Making martinis out of glacier ice

Yesterday I wrote that Justice Samuel Alito wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal to get in front of an exposé by ProPublica. In that op-ed Alito essentially confessed to corruption. Here’s some more responses. Leah McElrath asks

So do right-wing justices get assigned a billionaire or two after they’re appointed to SCOTUS? Is that how this level of corruption works? Because there seems to be a pattern.

Josh Marshall, while linking to the ProPublica article, said yeah, pretty much.

Alito's excuse here (the private jet seat would have gone unused otherwise) is for the ages. But you start to see the bigger picture which is that Leonard Leo basically pairs each new Justice w a billionaire sponsor family when they arrive.

Ruth Ben-Ghiat replied to Marshall:

Also Leo=Opus Dei which has propped up authoritarians for a century. Franco, Pinochet, Berlusconi (his liasion to Opus Dei, Dell'Utri, was also his liasion to the Mafia), Trump (Barr, Kudlow, Cipollone, and more).

Justin Elliott tweeted:

At least 3 rich businessmen have gotten access to Supreme Court justices by paying for their lux vacations. Justice Scalia got an Alaska vacation paid for by the same businessman who hosted Justice Alito. Here he [Scalia] is making martinis out of glacier ice,

Joan McCarter of Daily Kos reported:

Sen. Dick Durbin, chair of the Judiciary Committee, announced Wednesday that his committee will take up legislation next month to impose ethics reform on the Supreme Court. “The Supreme Court is in an ethical crisis of its own making due to the acceptance of lavish gifts from parties with business before the Court that several Justices have not disclosed,” Durbin tweeted, referring to the latest ProPublica story about Justice Samuel Alito. “The reputation and credibility of the Court are at stake,” he continued. ... Durbin did give a very broad hint to Chief Justice John Roberts; that Roberts could still avoid having Congress dictate how to do his job if he would just “take the lead and bring Supreme Court ethics in line with all other federal judges.” At this point, however, merely telling the justices they have to abide by the code of ethics that all lower courts have to live by isn’t going to be enough. Alito’s response to the story is enough to prove that. He didn’t even wait for the story to be published, but rushed to The Wall Street Journal to give a prebuttal, based on the questions he’d gotten—and refused to answer—from ProPublica.

McCarter discussed various ideas for reforming the Supremes. She then ended with:

In the immediate term, however, the reality of this court has to be dealt with. Even if Roberts relents and imposes a code of ethics, chances are good at least two of the justices will ignore it. Their influence has to be diluted, and the best way to do that right now is by expanding the court. The legislation to do just that exists now. That should be the next move on Durbin’s part, taking up that bill.

An Associated Press article posted on Kos reported:

The House voted Wednesday to censure California Rep. Adam Schiff for comments he made several years ago about investigations into Donald Trump's ties to Russia, rebuking the Democrat and frequent critic of the former president along party lines. Schiff becomes the 25th House lawmaker to be censured. He was defiant ahead of the vote, saying he will wear the formal disapproval as a “badge of honor" and charging his GOP colleagues of doing the former president's bidding. ... House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., read the resolution out loud, as is tradition after a censure. But he only read part of the document before leaving the chamber as Democrats heckled and interrupted him. “Censure all of us," one Democrat yelled.

That investigation into the nasty guy and his ties to Russia is a long and tangled case. It includes an investigation of the investigators. The article has some of the details. The news of last few days have featured several stories of the submersible with five people aboard on their way to see the wreck of the Titanic. On Sunday the reports said contact with the submersible was lost. Crews from the US, Canada, and other countries assisted in the search. Today the news was about a catastrophic implosion that killed all five. I extend my sympathy to the dead and to the surviving families. The week before a ship with a few hundred migrants capsized off Greece, killing most of those on board. I extend my sympathy to the dead and to the surviving families. Peter Brookes tweeted a cartoon of the two vessels and a caption over only the submersible saying “All-out international effort to save lives...” Chitown Kev, in a pundit roundup for Kos, quoted part of an essay by Richard Reeves for the Brookings Institution.

A few years back, I was delighted to see my godson wearing glasses. It makes me feel better to know others are aging too. Judge me if you like. “Don’t feel too bad, Dwight,” I said with faux sympathy. “It happens to all of us in the end.” Dwight laughed. “Oh no,” he said, “these are clear lenses. I just do more business when I’m wearing them.” Dwight sells cars for a living. I was confused. How does wearing unnecessary glasses help him sell more cars? “White people especially are just more relaxed around me when I wear them,” he explained. Dwight is six foot five. He is also Black. It turns out that this is a common tactic for defusing white fear of Black masculinity. When I mentioned Dwight’s story in a focus group of Black men, two of them took off their glasses, explaining, “Yeah, me too.” In fact, I have yet to find a Black American who is unaware of it, but very few white people who are. Defense attorneys certainly know about it, often asking their Black clients to put on glasses. They call it the “nerd defense.” One study found that glasses generated a more favorable perception of Black male defendants but made no difference for white defendants.

I accumulated a bunch of tabs about AI over the last couple months. I finally have time to write about them. Andrew Kadel posted a description of ChatGPT written by his daughter who has a degree in computer science.

When you enter text into it, you’re asking, “What would a response to this sound like?” If you put in a scientific question, and it comes back with a response citing a non-existent paper with a plausible title, using a real journal name and an author name who’s written things related to your question, it’s not being tricky or telling lies or doing anything at all surprising! This is what a response to that question would sound like! It did the thing! But people keep wanting the “say something that sounds like an answer” machine to be doing something else, and believing it *is* doing something else.

John Cole tweeted a cartoon showing a couple watching TV. She says, “I’m not sure worries me more: artificial intelligence...” The scene pulls back to show on the TV is Marjorie Taylor Greene. The woman continues, “...or flesh and blood ignorance.” Pedro Molina tweeted a cartoon of a robot holding a newspaper page with the headline “Freedom Caucus Threats.” The robot says, “You are focusing too much on the dangers of artificial intelligence and not enough on those of natural stupidity.” Mark Sumner of Kos discussed a Republican ad that came out at the beginning of May and what is so scary about it.

It wasn’t just that the ad used AI imagery. It was that nothing–absolutely nothing–in that ad had anything to do with the real world. Not one of the morbid fantasies in which the GOP indulged themselves was in any way an extrapolation of Biden’s policies. It wasn’t just fake images, it was fake images spawned out of wholly fake claims designed to keep Republican voters properly frightened and enraged.

