “I was told by people, that they had weapons of mass destruction…”
People?
What people?
The insane informant “Curveball?”
The Iraqi snake-oil salesman Ahmed Chalabi?
The American snake-oil salesman Dick Cheney?
“I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction, as were members of Congress, who voted for the resolution to get rid of Saddam Hussein. And of course, the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes.”
Mr. Bush — you destroyed the evidence that contradicted the resolution you jammed down the Congress’s throat, the way you jammed it down the nation’s throat.
When required by law to verify that your evidence was accurate, you simply re-submitted it, with phrases amounting to “See, I done proved it,” virtually written in the margins in crayon.
You defied patriotic Americans to say “The Emperor has no clothes” — only with the stakes (as you and the mental dwarves in your employ put it) being a “mushroom cloud over an American city.”
And as a final crash of self-indulgent nonsense, when the incontrovertible truth of your panoramic and murderous deceit has even begun to cost your political party seemingly perpetual congressional seats in places like North Carolina and — last night — Mississippi, you can actually say with a straight face, sir, that for members of Congress “the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes” - while you greet the political heat and try to run and hide from your presidency — and your legacy — 4,000 of the Americans you were supposed to protect, dead in Iraq, with your only feeble, pathetic answer being, “I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction.”
Then came Mr. Bush’s final blow to our nation’s solar plexus, his last re-opening of our common wounds, his last remark that makes the rest of us question not merely his leadership or his judgment but his very suitably to remain in office.
“Mr. President,” he was asked, “you haven’t been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?
“Yes,” began perhaps the most startling reply of this nightmarish blight on our lives as Americans — on our history.
“It really is. I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died, to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as — to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”
Golf, sir?
Golf sends the wrong signal to the grieving families of our men and women butchered in Iraq?
Do you think these families, Mr. Bush — their lives blighted forever — care about you playing golf?
Do you think, sir, they care about you?
You, Mr. Bush, let their sons and daughters be killed.
Sir, to show your solidarity with them - you gave up golf?
Sir, to show your solidarity with them — you didn’t give up your pursuit of this insurance-scam, profiteering, morally and financially bankrupting war.
Sir, to show your solidarity with them — you didn’t even give up talking about Iraq — a subject about which you have incessantly proved without pause or backwards glance, that you may literally be the least informed person in the world?
Sir, to show your solidarity with them, you didn’t give up your presidency?
In your own words — “solidarity as best as I can” — is to stop a game? That is the “best” you can?
4,000 Americans give up their lives and your sacrifice was to give up golf!
Golf.
Not “gulf” — golf.
And still it gets worse.
Because it proves that the President’s unendurable sacrifice, his unbearable pain, the suspension of getting to hit a stick with a ball, was not even his own damned idea.
“Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?”
“I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man’s life. And I was playing golf — I think I was in central Texas — and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it’s just not worth it any more to do.”
Your one, tone-deaf, arrogant, pathetic, embarrassing gesture, and you didn’t even think of it yourself?
The great Bushian sacrifice — an Army private loses a leg, a Marine loses half his skull, four thousand of their brothers and sisters lose their lives, you lose golf… and they have to pull you off the golf course to get you to just do that?
If it’s even true…
Apart from your medical files, which dutifully record your torn calf muscle and the knee pain which forced you to give up running at the same time — coincidence, no doubt — the bombing in Baghdad which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello of the U-N… and interrupted your round of golf, was on August 19th, 2003.
Yet there is an Associated Press account of you playing golf as late as Columbus Day of that year — October 13th — nearly two months later.
Mr. Bush, I hate to break it to you, six-and-a-half years after you yoked this nation and your place in history to the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong people but the war in Iraq is Not. About. You.
It is not, Mr. Bush, about your grief when American after American comes home in a box.
It is not, Mr. Bush, about what your addled brain has produced in the way of paranoid delusions of risks that do not exist, ready to be activated if some Democrat, and not your twin Mr. McCain succeeds you.
The war in Iraq — your war, Mr. Bush — is about how you accomplished the derangement of two nations, and how you helped funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to lascivious and perennially thirsty corporations like Halliburton and Blackwater, and how you sent 4,000 Americans to their deaths — for nothing.
It is not, Mr. Bush, about your golf game!
