I agree with R.S. McCain that this is a bad idea. Doug Kmiec, well-known law professor from the Church of Christ-owned Pepperdine University, is echoing a growing refrain from the more libertarian-minded: get government out of the marriage business. Ed Morrissey is mostly persuaded.

Kmiec has the better argument, mostly because the “state” gave up protecting marriage and children decades ago. The advent of no-fault divorce, in which one party can abrogate the marriage contract without penalty or consideration of the other party, has completely destroyed the notion that the government plays a role in protecting “integrity and well-being of the family.” In fact, I’d argue that serial marriers of the kind seen in Hollywood (or in Washington DC) do more to undermine marriage than single-gender unions would ever do.

The state could get out of the marriage business entirely, and have its citizens enter into partnership contracts instead. That might have the salutary effect of putting mechanisms into place for dissolutions that would keep divorces from dragging on through the courts, but also give the state more ability to enforce the terms of the contract than government is willing to do with marriages that lack pre-nuptial agreements, especially on penalties for abrogation. That would also give the courts an opening to finally get rid of “palimony”, that noxious avenue where the courts have to make determinations whether contractual relations exist between people who neither execute a contract or take wedding vows.

Look, you can't have it both ways. Either marriage is important enough for society--most clearly represented by its laws--to encourage. Or it's not. Taking away government recognition of marriage as it has been understood to operate for some time now can only ever be recognized as a retreat, a diminution in the status of marriage in the United States.

I firmly support same-sex marrige (OT: since when does Ed Morrissey use the term "gender", anyways?). But that support is based not on the idea that marriage is so wounded that it might as well be disolved in the public sphere, but rather because it is something special to be preserved and encouraged. Many in comments here have described in exhausting detail the benefits of marriage, not least of which are the stabilizing effect marriage has on relationships between adults and their children. I would like to see gay people as a part of that.

And this isn't a trivial change being suggested. No one should be under any illusion after the past eight years of gay marriage litigation and amendment: words matter. If the term "marriage" really means so little that it can be replaced with a "civil license" available to all (gay or straight), there would have been nothing like the fight we've seen or the backlash against activists courts.

Incidentally, there is a ballot petition circulating presently in California to replace all instances of the term "marriage" in law with the term "civil union" and to make such civil unions available regardless of the sex of the parties. (Contrary to popular myth, California does not have civil unions at present; it has "domestic partnerships.") The most common refrain against the petition: "We told you they were going to destroy marriage!" According to Kmiec and Morrissey, we must destroy this villiage to save it.

Update: I have been told that gay people cannot have children. That is one of the dumber things I've heard today. There are thousands of committed, long-term gay couples raising children in the United States. Those children are every bit in need of the same legal protections and status as the children of married straight couples. Think of the children!

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:45 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 631 words, total size 4 kb.

Looks like the game of chickem may be over and the bond holders flinched first.

Seriously - with the way Obama has been playing hardball, could they have really thought they'd do better in a bankruptcy court? One where the judge has been bought and paid for by the UAW and Obama? Obama has been throwing hard cheese and these boobs were coming up to the plate holding a whiffle bat.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 04:56 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Look, there are not many ways to defeat a presidential nominee for the Supreme Court, especially when the President's party has control of the Senate. But once in a while you get lucky and the President nominates somebody who even his own people will run from. That's what happened with Harriet Miers and I think that's what can happen for Sonia Sotomayor. It's not that difficult:

Judge Sotomayor has given us no reason to believe she is capable of approaching cases involving white people or men without discriminating against them. In fact, she's given several reasons to believe that the opposite is true.

The two most obvious are her 2001 Berkley speech, in which she extols the special knowledge she has by virtue of her membership in minority identity groups and admonishes male lawyers to "work on" their experiences and attitudes so that they too can reach the heights of "enlightenment" which belong to certain minority identity groups.

This is disgusting racial bias that even a Democrat can recognize. The only question will be whether Republicans have the stones to point it out even as the White House "warns" us not to.

The second obvious example demonstrating that she might have a problem with racial bias is the New Haven firefighter case, Ricci v. DeStefano, in she and the other panel members tried to sweep their support of the city's discriminatory acts under the rug. They failed and the Supreme Court will be issuing a decision by the end of the term.

This example of support for reverse racism, a concept that some Democrats recognize and claim to oppose, needs more answers than we are getting. The Republicans on Senate Judiciary should at the very least ask questions about what exactly happened here. How did the panel decide that writing a one-paragraph decision was the appropriate and just thing to do in a case which raised clear and important constitutional issues.