This is only the tip of the flood that is to come. Some experts can tell which images are fake. But 99.9% can’t and won’t try to tell they’re fake before passing them on. Sumner created a rebuttal to the ad. He spent about five hours and $10. He could have finished it faster if he didn’t add a note at the end saying it is fake – but what the nasty guy has said he would do if he returns to office. I watched the video – it’s pretty effective. Shannon Bond of NPR reported that seven years ago Elon Musk said in an interview that some Tesla models are quite good at autonomous driving. Recently, a man died when his Tesla crashed while using the self driving mode. The family sued, citing that 2016 interview. The article said:

But the unleashing of powerful generative AI to the public is also raising concerns about another phenomenon: that as the technology becomes more prevalent, it will become easier to claim that anything is fake.

Tesla lawyers pushed back, saying just that – the video is a fake. Judge Evette Pennypacker didn’t buy the claim.

"Their position is that because Mr. Musk is famous and might be more of a target for deep fakes, his public statements are immune," she wrote. "In other words, Mr. Musk, and others in his position, can simply say whatever they like in the public domain, then hide behind the potential for their recorded statements being a deep fake to avoid taking ownership of what they did actually say and do. The Court is unwilling to set such a precedent by condoning Tesla's approach here."

However, a jury may demand more verification whether evidence is real or fake. An AP article posted on Kos discussed AI on the campaign trail:

The implications for the 2024 campaigns and elections are as large as they are troubling: Generative AI can not only rapidly produce targeted campaign emails, texts or videos, it also could be used to mislead voters, impersonate candidates and undermine elections on a scale and at a speed not yet seen.

Some of the tactics mentioned: A faked famous person calls you to urge you to vote for a particular candidate. A candidate manipulates a TV journalist’s reaction. The video full of fake images mentioned above. A doctored video of the opponent attacking his base. Fake images of children in libraries learning about satanism. The nasty guy being arrested. In another article Sumner wrote:

On Monday, a pair of AI-generated images appeared on social media platforms Twitter and Telegram. One of these showed what was reportedly a large explosion at the Pentagon. The second, posted a few minutes later, showed what was reported to be a separate explosion at the White House. Both of these images were swiftly reposted thousands of times on both platforms. ... Within a few minutes, The Street reports the S&P stock index lost more than $500 billion. Most of that value gradually returned over the next few minutes as it became clear the pictures were fake. They had been generated by an AI art program. ... Two fake, easily refuted images made $500 billion vanish. Next time, the images could be more plausible, the distribution more authoritative, and the effect more lasting.

In a third report Sumner included a short statement put out by the Center for AI Safety and signed by 1,100 AI researchers in prominent universities.

Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.

Yes, we should pay attention to why these experts are worried. Sumner discussed a great AI success. Each of our genes, about 20K to 35K, creates a particular protein. What that protein does depends on how it folds. Alas, even when knowing every amino acid in the protein predicting how it folds is tremendously complex. Even supercomputers have a hard time with it. Many complex models could not accurately predict how an unknown protein folds. Then in 2020 the company DeepMind reported their AI program AlphaFold could predict the folding of all proteins. Not just human proteins, but all 200 million proteins in earth’s biome. And the program’s solutions are a close match for experimental results. This is a tremendous success. But because of the way an AI learns, how it comes up with a solution is unknowable to humans. An AI could be trained to produce potential new drugs, opening a wondrous new era of medicine. Or an AI could be trained to produce harmful toxins, similar to Mad Cow Disease. But since the AI has a tendency to tell us what we want to hear, would it accurately tell us what it produced was a wonder drug or a toxin?

It doesn’t take a superintelligent general-purpose AI equipped with Skynet and an army of Terminators to pose a tremendous threat. The threat is there in a toolset whose value is so great that we can’t help but use it, and whose errors are so unpredictable that we can’t understand their source.

Notorious

I heard the movie RBG had been released but only in a few theaters. In Sunday’s paper I saw it was at the two art house theaters in the Detroit area. This morning I checked online and saw the movie would be there only until Thursday. So this afternoon I saw it.

RBG is, of course, about Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court. It is a documentary about her life. She grew up in Brooklyn and lost her mother just as she was graduating from high school. She went to Cornell University, a good place for daughters in the early 1950s – with a ratio of five male students to each female if one couldn't find a husband at Cornell one was beyond hope. Ruth Bader did find a husband in Martin Ginsburg. The relationship had a chance because he wasn’t afraid of how smart she was.

Once done with law school Ginsburg had a hard time joining a law firm because she was a woman. But when hired she was formidable. In the 1970s she argued a series of cases before the Supremes having to do with gender inequality. She chose cases carefully and used her time to teach the justices that, yes, discrimination against women was a real thing, that it harmed women, and because it harmed women it harmed men and all of society. She made a difference in women’s lives.

In the late 1970s Jimmy Carter noticed that most of the federal court judges were white men. So he appointed Ginsburg to the DC Circuit Court, the one that handles disputes between branches of the government. In 1993 Bill Clinton nominated her to the Supremes. People didn’t consider her a candidate because she was already 60. But in her interview she captivated Clinton completely.

Through the rest of the 90s she was the author of many important decisions. But as the Supremes became more conservative she took on the role of the prime dissenter.

The movie also talked about how supportive Martin was. He could see her job was more important than his, so did what he needed to make hers happen. I had a chuckle when one of the final credits was, “The Martin Ginsburg award for supportive husbandry.” We also saw her friendship with Antonin Scalia and her love of opera. We saw a clip of her onstage at the Kennedy Center playing the Duchess of Krakenthorp in “The Daughter of the Regiment” (yes, a speaking role, with lines rewritten for her).

The movie also shows that she has become a pop culture icon with fans and being portrayed on Saturday Night Live.

I have profound respect for this Notorious RGB. May she live long and keep a sound mind and body.

One funeral at a time

My friend and debate partner has used the phrase, "Society progresses one funeral at a time." He decided to check the source of that phrase. He didn't find anything, though he did find that Max Plank had said, "Science progresses one funeral at a time." So my friend declares authorship of the phrase "Society..."

This bit of research was prompted by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. My friend wrote, "He did tremendous damage to our society and intended to do more. One down, three to go."

My friend had used his phrase to describe the progress of LGBT rights. The elderly, who have a higher tendency of viewing gays and lesbians in negative terms, die off and are replaced by younger voters, who wonder what all the fuss was about.

