Obsidian Wings

Gay marriage, ctd.

First, I may have been mistaken about Baker. The general counsel of the Massachusetts Bar Association thinks the ruling does not allow civil unions as a solution, via the NY Times:

"The court essentially stayed its order for six months "to give the Legislature a chance to respond to regulation of same-gender marriage in terms of how they want to change the regulatory scheme in Massachusetts, the marriage statute, to respond to this new ruling," said Martin W. Healy, general counsel to the Massachusetts Bar Association. "It does not allow the Legislature to go back and adopt a separate scheme, if you will, for same-gender union, or marriage," he asserted.

Although "the assembly or citizens of Massachusetts could by referendum change the state constitution," Mr. Healy said, such a move would be "a multiyear proposition." Under the state constitution the earliest any such amendment could be voted on would be November 2006, Mr. Healy said. In the interim, some legal analysts said, gay couples will be granted marriage licenses, he added."

(I changed the paragraphing on that so it would take up less space. The rest of the Times article is here.)

The Boston Phoenix outlines (and editorializes) about the state Constitutional amendment procedure here. It's not very hard to do:

"While our state constitution, like the US Constitution, prevents the passage of laws that take away the rights of the minority, it’s shockingly easy for Massachusetts citizens to amend the constitution to do just that: 10 registered voters must draw up a new amendment; organizers must collect signatures from three percent of the total votes cast in the last gubernatorial election in support of the amendment (until the 2002 election is certified, that means 57,100 signatures); 25 percent of state legislators must approve the amendment in two successive legislative sessions; and a simple majority of Massachusetts voters must approve the amendment in a statewide election. It may sound difficult, but it’s not."

There was actually an attempt to start the amendment process before the court decision, but the Senate President, Tom Birmingham (the only one of my state leaders whom I respect--go Tom!) basically stopped it. From the same Phoenix article:

"The legislature didn’t stop the odious anti-gay constitutional amendment. Senate president Tom Birmingham, who chairs constitutional conventions, did. He did so by letting members vote on whether or not to adjourn the convention before taking up any business. If he had let the convention go forward, it would have taken more than 75 percent of the legislators to stop the anti-gay amendment — a threshold that would not have been met."

I don't know if Birmingham can do that indefinitely. Mitt Romney and Tom Finneran will probably support an amendment. It could lose in a referendum, though; I don't know. It would be all about turnout.

Well, I guess I'll have something to do when the Presidential campaign ends. (sigh) Speaking of the Presidential campaign, a Vermont newspaper has published the statement that Howard Dean made when he signed the Civil Unions bill in 2000, for which he is about to catch holy hell. No word yet from the democratic presidential candidates about today's ruling, except Kerry, who said, "while I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe that today's decision calls on the Massachusetts state Legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples. These protections are long overdue."

UPDATE: Dean just released this statement: "As Governor of Vermont, I was proud to sign the nation's first law establishing civil unions for same-sex couples. Today, the Massachusetts Court appears to have taken a similar approach to the Vermont Supreme Court and its decision that led to our civil unions law. One way or another, the state should afford same-sex couples equal treatment under law in areas such as health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights.

"There will be those who try to use the decision today to divide Americans. Instead, this decision should be viewed as an opportunity to affirm what binds us together -- a fundamental belief in the equality of human beings, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation."

He had me at "As Governor."

UPDATE 2: I am shamefully ignorant of Mass. politics. Tom Birmingham is no longer Senate president, it's now Robert Travaglini, Democrat of Boston. He has not yet taken a position.

Oy. On the other hand, it would be a beautiful thing to defeat that referendum.

Massachusetts (kinda) approves gay marriage

As Katherine notes in the open thread below, Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution, but stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law. The blogosphere has not exactly erupted in debate (yet), but the usual suspects are at it:

Andrew Sullivan proclaims himself "free at last,"

Glenn Reynolds provides a nice commentary, as well as a link to the opinion, and

John Derbyshire at NRO's The Corner requests instruction "as to where, in the Massachusetts State Constitution, there is a clause authorizing the judiciary of that state to 'order' the legislature to legislate in a certain way?"

As for me, put me in the category of this decision is a good thing. I cannot, however, adequately answer Derbyshire's loaded question (that's the beauty, if there is one, of that which passes for Derbyshirian "discourse"). Sure, I can craft arguments in favor of the decision based on broad principles of law and equity, but let's face it: This is essentially legislating from the bench. Should I put my doubts aside, and just be happy with the outcome?

