In the separation of powers under US federalism, the states have rights through their own electoral process to determine how they will be governed. In California, activist judges overturned the will of the people in their ruling yesterday about same-sex marriage. While the celebrating is still going on in the gay community, people who successfully established laws before that define marriage in its traditional form are working to re-establish them.
The last time the state’s voters were asked to express their views on same-sex marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.
Proposition 22, which strengthened the state’s 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” passed with 61 percent of the vote.
This presidential election has made even the hint of such discrimination practically toxic. But there’s one category of bigotry that’s not only still permitted, it’s become trendy.
Age discrimination. I’ve been saying this for weeks as the jokes about John McCain continue to ramp up across the media spectrum, and not only on the comedy shows. Now, Politico is saying it, too. Or…at least Jonathan Martin is.
There are few safe harbors these days for making fun of people. Race, gender, religion are all effectively off-limits.
Yet age is still deemed as an OK topic to joke about (perhaps because it’s something most everybody will eventually encounter and isn’t limited to one minority segment of society?).
Define relevance. Nealy all the media started reporting after Indiana’s primary that Hillary Clinton was “Toast”. Is she?
Here’s a good roundup of what some of the big ones are saying.
Sen. Hillary Clinton scored one of the biggest victories of the Democratic primary yesterday, defeating Sen. Barack Obama 67%-26% (with John Edwards, long out of the contest, pulling 7%). However, the consensus in the media this morning is that the victory means little, because Obama has already effectively sewn up the nomination.
They’re virtually all saying the same thing.
The New York Times reports in a front page story that Clinton won a “strong” victory over Obama, but with Obama “still solidly ahead of Mrs. Clinton in the delegate fight, the West Virginia results are unlikely to adversely affect Mr. Obama’s chances of winning the nomination.” The Washington Post reports on its front page that…
click here to read whole article and make comments
In a news release, the political action committee for
NARAL Pro-Choice America had kind words for Clinton but annoounded its
backing for Obama, citing its reading of the status of the Democratic
“Today, we are proud to put our organization’s grass-roots and
political support behind the pro-choice candidate whom we believe will
secure the Democratic nomination and advance to the general election,”
NARAL’s president said in the release. “That candidate is Sen. Obama.
Ever since the returns finally came in from Lake County, Indiana in last week’s primary, Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was considered effectively and finally over. So does it mean anything that she walloped Barack Obama in West Virginia Tuesday?
It was expected to be a big win for her, and it was.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton coasted to a large victory in West Virginia on Tuesday, handing Barack Obama one of his worst defeats of the campaign yet scarcely slowing his march toward the Democratic presidential nomination.
So….what did it mean? Everyone is trying to figure out why Clinton is still in the race and how long she’ll stay. There’s analysisall over the place.
If a tree falls in the forest when everybody expects it to fall, does it make a sound?…
The media like to handicap the black vote and the Catholic vote as if each were a unified bloc. What’s wrong with that is obvious.
The terms ‘African-Americans’ and ‘Catholic Americans’ are used as definitions in identity politics and polling data. The identities need better exploration in the media.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy muddles the difference considerably, since he and like-minded pastors preach identity politics from a black theological frame of reference. His own church member, Sen. Barack Obama, had already directed the nation’s attention to a “post-racial” America when the racial controversy erupted. Now, race is a touchy topic and in the middle of most political conversations. It’s either claimed or blamed as a reason for voting preferences and outcomes. It’s declared off-limits as a subject for discussion by the Obama campaign, even by black commentators.
Presidential candidates talk a lot. Eventually, something they say is bound to reveal more about their views than they realize…or intend.
Law professor Gerard Bradley caught Sen. Barack Obama making a statement that was utterly revelatory.
Barack Obama has just handed a great gift to conservatives. He is now on record (with Wolf Blitzer, if that counts) as saying about the Supreme Court that in “5 percent of cases or 1 percent” the law won’t be clear. Obama is thus conceding that there may be as few as one case each term in which a Justice would have to resort to his or her own “moral bearings” to decide the matter. ONE CASE!!!.
As opposed to the “living, breathing Constitution” philosophy.
Barack Obama’s campaign is considering a suggestion from John McCain’s campaign for the two presidential hopefuls to participate in joint town meetings and debates around the country starting this summer, Obama’s chief strategist said Sunday…
Asked about the suggestion and how seriously it was being considered, David Axelrod, Obama’s chief campaign strategist said: “Very seriously.”
“We believe that is the most significant election we’ve faced in a long time,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”
“We’re at war. Our economy is in turmoil. And we’ve got so many challenges that the people of this country deserve a serious discourse, and it shouldn’t be limited necessarily to three kind of very regimented debates in the fall,” he added, referring to those sanctioned by a presidential commission.
Or is it a media-driven effort to push Hillary Clinton out, finally? Something did change today, whether it was perception or reality.
The headlines have been turning over rapidly all day, but they’re all variations on this one. It started a couple of days after the North Carolina/Indiana primaries, picked up momentum Friday when Obama began picking up more declared superdelegates, and turned a corner today.
Barack Obama has taken the lead in superdelegate endorsements for the first time, marking a potential turning point in the endgame of the Democratic primary.
Obama picked up five superdelegates Saturday, after rounding up nine such endorsements the day before. The gains erased Hillary Clinton’s once-imposing lead among the party officials and insiders who play a key part in selecting the nominee.
This could be the Supreme Court term, one court watcher joked recently, that Justice John Paul Stevens remembers he is a Republican.
It’s interesting speculation, given that most of what’s predicted about Stevens these days centers on when he will step down and which president will get to replace him with hiw (or her) nominee.
It’s a surprise for a lot of people to even recall that Stevens was appointed by a Republican.
A 1975 appointee of President Gerald Ford, Stevens is regarded as the anchor of the court’s liberal wing. But he has joined with his more conservative colleagues in three high-profile cases that defied predictions they would showcase deep ideological divisions on the court.
Sheila Reports promises a perspective here that you may not be getting in mainstream media and the politically charged blogosphere. Don’t expect political correctness, because politics doesn’t determine what’s correct. This space is grounded in the natural law and moral order. And it expects civility, goodwill and an openness to truth and reason.