But I must debate one part of what my friend said. I doubt there are only "three to go." A President Trump, Cruz, or Rubio will gladly refresh the supply of bigoted justices. We'll have to go through many more funerals because Cruz and Rubio are still quite young.

Yesterday I wrote that Timothy Lee of Vox lists fourteen justices who were nominated in an election year. Jim Burroway of Box Turtle Bulletin provides details.

Burroway's list includes Howell Edmunds Jackson. During Franklin Roosevelt's time as president the 20th Amendment changed inauguration date from March 4 to January 20. In November of 1892 Benjamin Harrison lost his bid for re-election. Even so, on February 2, 1893 Harrison nominated Jackson to the Court after Justice Lamar died that January. Harrison, a Republican, knew the new Senate would be controlled by Democrats, so nominated a Democrat.

So even lame-duck presidents nominate justices and get them confirmed. Though I wouldn't want Obama to nominate a conservative, just to get that person through the Senate.

Burroway also mentions six times a justice left the court in an election year and the seat went unfilled until after the election. In June of 1968 Chief Justice Earl Warren retired. Abe Fortas was an associate justice and Lyndon Johnson nominated him for the top job. But Fortas has sketchy ethics and his confirmation was filibustered. The scandal grew and Fortas resigned in May 14, 1969. Now there were two openings on the court. One was filled when Nixon nominated Warren Burger for Chief Justice, who took office on June 23, 1969 (that seat had been empty for a year). That second seat was open for another year before being filled by Harry Blackmun on June 9, 1970.

Euphemism for bigotry

Yes, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died, apparently of a heart attack. He was 79. Nina Totenberg works through his legacy.

It would be so easy for me to be snarky. But I'll refrain.

Stephen Henderson is the Editorial Page Editor of the Detroit Free Press. He was a reporter at the Supreme Court for several years around the turn of the century before coming to Detroit. That got him on NPR to discuss Scalia's legacy. Naturally, Henderson's editorial of Scalia is a cover story in today's edition of the Freep. He wrote:

He was a man for whom the notion of expanding liberty beyond the narrow confines of those who could enjoy it at the nation’s founding could only happen through the democratic process, with the majority granting rights to minority populations. And if it happened otherwise, through courts that saw the Constitution’s promise of liberty in broader terms, it was in contravention to the nation’s founding principles.

Gay rights? Only if the majority wishes. Affirmative action? For Scalia, it wasn’t a tool for realizing the promise of racial equality, but rather a means of discriminating against the majority. Sexual privacy? Not mentioned in the Constitution, so it didn't exist.

… Those notions sit quite close to the center of the “originalist” or “constructionist” view of the Constitution that Scalia and other conservative appointees since Reagan have aggressively tried to ply throughout American law.

My summary is simple: The Constitution was written at a time when only white male landowners could vote. Therefore the Originalist interpretation of the Constitution is a euphemism for bigotry.

Henderson says the conservative side of the Supremes "had already begun to witness significant erosion of their dominance on the court." And the GOP and their conservative backers fear their majority is slipping away. So, of course, they are crowing they will block a nominee that hasn't been named yet, simply because Obama is the one doing the nominating. They are betting the next prez. will be one of their own.

One of the loud voices slamming Obama is, of course, Ted Cruz, who hopes to be the one doing the nominating. His comments got so silly in their alarm that I won't link. Other sentiments out there is that if Obama's nomination goes through we can say goodbye to the Constitution. Which sounds like the speaker means: the Constitution interpreted to favor straight white Christian guys.

Elizabeth Drew of Ohio, who is a regular contributor to New York Review of Books, put it well: "Senator Cruz, if you're president, which powers would you surrender in the last year of your presidential term?"

Conservatives also like to say that justices nominated in an election year are never confirmed. Timothy Lee of Vox lists fourteen such justices, though the only one since WWII is Anthony Kennedy and he was actually nominated the previous December after Robert Bork was rejected.

A big issue of the prez. campaign has just gotten a lot more visible. The GOP candidates have already been trumpeting what kind of justice they would nominate – if we get a President Trump, Cruz, Rubio, or Carson they have vowed they will nominate someone to overturn marriage equality. Even a President Kasich or Bush wouldn't do us any favors (I've lost track of how many are still in the race). Alas, Sanders and Clinton haven't made a big deal of what kind of justice they would appoint. I hope they start saying so soon. Of course, if Mitch McConnel, Senate Majority Leader, is able to block Obama's nominee, this issue will definitely be part of the fall campaign.

But it should already be part of the campaign with Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kennedy all 77 or older. Scalia sat on the court for almost 30 years. His successor will be with us for a long time.

In the meantime leaving a vacancy in the court would not benefit the GOP. Ties of 4-4 mean the lower court rulings remain in effect – and at the moment there are more Obama and Dem appointees than GOP appointees. Will that vacancy bring more conservative voters to the polls? Do they already vote? Will the usual increased Dem turnout in an election year make the difference? Do younger voters understand the importance of the Supremes?

Want to save time? Elizabeth Drew suggests ignoring all stories that speculate on who Obama will nominate.

Jim Burroway of Box Turtle Bulletin reminds us of Scalia's legacy regarding LGBT rights. Burroway quotes Scalia's dissents (fortunately merely dissents) on four of our big cases: Romer v. Evans, which overturned a Colorado constitution amendment that banned laws granting rights to LGBT people. Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws. US V. Windsor, which declare the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. And Obergefell v. Hodges, which brought marriage equality. Scalia can be somewhat amusing with his phrasing, but it is tough to wade through the bigotry.

Properly vetted

I've finished reading the book The Nine, Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin. It covers the Court from about 1981 when Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor to 2007 (my paperback version has an extra 15 pages covering parts of 2008). There is, of course, some discussion of the progressive Earl Warren and Warren Burger Courts that much of modern Court history since then is in reaction to.

The book has a look at all the justices of this time as well as all the major cases. For instance, after reading through the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas we read such things as: He is the most beloved by staff (he makes sure to know the names of all the clerks, not just his own, as well as the names of all the Court support staff). Because of his nasty confirmation he is the most reclusive, rarely talking to other justices in person. He has a huge motor home, which he and his wife, along with a great nephew in their custody, use to escape Washington on weekends, usually going to NASCAR events.

