PZ Makes My Argument Better

"I don't like the Manhattan mosque, but they've got the right — as long as I've got the right to point and laugh"

Naturally, I dislike the idea of constructing religious buildings anywhere, since they are a colossal waste of community resources, typically represent unproductive holes in the tax base, and promote stupid thinking — but guess what? Those aren't legal cause to interfere with people's right to waste their time and money. Also, if we accept the privilege of individual autonomy and personal freedom, we don't have moral cause to interfere.

I get spooked out by any religion claiming "insensitivity." It's a building, nothing more, nothing less. Let's not add to what it is until those who occupy it do so. Then, we can point and laugh, or rally and protest, or let the government raid it for terrorism.

The first amendment is hard, and insensitivities are not its standard.

Prop 8 Overturned, 14th Amendment Next

Chief Judge Vaughn Walker (a gay, libertarian conservative first nominated to the bench by known socialist and butt-cancer survivor, Ronald Reagan) overturned California's Prop 8, stating that,

The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987)...

Uh oh, it's the Republican/Tea Party's new worst enemy: Amendment XIV!!! But what about "traditional marriage" in the US?

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

Don't tell that to the fussbudgets over at Concerned Women for America. Those pious, submitting broads might rend their maternity aprons and stomp on them in disgust with their bare feet.

After going on about how the government must have a very compelling reason to restrict rights of a group of people--or some communist French nonsense like that--up comes my favorite part (which is a header, no less):

PROPOSITION 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DENIES PLAINTIFFS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE (MUCH LESS COMPELLING) REASON

The whole thing is a scathing page-turner. Early in the ruling, Chief Judge Walker describes how the defendants only called two witnesses, one of whom was not qualified to enter expert testimony. It's as riotous as dry legalese can get, and it reminds me of Judge Jone's ruling in Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

Cheers to Gov. Schwarzenegger for refusing to defend Prop 8. And cheers to Chief Judge Walker for including this nugget:

That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette...

Cue "activist."

Can't. Stop. Giggling.

Area Man Passionate Defender Of
What He Imagines Constitution To Be

Jeebus!! I am apoplectic!!

From Ace of Spades

Democrat (Of Course) Legislators In Connecticut Seek To Reorganize Catholic Church In That State


Well, thank Zoroaster they've "reconsidered":

CT Legislature...Hey Maybe We Won't Reorganize The Catholic Church After All

Andrew Sullivan On The Oath Of Office

A reminder of what so many forgot these past eight years: the executive branch's first duty is to protect and defend the Constitution, not the territory, of the U.S. On that score, Bush and Cheney did not keep us safe. They did to the Constitution what Osama bin Laden could never have done.

Wherein Lies The Blame

A new study finds that race was not the deciding factor of California's Prop 8 passage (emphasis mine).

Although support for Prop. 8 in the African-American community had been pegged as high as 70 percent by one previous postelection survey, this study — which not only reviewed pre- and postelection polls, but also crunched precinct-level election results and census data from Alameda, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego counties, in which two-thirds of the state's African-Americans reside — found the number was between 57 percent and 59 percent.

And that number is more about religiosity than race, study co-author and New York University assistant professor of politics Patrick Egan said. While higher than the level of support among white and Asian-American voters, it's due to the higher rates of African-American church attendance: Fifty-seven percent of African-Americans attend church at least once a week, compared with 42 percent of whites and 40 percent of Asian-Americans, he said.

Unfortunately, superstition and misplaced allegiance to the corrupt sages of a compromised ideology trumped personal relations with the gays.

Even personal relationships with lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people paled in comparison to these factors, said study co-author Kenneth Sherrill, a political-science professor at Hunter College in New York City. Although two-thirds of California conservatives said they know or are related to LGBT people, four of five conservatives supported Prop. 8.

But hey--we've all known for years that our conservatives aren't really conservative (much less libertarian) anymore. Let's give it up for Bob Barr, the--still thinking--conservative come libertarian author of DOMA, who now supports its repeal:

In effect, DOMA’s language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don’t want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws - including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran’s benefits - has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.

Let's be clear: we have a federal government dictating what states should do, and states dictating the rights of a minority through the votes of the majority. All over religious-based sexual hang-ups concerning tax-paying citizens who want the same privileges afforded their civic equals.

No one reads history anymore...

Excellent argument, & interesting information about Boumediene v. Bush

We all want to get the bad guys, but not at the price of an imperial presidency, & a Senate whose members base their opinions "not on independent fact-finding, but on a 2007 CNN report".

The majority opinion takes a longer view, and one that recognizes that our country has repeatedly come under threat while retaining its commitment to maintaining freedom. In the words of Justice Kennedy, "Officials charged with daily operational responsibility for our security may consider a judicial discourse on the history of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 and like matters to be far removed from the Nation’s present, urgent concerns. Established legal doctrine, however, must be consulted for its teaching. Remote in time it may be; irrelevant to the present it is not. Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our Armed Forces to act and to interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers. It is from these principles that the judicial authority to consider petitions for habeas corpus relief derives. Our opinion does not undermine the Executive’s powers as Commander in Chief. On the contrary, the exercise ofthose powers is vindicated, not eroded, when confirmed by the Judicial Branch. Within the Constitution’s separation-of-powers structure, few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the Executive to imprison a person.

Read it all @ Counterterrorism Blog.