And, sir, if you have any hopes that next January 20th will not be celebrated as a day of soul-wrenching, heart-felt Thanksgiving, because your faithless stewardship of this presidency will have finally come to a merciful end, this last piece of advice:
When somebody asks you, sir, about Democrats who must now pull this country back from the abyss you have placed us at…
When somebody asks you, sir, about the cooked books and faked threats you foisted on a sincere and frightened nation…
When somebody asks you, sir, about your gallant, noble, self-abnegating sacrifice of your golf game so as to soothe the families of the war dead…
from Congressman Rob't Wexler. (remember the guy who was going to impeach Cheney) Now he's going to have Karl Rove brought before the House to be tried for 'inherent contempt'. Rove was just the latest to be given a subpoena, and told Congress to f... off! And his message ends with "don't forget to send a donation to Wexler's campaign". What a bullshitter!
Rep. Wexler is the only member of Congress actually bringing attention to this administrations complete lack of regard for process. He was there when everybody but Rep. Kucinich was ignoring Rove's shenanigans. He was there when Bush's housekeeper/cleaning lady refused to testify.
Rep. Wexler has continually pushed the issues that every other member of the house should be pushing.
I'm happy to throw a couple of bucks his way, if only to keep his bullhorn functioning.
Comments
Wow.
The opinion of the California Supreme Court is out today:
----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
congrats
Isn't California the world's 5th largest economy? I heard that some where.
- - - - -

- - - - -
http://twitter.com/Jerimee
Queston for the more legally smart than I
My understanding is that the CA court's ruling is that the statutory prohibition of same-sex marriage is in violation of the CA Constitution. Is this an accurate understanding?
If the CA Constitution contained a provision to prohibit same-sex marriage (a la our own SB 1608), how then would the court rule? What would be the next step?
Thomas S. Brock
www.brocknet.net
http://blogs.brocknet.net/bloviations/
What have YOU done today to elect a Democrat?
Thomas
What have YOU done today to make the world a better place?
If the CA Constitution
The next step would be to get the Constitution out of people's bedrooms, Thomas. :)
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Funny, Linda
But seriously, what would the next legal step be?
Thomas S. Brock
www.brocknet.net
http://blogs.brocknet.net/bloviations/
What have YOU done today to elect a Democrat?
Thomas
What have YOU done today to make the world a better place?
I don't know Thomas.
I suppose if it were enshrined in the State Constitution, it would be to get the Constitution changed back. The court can only interpret what the Constitution says. That's why it's so important not to have bigotry encoded into our legal DNA (Constitution).
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Double wow.
Amen.
Help
Can get Firefox to play it. What is the clip?
You've probably already seen it
It's Keith O.
You've probably seen it, but Biden calls Bush comments bull
The URL says it all:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/biden-calls-bush-comments-bulls-t/
I Love Joe Biden
If only Delaware had a few more electoral votes.
----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
Joe Biden
should be in the next Cabinet. He should be the Secretary of Kicking Ass. I think he could take Chuck Norris, if he wanted to. He just doesn't want to see Chuck cry.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
fundie heads exploding
I expect Peter LaBarbera, Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family and all the rest to have conniptions for the next several weeks.
--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA
Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com
--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA
Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com
It's absolutely beyond me...
That my Party thought that guy was a good idea back in 2000.
re: Biden. I would love to get drunk with that guy. One of my top-5 favorite Democrats of all time.
Actually
The Senator doesn't drink. But one of the best times I had over the past year was at an Irish bar in Des Moines with the Senator, his staff, and 300 fans.
I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks
is anyone else
turned off by O's incredibly vitriolic style? I agree with most things he says, but his delivery is kind of silly, silly in comparison to the weighty subject matter he deals with. Why rely on fuming at the mouth, yelling and calling people names to vigorously get a point across? He is a bit of a Demagogue ("good night and good luck")--he's really not a far cry from being a (slightly more intellectually honest) Bill O with liberal stripes. Seriously. This isn't ESPN... (it's funny because most folks don't know he was a sports guy most of his career, hence his pretty noticeable lack of knowledge about institutional matters and political history. It's hard to watch when Chris Mathews has to constantly correct him on factual or procedural questions on Primary nights. Though, admittedly, Keith has learned a lot during the Primary this year and know knows a bit more about the process than he did when covering Iowa and New Hampshire, when the pros new the ins and outs and he obviously didn't.)