The major topics of the Court during this time are, of course, abortion and affirmative action. The author delves into the abortion cases during this time because each one was seen as an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. The closest attempt was Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Robert P. Casey (the state governor) in 1992. The state legislature had passed a whole slew of restrictions to abortion, then tried to argue that all must be kept (overturning Roe) or all tossed out. One restriction was that a married woman must have the consent of her husband. That didn't please O'Connor. She, Souter, and Kennedy teamed up to preserve the right to abortion. It was her ideas that brought in enough votes for a majority. Though William Rehnquist was Chief Justice the justice who mattered was O'Connor.

The other big case discussed in the book was Bush v. Gore\ of 2000. The author spends 50 pages on the details and discusses all the way this ruling was wrong and how it showed a majority of justices were highly partisan. O'Connor was a Republican and was desperate for her party to win. But O'Connor quickly found G.W. Bush to be appalling and damaging to the party and country. That was confirmed by the cases having to do with the Iraq war and Guantanamo detentions.

Alas, O'Connor's husband John was worsening under Alzheimer's, so she resigned to take care of him. Then shortly after that he had to be put into a home. He no longer remembered his wife and fell in love with a caretaker. O'Connor ended up not needing to care for him and felt she had resigned for nothing. She was especially annoyed because her replacement was Samuel Alito, who, with Roberts, pushed the court quite a bit to the right.

Some of the other things I learned through the book.

* Scalia may have the biggest mouth and the most colorful dissents, but he is annoyed at how little influence he has over the other justices. His opinions don't change their minds.

* The views of Clarence Thomas are so far to the right that he is rarely asked to write a majority opinion. He does write dissents, though other justices tend not to sign on to them.

* When Byron White left the Court Bill Clinton had a convoluted time coming up with a replacement. He finally settled on Ruth Bader Ginsberg. His nomination of Stephen Breyer went much more smoothly.

* The time 1994-2005 was the second longest in Court history without a change in justices. The longest was 1810-1823. All the tasks reserved for the justice with the least seniority were things Stephen Breyer did for 11 years.

A major theme of the book is the conservative and fundamentalists ongoing efforts to control the court. Their efforts could be summarized as, "Reverse Roe. Expand executive power. Speed executions. Welcome religion into the public sphere. Return the Constitution from its exile since the New Deal." That last refers to the Federalist belief that the Constitution has been ignored since FDR and practically banished under the Warren and Burger Courts. Conservatives know this would only happen through the Supreme Court and all their efforts are focused on making the politics happen so that the right president nominated the right justices (ones vetted by the likes of James Dobson). Roberts and Alito were very much vetted by the fundamentalists. They desperately wanted to avoid another Kennedy or O'Connor who had all the conservative credentials, yet voted much of the time with the liberal block.

The book is quite detailed about hashing out the various cases. We rarely hear about any of it. The author says he research included long discussions with the justices and with many of their clerks. However, justices and clerks said not to identify who said what. So, yes, this is the inside story.

Appropriate for a teenager

On the marriage front:

All three employees of the clerk's office in Decatur County, Tennessee have resigned. They refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Bye! At least they have the decency to resign when they won't fulfill all of the duties of their job. Other clerks elsewhere across the South have also resigned.



And some clerks need a push. The ACLU has filed suit against Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis who has refused to issue marriage licenses to all couples. Plaintiffs in the suit include both straight and same-sex couples.



Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has been slow to allow same-sex marriage even though the Supremes and the 5th Circuit have ordered him to do so. He was waiting for the Federal District Court, the one that had said refusing same-sex marriage is permissible. The 5th Circuit had given that lower court until July 17th to rescind their earlier ruling, now that it conflicts with the Supremes. The District Court managed to do it in a day. Commenter Franck Rabeson characterized the conversation this way:

Jindal: “We won’t allow same-sex couples to marry in Louisiana until Supreme Court of the United States says othewise.”
SCOTUS, June 26, 2015: “Ahem.”
Jindal: “… all right. Well, there’s also the Fifth Circuit of Appeals that needs to…”
5th Circuit, July 1, 2015: “Ahem.”
Jindal: “Dammit. Well I’m waiting for the relevant district c–”
District court, July 2, 2015: “A-freaking-HEM, dude, get the hint already!”

No matter. At the time all but two parish clerks were ignoring Jindal and issuing licenses to same-sex couples. And now all of them are.



The Episcopal Church, at a convention this week, has approved by a wide margin two new liturgies on a trial basis. These liturgies will be used when marrying same-sex couples. One of them is a gender-neutral version of the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer.



Tobin Grant of the Religion News Service did some surveying of the opinions of members of various church denominations. He also looked at various denomination official positions. He then ranked all of them by acceptance of homosexuality. United Methodists are in the middle. Grant found that denominations towards the top and bottom of the lists were the ones most likely to issue a statement on same-sex marriage, those towards the top in favor, those towards the bottom stating their displeasure. Those in the middle, respecting the split opinions of their members tended to stay quiet.



Ari Ezra Waldman, a lawyer writing for Towleroad, takes a look at the dissents issued by Alito, Thomas, and Scalia in last week's case that brought marriage equality. He'll discuss the Roberts dissent in another post.

Scalia: Yeah, he was as rude as we expected him to be. Many of his talking points were from conservatives who think liberals talk down to them. Scalia sneers that Kennedy found a right that "lesser legal minds" – Scalia lists some of the great names of the Court – did not. Waldman reviews those legal minds and says,

True, none of these great jurists declared that the Constitution protects a gay person’s right to marry the person that he or she loves. But they never had the occasion to do so.

Alito's dissent appears to be built around protection of the majority. This ruling, Alito says, "facilitates the marginalization" of Christians. Oh, that old line. Waldman wrote:

Alito’s concern is misplaced. At worst, he is doing what he and Scalia do best: fear monger and predict gloom and doom. Such overreaction is more appropriate for a teenager, not a Supreme Court justice.

Thomas: The most quoted part of his dissent begins:

Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved.

According to Waldman, in just a few words Thomas (1) absolved those who held slaves, (2) reduced same-sex marriage to "governmental benefits, " and (3) denied that dignity is harmed by institutionalized discrimination. But the issue is whether the Constitution allows states to damage a person's dignity.

More democratic

The Supremes gave us a wonderful gift last Friday, but their term wasn't quite over. They released three more opinions yesterday. The one of greatest interest to me is the one about gerrymandering. Fifteen years ago the citizens of Arizona got fed up with their legislature not doing what they wanted and passed a state constitution amendment putting the redistricting task in the hands of an independent commission that the legislature could not overrule. The legislature became miffed at the power taken away from them and sued. Their claim was that the US Constitution said everything associated with elections of Representatives was to be decided by the legislature of the state.

