This Week's Cartoon

Last Tuesday's California Supreme Court decision upholding Proposition 8, denying marriage rights to all but 18,000 gay and lesbian couples, came at a lousy time relative to my deadline for last week. While the ruling came as no surprise to anybody, there was always the possibility that the ruling would not come down exactly as expected. Last week's cartoon was therefore not on the most salient topic of the week (and was one I'd rather have had Q Syndicate hold as a "reserve" for a week I'm away on vacation).

So here is my belated take on the case. As background, contrast Chief Justice Ronald George's opinion in 2009:

"Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in [the Marriage Cases] opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term 'marriage' for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws."

..with his opinion in the Marriage Cases in 2008:

"The current statutes -- by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership -- pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry."

California's Worthless Constitution

"[R]equiring discrimination against a minority group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution and thus 'represents such a drastic and far-reaching change in the nature and operation of our governmental structure that it must be considered a revision.'
"The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities."
--California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, in his (lone) dissenting opinion on Tuesday.

This Week's Cartoon

We Remember Their Service, Too

Liberty University Bans Student Democrats' Club

From press reports:

Brian Diaz, 18, told The Washington Post he was notified of the action by e-mail May 15. The e-mail said the club supports candidates whose views are "directly contrary to the mission of Liberty University."

The club, with about 30 members, was organized during the 2008 presidential campaign and supported Barack Obama's candidacy.

"They . . . let the Liberty University College Republicans stay on campus but they don't let us," Diaz said. "Sounds like censorship to me."

Sounds to me like Liberty University has revealed that its mission is to support Republicans.

Telling Republicans what Steve Schmidt Meant

"[McCain advisor Steve] Schmidt told a group last week that Republicans should embrace homosexual marriage. Otherwise, they risked becoming sectarian. By sectarian, Schmidt did not mean being defined as having a limited set of principles that served to guide the Party. He meant and he indicated that Republicans who refused to embrace homosexual marriage are narrow-minded.

"Schmidt is just like a maverick, which is probably why McCain made him a top adviser. He has no guiding principles. He would rather be open-minded.

"Schmidt was speaking to the Log Cabin Republicans, a group that quickly embraced his message. I wonder if next week Schmidt will take his close minded stump speech to a NAMBLA meeting. For those unfamiliar with NAMBLA, the acronym is for North American Man Boy Love Association.

"Schmidt would quickly tell you that he is not advocating that we support 60 year old men in their desire to rape 8 year old boys, but he would not classify his opposition as narrow minded. No! This is a principled position; there is some logic behind it, Schmidt would say.

"Is Schmidt then going to take his close minded stump speech to the Bestiality Club? Again, his answer would be no, although there are a group of people who embrace this lifestyle.

"Schmidt and other gay lifestyle proponents would say that my opposition is based on the slippery slope approach. I say that it is based on principle and that it is no more close minded than their position for gay unions. The difference between me and Schmidt is that I’m not a maverick. I’m guided by something called Christian principles. And I don’t need people in California, New York and Washington to tell me what the principles should be."
--William Smith, chief Republican counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a blog post, since deleted, on April 20, 2009.

This week's cartoon

The chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Doyle Webb, has warned Republican groups that "an openly gay woman" could serve as chair of the state Budget Committee if Democrats achieve a majority the state House of Representatives.

He charges that as chair of the committee, state Rep. Kathy Webb, D-Little Rock, (no relation) would "be in a position to influence a change in what has been established as traditional Arkansas values such as marriage between one man and one woman," in Doyle Webb's words.

The other person in this cartoon is a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, Kim Hendren, who has apologized for referring to New York Democrat Chuck Schumer as "that Jew" in a campaign appearance. (Hendren claims that he momentarily couldn't remember Schumer's name.)