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh ponders how we got to Goodridge v. Dep't of Public Health, and notes "the tendency (whether good or bad) of past pro-homosexual-rights decisions to lead to homosexual marriage." Professor Volokh warns: "this is a reminder not to pooh-pooh slippery slope arguments." So noted, but given that Professor Volokh doesn't actually criticize any "past pro-homosexual-rights" decisions -- and handles the Goodridge decision with kid gloves -- I'm left wondering the practical impact, if any, of his plea. Surely Professor Volokh wouldn't elevate fear of the slippery slope above the need to uphold the law, if this be it? And does he really think we've slid to the bottom of the hill with Goodridge?

Gay marriage decision

Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court has finally decided their gay marriage case. AP story here. The headline is somewhat misleading; they leave the remedy to the legislature with a 180 day deadline, much like the Baker court in Vermont.

This is probably bad for Dean's campaign. I don't care. It's the right thing to do, and I'm proud of my state.

I'll have more to say on this later. For now, consider this your open thread.

The Energy Bill

Here is what my friendly neighborhood environmental lawyers have to say about the Energy Bill. At least it doesn't include this provision. As far as I know.

While I think liberal diagnoses of Bush as the "Worst. President Ever"* are exaggerated (or at least premature), my guess is he will have the worst environmental record ever. I'm not kidding about this. I've done some work in environmental law. Everyone has just about given up on getting anything good done by the federal government; they're doing damage control and targetting their efforts at the state level in receptive parts of the country.

Nowhere is Matthew Yglesias' description of "legislation a la Bush" more accurate:
"First you find a way to help out campaign contributors. Then you find a policy problem that you don't want to solve. Then propose the first thing as the solution to the second thing. And then you move on."

*This should be read in the tones of Comic Book Guy on the Simpson

When it rains, it rains prescription drug benefits.

Despite the desire of some Democrats for war, the fight over prescription drug benefits is over. The AARP has given its blessing to the GOP's version of the bill. Expect much hand-wringing, impassioned speechmaking, and rallying-of-the-base-ing in the next few months, but mark these words: The die is cast, this goose is cooked, its fate is sealed, (insert appropriate cliche here).

Thus sayeth the AARP (peace be upon it).

Well, maybe the Democrats will block the energy bill. Or, maybe not.

Spinmeister hat ON

One of the Democrats' main critiques of Bush's foreign policy is "unilateralism." I have a suggestion for a better word to use: isolation. Not isolationism, but isolation.

Three problems with "Unilateralism":
1) It is technically not true, as a reporter can point out by asking "What about England"? Denouncing "bilateralism" doesn't work as well.
2) It is very wonky sounding.
3) It will not automatically be regarded as bad--"We're not letting the French be the boss of us."

Instead, you phrase it in these terms:

As you might have guessed, I'm fiddling with the appearance

... so nobody panic.

(time passes)

OK, that's how it's gonna be for at least the rest of the night: I'm bleary-eyed and can't find the Change Time Zone Feature, so I'm going to stop now. :)

Got It!

I have it! New Feature from the VRWC, all you hep cats and kittens (crikey, but 50's slang is just chock full of subtle inequities and sexism, eh?). A fun one... well, fun for me, at least.

That's right: it's time for a

GRATUITOUS INSTAPUNDIT SHOT!!!!!

(pause)

A shame I can't increase font size.

Still, what is a GRATUITOUS INSTAPUNDIT SHOT!!!!!, I hear you ask? Simple: I go look at Instapundit, find something that he's linked to and talk about that. Unlike Frank over at IMAO (a sometimes guilty pleasure of mine), I am above attempting to leech links from the Zombi Mast... excuse me, 'Instadude'. Not that I'd object if Loyal Minions started boostering this site, mind you.

(pause)

I said, NOT THAT I'D OBJECT...

Blog, Blog I Must Haf Blog!

...as the creaaaakkking coffin lid opens and the dread Right Wing Death Beast comes out, eyes already alight with unholy fire as he seeks out the blood of the liberal...

Well, not exactly.

Perceptive readers may note that the ideological flavor of this site will be subject to regular shifts, for the simple reason that I can't post from work (indeed, I can't even comment on my own blog from work). It has nothing to do with my being a nosferatu. None! None, I say!

Well. Moving along... cripes, now I actually have to blog something, don't I? Just about everybody here is already aware of the What Are We Doing In Iraq debate over at Tacitus (latest installments found here and here): heck, I'll be probably wandering over there myself. Lemme think; turn this into an open thread, in the meantime.

Moe

The Band That Can. (Yes, yes, it can!)

For all you Guided by Voices fans out there (and I know thine numbers to be legion), check out this article in the New York Times (free subscription required). Found via Burke at Swordstyle.