The California Supreme Court has overturned the state’s gay marriage ban…
…and it’s not even the top story on Drudge. (Nor is Mark Halperin paying enough attention to realize that Florida, not California, is the "Sunshine State," last time I checked.) I’m not sure if this reflects a decrease in the level of national polarization caused by this issue, or if everybody is just too wrapped up in talking about President Bush’s "bulls**t…malarkey" at the Knesset to pay attention.
This being California, there will undoubtedly be a state constitutional amendment initiative to overturn the ruling — but, on that front, Sullivan notes:
One key fact: the ruling takes effect in 30 days
- which means thousands of couples will be able to marry long before
any initiative attempts to reverse it. So the initiative question
becomes: do you want to divorce thousands of already-married couples?
Or do you want to keep things as they now are? That’s a big advantage
for the pro-equality forces.
UPDATE: More from Sullivan — including a point that seems to contradict the above-quoted passage, though I may be misunderstanding him — in a post titled "Judicial ‘Activism’?":
As usual, the lazy critics are uninformed. The California court has
not over-ruled the legislature: in fact, the legislature has voted for
full marriage equality twice already. And the court has not
"created" a right to marriage for gay couples. It has argued that if
the state has conceded that domestic partners should have, under state
law, all the benefits and responsibilities of married couples, the
designation of a separate and distinct category must be suspect, under
strict scrutiny, to the inference that the designation is based on a
desire to deny gay couples equal dignity and recognition. This is the
same point I’ve made in the past; isn’t constructing a separate and
distinct category an example of pure animus? You have conceded the
substance, but cannot concede the name. Since no heterosexual couple’s
rights would be affected in any way, what exactly is the rationale for
maintaining the distinction? Except bias?
One other political note: the Republican governor of the state,
Arnold, has already come out against the ballot initiative designed to
reverse this ruling. And the initiative will not be able to affect the
thousands of marriage licenses that will be granted before then. So the
legislature, the governor and the court have all now supported
equality. So back to the people … for one last chance to keep the
stigma in place.
Speaking of the Governator, he has reiterated that he respects the Court’s ruling and opposes its reversal.
The ACC and Pac-10 have the least despicable non-conference schedules in college football. And when you consider that the Pac-10 plays a nine-game, true round-robin in conference, their schedules are the most respectable by a mile.
Which conference has the cupcake-iest schedules? The Big Ten, of course. Though the SEC and Big 12 are nipping at its heels.