Republicans who suggest that we don't want to have this argument now are preparing to let all this slide. But the bottom line is that Sotomayor's record on race and gender raises warning flags that she might not be able to approach cases with the objectivity we expect from judges. It is not unreasonable to demand some explanation before she is elevated to a lifetime position on the nation's highest court.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:54 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:20 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC. Please e-mail overnight open thread tips to xgenghisx@gmail.com. Otherwise send tips to Ace.

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:21 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

The shirt:

Called "The Three Wolf Moon." Obviously, it's totally sweet.

A guy who didn't even own the shirt offered this testimonial in a review...

This item has wolves on it which makes it intrinsically sweet and worth 5 stars by itself, but once I tried it on, that's when the magic happened. After checking to ensure that the shirt would properly cover my girth, I walked from my trailer to Wal-mart with the shirt on and was immediately approached by women. The women knew from the wolves on my shirt that I, like a wolf, am a mysterious loner who knows how to 'howl at the moon' from time to time (if you catch my drift!). The women that approached me wanted to know if I would be their boyfriend and/or give them money for something they called mehth. I told them no, because they didn't have enough teeth, and frankly a man with a wolf-shirt shouldn't settle for the first thing that comes to him.

I arrived at Wal-mart, mounted my courtesy-scooter (walking is such a drag!) sitting side saddle so that my wolves would show. While I was browsing tube socks, I could hear aroused asthmatic breathing behind me. I turned around to see a slightly sweaty dream in sweatpants and flip-flops standing there. She told me she liked the wolves on my shirt, I told her I wanted to howl at her moon. She offered me a swig from her mountain dew, and I drove my scooter, with her shuffling along side out the door and into the rest of our lives. Thank you wolf shirt.

Pros: Fits my girthy frame, has wolves on it, attracts women
Cons: Only 3 wolves (could probably use a few more on the 'guns'), cannot see wolves when sitting with arms crossed, wolves would have been better if they glowed in the dark.

Then collegehumor.com linked it, and almost 800 people added their own glowing testimonials.

One guy wrote: "You don't put this t-shirt on your torso, you put it on your soul." Another guy said that unfortunately he already had the exact same image tattooed to his chest, but the t-shirt was good for "colder weather."

(Warning: Only the first guy's review is really funny. The rest are very hit and miss, with most in the "meh" range.)

Anyway, this has become a craze, and the t-shirt is now selling 100 per hour, with the small t-shirt company attempting to crank out 30,000 a day. (Note: I have no idea how 100 per hour becomes 30,000 per day, either. But that's what the ABC article says. Take it up with the wolves.)

Via Hot Air.

Posted by: Ace at 04:22 PM | Comments (5)
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

10. She's just wild about spats

9. Knows the words to Laura Branaghan's Gloria. Well, she knows the words to the chorus. Well, she knows "Gloria."

8. Can finish the Sunday New York Times crossword puzzle in ten minutes, by simply writing "poop" as the answer for every clue

7. President of the Brian Dennehy Fan Club, but accidentally so; mistakenly believes Brian Denehy to be the tween-aged star of Twilight

6. Makes a wonderful three-course gourmet meal consisting of fish sticks, rice pudding, and "Pesci a la Sotomayor" (fish sticks smothered in rice pudding)

5. Asked to explain her governing judicial philosophy, she responds cryptically with quotes and plotlines from Chip 'n Dale's Rescue Rangers

4. Sometimes gets her legal opinions confused with her Mad Libs; she recently decided the case of Awesome Sparkle Princess v. Smelly Bananafarts

3. Upon confirmation as justice, will immediately take up Adam Lambert's appeal of his American Idol loss, citing the fact that he's "TEH ROXXORX!!"

2. Just as Hillary Clinton claims she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, Sonia Sotomayor claims she was named after Dora the Explorer

...and the Number One Other Qualification or Rich Life Experience of Sonia Sotomayor...

1. She's written 300 pieces of gay "slash" fanfic starring the Johnny Castle from Dirty Dancing and that super-hunky vampire boy Brian Dennehy

Posted by: Ace at 03:51 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

What was once a must read blog for news and analysis on my rss feed has recently become a once or twice a day stop and that's only for the car crash quality of it all.

Today's head shaking moment comes from a post entitled "Limbaugh Stuck On Fail". Charles seems genuinely confused that some people might actually say out loud they don't want Sotomayor confirmed to the Supreme Court.

It seems that for a democracy to function there needs to be at least two parties who articulate their differences. The idea that partisans of either party wants the other to fail is baked into the cake.