In a 5-4 decision Ruth Bader Ginsberg said the word can be defined as, "The power that makes the laws." And that could easily be – and is more democratic when it is – the people. Roberts was not amused by simple definition swaps. We needed the 17th Amendment to specifically say Senators should be elected by the people and not the legislature.

Ginsberg noted that even Founding Father James Madison worried about gerrymandering. The court should have done something about it before now but hasn't been able to find a "workable standard" to support a constitutional limitation.

The ruling does not mean independent commissions must draw district boundaries. It does mean that if the people vote to create an independent commission the Constitution does not prevent it. That's good to hear because Michigan is highly gerrymandered and we'd like that opportunity here.

The second Supreme ruling yesterday involved the first of three drugs used in death penalty cases. This time the conservatives prevailed. The issue is whether mishandling that drug causes cruel and unusual punishment, which the 8th Amendment forbids. The Alito decision noted the Court has never ruled any particular method of execution is cruel and unusual and this one isn't either. They gave two reasons. First, the inmates who brought the case couldn't show the state had a better drug than the one in dispute. Second, the inmates couldn't show misuse was likely, they only showed it can happen.

The main dissent was written by Sotomayor. First, she says, mishandling is more likely than the conservatives suggest and that could result in searing pain. Second, the burden of proof should not be on the inmates.

But it is the Breyer dissent that is attracting attention. He read his dissent from the bench and suggested that the death penalty is unconstitutional. That brought a heap of scorn from Scalia who said the Constitution "explicitly contemplates" the death penalty (whatever that means).

The third case was about the Environmental Protection Agency's new rules for regulating pollutants from power plants. Again, the conservatives prevailed. They ruled the EPA must factor in some kind (any kind) of cost-benefit analysis when it applies regulations to a particular facility. For example, if preventions for hazardous emissions would cost $10 billion to install but the benefit is only $6 billion, then the EPA should not enforce what it wants. That's the central question. The Court did say the benefit could include whatever the EPA thinks is appropriate such as harder to measure things like health care savings in the surrounding neighborhood.

With that the Supremes are done until October.

Hug a conservative

My pastor and I have talked briefly and with much joy about the Supremes legalizing same-sex marriage. At the end of the conversation I said, "So what is this going to do to the United Methodist Church?" I asked because according to church rules he is still forbidden to perform same-sex ceremonies. He replied, "I don't know. I've already been asked. I can't say no." Yes, a lesbian couple has already asked him to perform their wedding. This will get interesting. The next time the denomination might change the rules is next May.



The blog Joe.My.God written by Joe Jervis has a collection of cartoons celebrating same-sex marriage. His readers posted more cartoons in the comments, so scroll down. A recurring image is the Confederate flag being lowered and the gay pride flag being raised in its place. I like that one.

Jervis also reports on Brian Sims, a gay member of the Pennsylvania House, wondering why lots of people aren't moving to Canada. Scroll down for a commenters reply:

Attention angry American Conservatives, Canada has a message for you... "We're sorry, but the country you have reached is not at your service. We have same-sex marriage, universal health care and gun control...have you considered Iran?"

Matt Baume of Americans for Equal Rights put together a couple videos about the ruling. The first one explains how it is that same-sex marriage is in the Constitution when those words don't appear there. He also discusses the roadblocks that were thrown up when schools were told to integrate as a reminder that our work in this issue probably isn't done. It is 8 minutes. The second tackles what Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito wrote in their dissents and how they are wrong. That one is 5 minutes.

After watching the first video I scrolled down to the comments and saw this:

Hug a Conservative. They've had a rough week.

All across America!

I had a morning meeting so didn't hear the news from the Supremes until I got home and listened to a message from my sister, the one eager to marry her partner. I didn't get a chance to read my various news sources until after 9:00 this evening. And there was a lot to read. Yes, in a 5-4 ruling the Supremes have declared same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Yay!

As was done with the last several gay-friendly cases heard by the Supremes, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the decision. His reasoning is based on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process clauses – both together. Excerpts from his opinion:

Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes en- acted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.
…
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
…
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

On we go to Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent. He can be entertaining with his colorful phrases. At least he is more polite than he was when the Supremes overturned bans on gay sex (on this date 12 years ago).

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.
…
The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

This guy has apparently never heard of Tyranny of the Majority – which is quite disappointing because a basic piece of his job is to prevent such tyranny. Mr. Scalia, after you use such ringing phrases as, "A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy," we must ask, how did you vote in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United?

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate dissent. It is so... well, I don't want to quote it. He says essentially that gay people can live their lives in peace, so what's the problem? He takes a swipe at Kennedy's phrase "equal dignity in the eyes of the law" by saying government doesn't bestow dignity. By preventing the political process from playing out people are prevented from considering the religious liberty implications as part of their deliberative process.

Justice John Roberts also wrote a dissent, saying there is no constitutional right for same-sex marriage, the Court can't take the issue away from the states. Justice Samuel Alito also wrote a dissent, but I haven't seen any quotes.

I'll let you go surfing for all the comments from those who think this is a bad decision, though today's All Things Considered on NPR has a balance of quotes. At least on NPR our opponents don't say ugly things. The comments are all about religious freedom and how man can't redefine God's law. And all the other gays are boogeymen out to get your kids nonsense. Personally, I've had enough of "religious freedom" because it has become to mean, "We must maintain our right to discriminate."

Melissa McEwen of Shakesville has a much larger quote from Kennedy's ruling. She share's a fun text from a gay friend.

So sorry to hear about the crumbling of your traditional marriage this morning! Wish you both well navigating this scary new world!

And she ends with several statements like this one:

This is a GREAT DAY for all the LGBTQ people who recognize that marriage is just one step on a long journey to comprehensive and meaningful equality, but needed like whoa a big win to fill their sails with air to keep them moving on their way.

In another post McEwen comments on how wonderful Kennedy's ruling is.

Ari Ezra Waldman, a lawyer who writes for Towleroad, lists seven important points from the ruling. Here is one of them:

4. The decision is framed around the link among three “evolutions”: the evolving history of marriage, the evolving acceptance of homosexuality, and the evolving scope of the rights protected by the Constitution. Bringing all of this together, through a decidedly progressive narrative, is remarkable rhetorical and substantive feat that vindicates the doctrines of the marriage equality movement.