Eh, no biggie.
I enjoy listening to his calling of Bush on civil liberties and war.
But serious, what's Craig Kilborn up to these days? That guy just dropped off the face of the Earth!
Craig Kilborn
Probably really regrets dropping off of The Daily Show.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
God, how I miss...
Five Questions.
And how many The Daily Show viewers
are asking themselves "Craig who?"
I liked him better on The Late Late Show. ::shrug:: Don't know why.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
re: Late Late Show
This guy > Craig Kilborn.
For more reference:
via videosift.com
Funny stuff.
I don't watch Conan enough.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Nope, not at all.
Countdown is one of the few programs I don't miss if I can help it. He's not like that every night, and he's not anywhere near as irresponsible or creepy as O'Reilly. And yes, I think a lot of people know he was a sports guy for most of his career - but, maybe I'm wrong. I was totally with him on this last special comment, especially.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
yeah i think i
used the wrong moment to express my feeling about Kieth O, because I too liked that special comment a lot.
But here's just a quick example of why i feel he is less than intellectually honest sometimes. He made it sound like Bush was "pulled" off the golf course by his handlers for political appearances after the UN terrorist attack in Iraq. In reality, he was pulled off (like any president would be in this kind of circumstance) so he could go be briefed on what happened to the UN in Iraq and go be President (i.e. release statement, call Kofi Annan, etc). That's what you do when an emergency comes up. So it wasn't for any kind of symbolic gesture or for appearances (like Keith makes it seem), it was because he needed to handle the devastating news of the attack from the office (or air force one, or the ranch--wherever he can talk to his advisers and make calls, etc)
Just one small part of his "special comment" (the main point he was getting across was spot on), but it makes me cringe when journalists or pundits (which Keith is mostly) distort reality. He does it all the time. He takes what people say out of context or blows simple things out of proportion. Like last night he taking shit about Bush's speech in Isreal (he was right to trash it) but for some reason he led the section with the tidbit that the Senator who said he wishes he could have talked to Hitler was a REPUBLICAN (oh no). It was 1938!!! The GOP and Dems looked very little like they do today. His urge to go partisan on EVERY issues makes him look silly when gets so aggitated and worked up about stuff like the Bush--GOP Senator is 1938 connection
I think I just take Keith for what he is, and glory in it.
Often, he articulates my disgust - on the teevee - about national issues. I confess that makes me feel validated. I have sat in front of the set and clapped for him.
Plus, I like Oddball and Worst Person in the World. It's snark at it's finest. :-D
I also enjoy that he has Rachel Maddow, Richard Wolfe, Eugene Robinson, Dana Milbank, and my other favorite talking heads without having to deal with Pat Buchanan or Chris Matthews trying to talk over anyone. Sweet. Complete Sentences on television. I like that.
Besides, I'm just a fangirl - I would swoon if any of the above named people including and especially Keith O came into view in person. Can't help it. Just part of who I am.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Olbermann transcript
Sorry for the long comment, but for those who cannot watch the video:
Via C&L:
--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA
Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com
--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA
Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com
"Shut the hell up!"
doesn't do it justice. Gotta watch the video. It awesome. Great television.
Quite stirring
Thank you for posting this, and thank you, Pam, for the transcription.
I posted it at talkingaboutpolitics.com, where I predict the response will be a great gnashing of teeth and a series of the usual rants.
But it's really quite a powerful statement, and I hope it will get lots and lots and lots of views.
Anybody else get the latest threat....
from Congressman Rob't Wexler. (remember the guy who was going to impeach Cheney) Now he's going to have Karl Rove brought before the House to be tried for 'inherent contempt'. Rove was just the latest to be given a subpoena, and told Congress to f... off! And his message ends with "don't forget to send a donation to Wexler's campaign". What a bullshitter!
In my humble opinion...
Rep. Wexler is the only member of Congress actually bringing attention to this administrations complete lack of regard for process. He was there when everybody but Rep. Kucinich was ignoring Rove's shenanigans. He was there when Bush's housekeeper/cleaning lady refused to testify.
Rep. Wexler has continually pushed the issues that every other member of the house should be pushing.
I'm happy to throw a couple of bucks his way, if only to keep his bullhorn functioning.