I know Barack Obama wanted John Roberts and Sam Alito to fail in their confirmation efforts. How do I know this? He voted against them. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that, it's all part of the give and take of public discourse. Just as there's nothing wrong with Limbaugh or my wish to see Sotomayor fail in her bid for confirmation.

Equally confounding is Charles' contention in the comments of that thread that

Barack Obama ran on a platform of sheer positive messages. Not once did he wish for the other side to fail. You're just wrong to claim that negativity is winning strategy. One of the big reasons why Obama won was because he did NOT go negative -- ever.

Really? This will of course come as news to anyone who followed the campaign last year. Even the Washington Post noticed.

How about, just to pick one of many examples, when Obama accused President Bush and John McCain of "fear mongering"?

Or the distortions of McCain's words.

The list could go on and on.

I really don't have a dog (or monkey) in all the creationist stuff but while it's certainly Charles' right to post on whatever the hell he wants, the constant harping and disdain for others is off putting.

Sadly I can only conclude there's no room for me anymore under LGF's big tent.

Posted by: DrewM at 02:45 PM | Comments (5)
Post contains 349 words, total size 2 kb.

From TNR.

As was once said, approximately, of an intellectual lightweight's nomination: Dumb people are entitled to representation, too.

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."

...

Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.

...

Not all the former clerks for other judges I talked to were skeptical about Sotomayor. "I know the word on the street is that she's not the brainiest of people, but I didn't have that experience," said one former clerk for another judge. "She's an incredibly impressive person, she's not shy or apologetic about who she is, and that's great." This supporter praised Sotomayor for not being a wilting violet. "She commands attention, she's clearly in charge, she speaks her mind, she's funny, she's voluble, and she has ownership over the role in a very positive way," she said. "She's a fine Second Circuit judge--maybe not the smartest ever, but how often are Supreme Court nominees the smartest ever?"

Note that's a Sotomayor supporter.

That's a hell of a defense -- hey, there are a lot of dummies that make it to the Supreme Court; what's one more going to hurt?

You know, I really think the rich life experiences of a drooling imbecile can contribute greatly to the court, and I believe that a belly-button-lint-sniffing subretard would be able to judge a case better than a non-mental-defective.

Plus, all that empathy for shiny objects and ponies with laser-beam eyes.

The Actual Quote: Notropis provides it:

"Hruska is best remembered in American political history for a 1970 speech he made to the Senate urging them to confirm the nomination of G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court. Responding to criticism that Carswell had been a mediocre judge, Hruska claimed that:
"Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos."[1]
This speech was criticized by many, and Carswell was eventually defeated."

By the Way: The article says that another judge had to take the unusual step of acknowledging that a defendant may have been mislead (and legally injured) by this mouth-breathing half-wit's mistatement of the law. However, he's so subtle about it (assuming he's saying this at all) I just don't really get it. Maybe you need the whole background of the remark to understand.

But you might want to click on that link.

Posted by: Ace at 02:34 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 543 words, total size 4 kb.

"And where," Sonia Sotomayor asks, "is the empathy?"

Blame Bush:

Two founding members of what was once the nationÂ’s largest Muslim charity were each sentenced to 65 years in prison Wednesday for funneling millions of dollars to the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

Shukri Abu Baker, 50, and Ghassan Elashi, 55, were among the five members of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development sentenced to prison Wednesday.

The men and Holy Land were convicted in November on 108 charges, following a mistrial in which the government in 2007 failed to sway jurors that the charity sent more than $12 million to Hamas.

Mufid Abdulqader, 49, was sentenced to 20 years on three conspiracy counts. Mohammad El-Mezain, 55, got 15 years for one count of conspiracy to support a terrorist organization. Abdulrahman Odeh got 15 years for three conspiracy counts.

The judge corrected one of the defendants:

Later, Abdulqader told the court that he was merely a volunteer fundraiser and a singer in a Palestinian folk band that worked with the charity.

"I never imagined IÂ’d be put in jail for taking people out of their jail of poverty and starvation," he said.

But Solis, while agreeing AbdulquaderÂ’s lesser role contributed to his lighter sentence, disagreed with what that role was. "You werenÂ’t convicted of freedom of expression," the judge said. "You were convicted of supporting Hamas."

A daughter of one of the sentenced founders offered...

"IÂ’ve been with my dad 100 percent of the way... I saw the work he did. He devoted his life to helping needy children. But after 9/11, I guess, thereÂ’s hysteria. They pick and choose people, and unfortunately itÂ’s us."

Yup. They pick and choose people.

Thanks to WilliamA.

Posted by: Ace at 02:00 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 325 words, total size 2 kb.