In a second post Waldman does a more thorough analysis. After the evolutions mentioned above Waldman lists the four principles that compel Kennedy to rule for same-sex marriage.

1. Individual autonomy, which both progressives and conservatives endorse.

2. Marriage is so important it cannot be denied to same-sex couples.

3. Same-sex marriage actually benefits children, refuting the old conservative claim.

4. Marriage is essential for social order and thus in the government's interest.

Kennedy's ruling includes rebuttals of conservative arguments, including those of his colleagues. Waldman believes this ruling will benefit the cause of progressivism in general.

Marriages have begun, with special sweetness in Georgia, Texas (where more citizens approve of gay marriage than oppose), Alabama, and Mississippi (where GOP leaders are throwing a hissy-fit). Special joy for newlyweds Jack Evans (84) and George Harris (82) who have been together for 54 years. There isn't a rush because same-sex couples know this is for keeps and they can take their time to plan their ceremony.

Here is a collection of images appropriate for the day. And a video of the joy outside the Court when the ruling was announced – that brought a lump to my throat.

Dear sister, I hope you take great joy in planning your wedding. I trust your wedding day will also be joyous.

No yacht this year

Melissa McEwen of Shakesville has a fine explanation of campaign spending. It was prompted by a comment from Newt Gingrich:

"What seems like really big money is less than a yacht," Gingrich said in an interview. Wealthy donors could decide that "this year, instead of buying a new yacht, I'm going to spend $70 million on a candidate," he said.

McEwen sums it up this way: there's a difference between free speech and class warfare.

This is a good lead-in to another event at the Supreme Court this week, one that didn't make it into the news. This event wasn't a hearing, but a ruling. Five justices, including Roberts, ruled there is a limit to the equation of money = free speech in campaigns. That limit is that judges who are elected to the job may not personally ask for campaign contributions. That is appropriate because a judge depends on the respect of the public. In addition, while a politician is expected to respond to supporters, a judge is barred from doing so.

There is the little detail that while a judge may not ask for donations directly, his campaign committee can. Doesn't that affect respect? Well, yeah, but one reform step at a time.

As expected, Scalia wrote a strong dissent. He accuses these five justices of putting their desire to protect the integrity of courts above the requirements of the Constitution itself. Yes, the integrity of the courts is important, he wrote, but don't lower the Constitution's standards to do so.

Who decides?

Justice Antonin Scalia was at an event at George Washington University. One of the things he said:

The issue of gay rights, on abortion, on many of the issues in which [Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg]'s opinions and mine differ does not pertain to the substance. It doesn't pertain to whether gay people ought to have those rights or whether there ought to be a constitutional right or a right to an abortion. That isn't the issue. The issue is who decides. That's all. I don't have any public views on any of those things. The point is who decides? Should these decisions be made by the Supreme Court without any text in the Constitution or any history in the Constitution to support imposing on the whole country or is it a matter left to the people? But don't paint me as anti-gay or anti-abortion or anything else. All I'm doing on the Supreme Court is opining about who should decide.

I'm not sure whether I should rant in outrage – or laugh. Don't paint him as anti-gay? What about his rants in dissents to pro-gay rulings over the last 20 years? Isn't one of the tasks of the Supremes to prevent tyranny of the majority? But enough. Melissa McEwen of Shakesville and her commenters do a much better takedown than I want to bother with.

Alabama!

The ban on same-sex marriage in Alabama has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal district judge. This one did not come with a stay! Alabama Governor, House Speaker, and Attorney General are not pleased and are working up a request for a stay. Just remember, guys, that the 11th Circuit and the Supremes have already refused a stay in Florida. We could see some serious celebrations on Monday.



The same-sex marriage ban is before a federal judge in North Dakota. Judge Ralph Erickson has decided to put the trial on hold until after the Supremes rule on the Michigan case in June.



The American Family Association (theirs, not yours) has demanded justices Kagan and Ginsburg recuse themselves from the same-sex marriage cases. The AFA says both are biased as shown by private actions that endorse gay marriage. If I remember right, Ginsberg has officiated at a same-sex wedding.

However, if they continue with demands for recusal, what about these two?

Justice Scalia spoke at a Catholic men's conference. Though that by itself doesn't warrant recusal, the Catholic diocese that put on the conference has said Scalia's speech will not be published or distributed. Hmm. And the bishop of that diocese is pushing hard for the Supremes (with ready access to Scalia) to rule against same-sex marriage.

Justice Thomas recently had his photo taken with Robert George and Ryan Anderson. Anderson has put out a video explaining why it is logical to deny marriage to same-sex couples. As for George, back in 2011 he wrote a lengthy article explaining that marriage just can't possibly be extended to gay people. He is also the head of the National Organization for Marriage.

So if Kagan and Ginsberg must be recused, so should Scalia and Thomas.

Leading the defense will be …

On April 23 US District Judge Michael McShane will hear the case challenging Oregon's ban on same-sex marriages. But the defense table will be empty.

* Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum won't be there. She filed a brief saying, "This case presents that rare case in which there simply is no legal argument to be made in support of a state law."

* The governor or any other state officer won't be there.

* No outside anti-gay group will be there. The Supremes decided the Calif. case last summer by saying outside groups don't have standing to appeal. So why get involved if they can't pursue an appeal? They didn't even file briefs laying out their position. That's perhaps because they no longer have the resources to devote to a lost cause -- they want to use their dwindling resources to overturn public accommodation laws (see Arizona).

The judge did get lots of briefs -- from Oregon businesses saying the ban was bad for business.

Now some judges might feel free to impose their own opinion on the case, someone like Antonin Scalia, for example.

But not this judge. He's gay. Yes, a gay federal judge. Judge McShane did tell the attorneys in the case he'd be willing to step aside if anyone was uncomfortable with him being gay. But nobody expressed any concerns. Then again, there weren't any attorneys for the anti-gay side.

Of course, anti-gays from other states will complain about the activist gay judge. Too bad.

The most vitriolic "I told you so"

The full Indiana Senate passed a marriage protection amendment. This is not all bad, because they approved the version passed by the House, the one without the second sentence that banned civil unions. Which means it will not go before voters this fall. The legislature has to vote on it again after 2014 for possible voter approval in 2016. And voter opinion might change enough to prevent its passage -- or the Supremes may make it unnecessary.

Perhaps many GOP legislatures want the issue to just go away.



There is a lawsuit filed against the 2011 Michigan law that banned employee benefits for same-sex couples in state and local governments. Gov. Rick Snyder has filed a motion asking the court (not sure at what level) to keep the ban. Snyder's reasoning: banning benefits to gays "'eliminates local government programs that are irrational and unfair' and promotes 'financially sound' local agencies." Translation: offering domestic partner benefits is irrational and unfair because the relationships themselves don't meet a government interest. In addition, allowing governments to discriminate against homos saves money.



Vladimir Luxuria is a former Italian Member of Parliament and is transgender. She has been in Sochi and doing some protesting. She was first escorted out of the Olympic Park and dumped in the countryside. After her second protest she was escorted to the airport. Alas, the International Olympic Committee is just fine with that.



Rachel Maddow had a discussion with Kenji Yoshino, NYU law professor, about the string of gay marriage court victories. What caught my attention was the first part of the 9 minute segment in which Maddow reviews all the cool progressive stuff Attorney General Eric Holder has done in just the last year.



Back last June when the Supremes ruled that the federal gov't must recognize same-sex marriages, Justice Antonin Scalia fumed in his dissent that the ruling will be used to overturn state same-sex marriage bans. And that, according to Scalia, was a Bad Thing.

Jesse Wegman of the New York Times Opinion Pages lists all the cases since then where that ruling -- including Scalia's dissent -- has been influential in the judge's thinking: Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Utah, and Oklahoma with more to come.

Which means when another marriage case gets to the Supremes we all are eager for Scalia "to deliver the most vitriolic 'I told you so' in recent Supreme Court memory."



Teresa Tritch, also of the New York Times Opinion Pages, says the call to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour is worthy of support, but still inadequate. But why this figure?

But the recommended amount is more a political calculation than an economic one. It is enough to embarrass Republicans for not going along, but not enough to risk alienating business constituents (with the notable exception of the notoriously low-paying restaurant industry.)

First Presbyterian Church of Norfolk, VA has affirmed three tenets. From the first two -- Jesus is the way to salvation and the Bible is God's infallible Word -- one gets the impression that these are required beliefs for members of the congregation. So here's the third:

God’s people are called to holiness in all aspects of life. This includes honoring the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, the only relationship in which sexual activity is appropriate.

Yep, the third most important belief in this church is that the only permissible sex is straight, married sex.

Fine, lots of churches believe that, though it may be rare to put it in the top three beliefs. But there is a reason for highlighting this particular church. It is where Judge Arenda Wright Allen attends and she credits her current success to the pastor there. And Judge Wright Allen is the one who recently struck down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. She has mastered the separation between church and state.

More than a mere possibility of harm

My parents, sister, and niece came for a pleasant afternoon. I cooked the food (though that was delayed while the oven burned up the cherry pie drippings left from Thanksgiving (I don't use the oven much)) and was complemented on how good it was. There were a few gifts to open (long ago we limited the number of gifts). Sis and niece watched a DVD while Dad and I opened up a new jigsaw puzzle.

That gives me an evening to catch up on my reading and writing.

The 10th Circuit Court issued its ruling on a request for a stay of same-sex marriages in Utah and did so late yesterday afternoon. The answer was, "we conclude a stay is not warranted." But the case, said the Court, is now on an expedited appeal.

The Court considered two factors in particular. The first is whether there is likelihood of success on appeal. The court said it must be more than a mere possibility. The second is whether there is irreparable harm to the state if there is no stay. And it must be more than a mere possibility of harm.

It seems the big reason the state asked for a stay was that if gay people are allowed to marry now they will be harmed if it took their marriages away later. If the 10th Circuit doesn't consider that a big harm (not enough for a stay) perhaps that is a clue they will rule in our favor.

So Utah will go on to the Supremes. Since Sonia Sotomayor is in charge of the 10th Circuit their first stop is with her. She grant or deny the stay or she can refer the matter to the Court as a whole to decide. If Sotomayor acts on her own and Utah doesn't like it they can submit a request to another Justice, such as Scalia or Thomas, then keep going through the court for a favorable answer or until one refers the matter to the whole Court.

It's Freaking Utah!

Another big Christmas gift. Though a ruling wasn't expected until next month, federal district court judge Robert Shelby has declared Utah's ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. He agreed that marriage is defined and regulated by the states, as Utah asserted (which was their way of telling the feds to butt out). But such laws still have to comply with the national constitution.

Dozens of gay couples in Utah dashed to county clerk's offices and Salt Lake City mayor Ralph Becker was available to conduct ceremonies. State Senator Jim Dabakis was one of those who quickly married his partner. The clerk's office closed at 7:00 so the line was cut off at 5:00 -- with 75 couples in it.

Shelby did not stay the ruling pending appeal. The state Governor and Attorney General have now filed the appeal with the 10th Circuit Court, but apparently did not file a stay at the same time. A commenter named Cowboy, a resident of Utah, noticed something important. The ruling was issued on a Friday afternoon before a holiday. It could be January 4th before a stay could be issued. And only someone truly hateful (alas, they exist) would want to undo all the marriages that could happen in the meantime.

One reason why filing a stay might take a while is that "Utah’s elected Attorney General John Swallow resigned last month in the wake of multiple corruption investigations." The acting AG, Brian Tarbet, wants to make sure he gets all the details right.

This little bit is so delicious! Shelby pulled Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in last summer's Windsor case that struck down DOMA and used it against him. Scalia wrote:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion . . . is that DOMA is motivated by “bare. . . desire to harm” couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Scalia was warning that if the Supremes strike down DOMA it will provide rationale to strike down state same-sex marriage bans, so we shouldn't strike down DOMA. Shelby said, yep, striking down DOMA provides rationale to strike down same-sex marriage bans. Thanks, Tony.

Shelby, already called an activist judge overriding the will of the people, was nominated by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the conservative Republicans.

Rachel Maddow contrasts the Uganda story with the Utah story. She also wonders if this decision is different from all the previous ones because "it's freaking Utah!" Or is it because this is the first federal ruling after last summer's Supreme ruling which shows a successful way to attack those 30 marriage protection amendments. The video is 14 minutes. She notes that the bill in Uganda and the law in Russia were driven by Fundie American anti-gay lobbyists.

Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin had to update his map of what states have marriage equality. He had added New Mexico just the day before. A commenter adds that not being able to keep this kind of map up-to-date is a delightful problem to have.

In this map two states stand out. One is Pennsylvania. Someone noted it is possible to take Amtrak from Washington, DC to Boston (or Portland, ME) and Philadelphia is the only stop where same-sex marriage is illegal. They're working on it. The other state is Arizona, surrounded by Calif, New Mexico, Utah with equality and Nevada and Colorado who have all the rights without the word "marriage." But don't expect a change in Arizona soon.

In related news, the GOP in New Mexico are considering a marriage protection amendment. Gov. Susana Martinez, also GOP, said efforts are better spent elsewhere, such as with education and the economy. She could have added that though New Mexico didn't have a marriage protection amendment the ruling was written as if there was one -- meaning the state Supremes have already ruled it unconstitutional.

And one step back

In 1860 the British rulers of India wrote a law, known as Section 377, banning sodomy. Back in 2009 the Delhi High Court overturned the law, giving sexual minorities freedom from arrest and imprisonment for up to ten years.

In a decision handed down yesterday India's Supreme Court shocked the local gay community and many people around the world when it reinstated Section 377 and then said only Parliament can overturn it. Many say this ruling contradicts India's constitution. The Times of India lists the reasons why this ruling was a shock. One reason is that the Supreme Court has put the private lives of citizens into the hands of Members of Parliament.

Gay citizens may not be imprisoned all that frequently with the law back in place. But they will face extortion by police -- pay me a bribe or I turn you over to the courts.

Gay City News in New York delves into the case in lots of detail, exploring the court's reasoning. One part of the ruling is annoying and contradictory. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court because it relied on judicial rulings outside the country. And yet,

In answering the Delhi High Court’s concern about legislating morality, the Supreme Court justices pointed to the dissents made by US Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in the 2003 Texas sodomy case in which they argued government has a right to enforce its moral views.

Nothing like digging up the worst. That 2003 case was the one that legalized gay sex in the United States.

Some feel Parliament won't try to repeal the ban before elections this coming spring. The conservative party is gaining ground. Yet, a few current Members are looking to repeal the ban soonest.

Back starting in 2005 a World Values Survey asked citizens of many countries how they felt about homosexuality, among other things. The national feeling was on a 10 point scale where 10 meant everyone felt homosexuality was just fine. United States has a score of about 4.5. India now has the highest score, at 3, of countries that criminalize gay sex. So India is not a great place to be gay.

Erik Voeten of the Washington Post ponders why some countries with scores lower than India's do not criminalize gay sex. Some are countries that never criminalized it. These were not colonies of France or Britain. Others are parts of international groups (such as those under the European Court of Human Rights) that demanded their sodomy bans be repealed. Alas, removing a sodomy ban does not make a country less homophobic.

Unwanted advances

Back in 2007, about the time got my master's degree from Wayne State University, John Corvino, philosophy professor there, created a DVD of his talk What's Morally Wrong With Homosexuality?. I was in the audience for the taping. I bought a copy, but it didn't survive sharing with others. No matter. The hour-long talk is now on YouTube. Highly recommended. For those who just can't wait, Corvino's answer is "nothing." He is gay and has a partner.



Ari Ezra Waldman takes a look at Antonin Scalia's dissent in the case that struck down part of DOMA. Waldman notes it is internally contradictory and looks like Scalia is guided by a personal agenda, not clear thinking or the constitution.



Why are people homophobic? That's a question being studied. Possible answers include fear of gender-role violation, threats to a person's sexual identity, and threats to religious beliefs. All could play a role. One more idea did get studied -- the fear of unwanted sexual advances. Research showed a strong correlation between that fear and homophobia, though they remind us (in spite of this article's title) that correlation is not the same as causation.

Marriage equality at the federal level

I've got a full schedule this afternoon and evening, so I'll note what I can before I have to get lunch.

In case you've had no access to news in the last few hours…

The Defense of Marriage Act, part 3 (which prohibits the federal gov't from recognizing same-sex marriages) is overturned by a 5-4 decision. You can read a sufficient summary (or find a link to the full ruling) here. It includes Scalia's dissent on the grounds that the case shouldn't have come before the court (a tangled case), that the Court shouldn't trouble itself with moral issues, and, by golly, the law was not created because of hatred for gay people, nosiree! The anti-gay crowd will be quoting Scalia quite a bit now.

Edith Windsor, the plaintiff, is delighted!

So is the president! He may have a big task ahead sorting through gov't regulations to find those that specify they are based on where the couple resides, rather than where the wedding took place.

In California's gay marriage ban the Supremes' punted. They declared that since the state didn't protest the District Court decision no one else can. Therefore it is improper for the Supremes to rule on the case. In addition it was improper for the 9th Circuit Court to have taken the case. Thus the District Court ruling stands. It said that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. That means Calif. gets gay marriage but the status in all other states is unchanged.

This ruling was 5-4 and had a strange coalition: Roberts, Scalia, Kagan, Ginsberg, and Breyer.

Moral in the court

Issues with a strong moral component should be decided by the people, not a judge moralist. It isn't the court's job to decide what is morally acceptable.

True? False? Intriguing? An idea worth exploring? Let's see, if the courts aren't to rule on morality, they can look at gay issues through discrimination and not whether being gay is an abomination to some denomination's god. This could be good.

But when I tell you the person expressing the idea at the top of this post is Antonin Scalia, Justice of the Supreme Court, the debate gets more interesting. Scalia gave a speech at the North Carolina Bar Association yesterday. In his talk were references to homosexuality as an issue to be decided by the public, not the courts.

That prompts more questions:

Is Scalia just throwing bombs, being provocative? He's known for doing such things.

Is he signaling how he will vote in the marriage equality cases to be issued next week? Just what is he signaling?

Is he saying that the court shouldn't rule on "moral" issues at all? Does that imply he believes gays have no recourse to the courts?

Is he being realistic that justices are indeed not qualified to rule on the moral aspects of cases, that there is no demonstrably morally right answer?

What should a court do when a religion claims the moral right to bully gay people? From a statement Scalia said in 2003, as part of his dissent on the Texas anti-sodomy law, that Americans have a clear right "to protect themselves from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

Scalia was asked to apply those principles to the case of "Brown v. Board of Education," that desegregated schools.

Scalia said he would have voted with the majority on the case to create more educational opportunities for blacks. He added, however, that “a good result” doesn’t make for good law. Had the courts not interceded, he said, state leaders would have eventually removed the racial barriers.

Eventually? There are many in the South who are even now working to make schools segregated.

Reaction by an audience member: Yup, Scalia is being consistent with earlier views. He's no friend to gays or progress.