Debt

California Roundup: Climate Clods, High-Living Deadbeats, Gay Marriage and More

|

Gays celebrate the right to be as miserable as straights.

* Reactions to the throwing out of Proposition 8: It's rational! It's irrational! At FlashReport, the Claremont Institute's John Eastman objects that U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who yesterday struck down the 2008 ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage, is a homosexual of the opposite persuasion who prefers the company of men and moreover lives in San Francisco. Is Walker's argument going to hold water? Read the highlights, which contain plenty of zingers and broad statements, but not a lot of legal-sounding stuff. The complete ruling [pdf] is long. At Volokh.com, Dale Carpenter says Walker's "maximalist" approach of defending gay marriage on both due process and equal protection grounds could lead to a reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court. An appeal has already been filed and the decision will probably be going to the SCOTUS one of these years. Reaction to Walker's ruling also suggests how lukewarm President Obama and the Democrats have been in their support for marriage freedom.

* Climate gas cleared up: A court has ruled that the ballot wording of Proposition 23—which would delay implementation of state climate-change laws—must be changed. Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley affirmed a claim from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association that the term "major polluters" written by Attorney General Jerry Brown's office was pejorative and tended to bias readers of the ballot booklets. In an expression of fair-mindedness that can only be the work of Robert Greene, the L.A. Times editorial board—never a friend of either polluters or the Jarvis organization— agrees with the judge.

* More Prop. 23 shenanigans: Opponents of the measure are trying to get U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to put the screws to a major donor to the campaign. All this tsouris may be for nothing, as Prop.23 is an extreme long shot that is opposed by the current governor and both the Republican and Democratic candidates to replace him.

* When we go bankrupt in this state, we don't pussyfoot around: New government data show Californians lead the nation in "net scheduled debt"—the amount you have to pay back after all the bankruptcy proceedings. In the northern part of the state, bad debtors are still carrying an average of $483,410 even after bankruptcy protection.

* Did the recession cause the pension crisis? Not a bit of it: David Crane, Gov. Schwarzenegger's advisor for "Jobs & Economic Growth," shows that this is another case of blaming revenues for what is actually a spending problem. Costs have been skyrocketing over projected levels since the beginning of the century.

NEXT: Don't Trust the Social Security Trust Fund

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t get the “he’s a homosexual” arguments. Does that mean that all of the straight judges can’t be taken seriously because they don’t know what it’s like to be gay? Do we have to find a eunuch* judge to be a fair arbiter of justice?

    * Saying “an eunuch” sounds wrong, even though eunuch starts with a vowel and should probably be preceded by “an”

    1. If a word starts with a consonant sound (in this case a “y” sound) you use “a” even if the letter it starts with is a vowel. Happens a lot when ‘u’ is involved.

      1. But will it core a apple?

      2. This is actually debatable, as the pronunciation of “eunuch” you refer to is not universal. This is a real pain in the neck when writing natural language generators. Acronyms are even worse: compare “a SCSI drive” and “an SEC investigation”. How the hell is a computer supposed to know that one is usually pronounced “scuzzy” while the latter is always spelled out?

        1. That’s why we humans will never be obsolete.

          We hope.

      3. “If a word starts with a consonant sound (in this case a “y” sound) you use “a””

        Is that an historic rule?

        1. It’s an ‘orrible rule, mate.

    2. A judge is not supposed to be personally affected by the outcome of a case over which he or she is presiding. Walker would be potentially allowed to marry under the decision he gave, but not under the opposite decision.

      A straight judge’s ability to marry would not be affected by either outcome.

      1. Not if you believe the pro-8 side.

        1. If you believe the pro-8 side, the judge’s ruling is wrong for plenty of other reasons.

          If you believe the anti-8 side, then my concern is valid.

      2. Gay marriage is a threat to marriage! How will a straight judge be unaffected by the outcome?!?!onetyeleven!!

  2. I can’t wait to read the reaction of the rat fuck bigots who are pissed at judge overthrowing the will of the people based upon dubious, at best, legal arguments.

    Hey, I know this is off-topic, but did you guys read my latest article at Slate? I am busy becoming a caricature by pre-emptively playing the race card against those who accuse Rangel and Waters of ethics violations. Check it out.

  3. “Marriage freedom” might be the greatest oxymoron ever.

    1. How can one be a libertarian and oppose “marriage freedom”?

      Yet another attempt by the cosmotarian fringe to redefine words to make their side of the issue look like the pro-liberty side. Right up there with “reproductive choice”. Their liberal cocktail party hosts have taught them well.

      1. Does someone need to explain Jim’s comment to you? Come on…

        1. Tulpa just wanted to say “cosmotarian fringe.”

        2. Oh, I know it’s a joke. We laugh because it’s funny but we cry because it’s true.

      2. I’m all for marriage freedom. Unfortunately my wife isn’t. Oh, and a lovely thing she is too.

      3. No, see, because when you get married… never mind.

        1. It just loses all its fun when you gotta explain it…

      4. Well, just for argument’s sake:

        The only justification for state involvement in family life is to protect the interests of minor children. The only case where a romantic pairing between adults can potentially touch this interest is when the pair physically can produce minor children. Therefore the state may not be involved in any capacity with same sex marriages because the state has no legitimate interest in such a union.

        1. DRM|8.5.10 @ 5:27PM|#
          “Well, just for argument’s sake:
          The only justification for state involvement in family life is to protect the interests of minor children.

          That’s true enough, but under the universal rule of mission-creep, government rules around marriage now greatly affect issues far removed from ‘minor children’.
          No, the government shouldn’t be involved at all, but since it is, it can’t discriminate based on sexual proclivities.

        2. You are absolutely right, DRM. I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I bet that’s why the state prohibits marriage for post-menopausal women, or for men who have undergone a vasectomy, or for those creepy people who are just infertile for other reasons.

          And we all know that all those filthy, nasty adopted children are not deserving of the stability marriage would bring to their family, whether they are being raised by same or opposite sex parents.

          So you’re right. There’s no legitimate state interest in any union that can’t naturally produce children.

          Case closed. Good work.

          1. That the state is currently improperly involved in a large number of marriages would not actually serve as evidence that it should be improperly involved in even more marriages, any more than state prohibition of marijuana proves the state should ban tobacco.

  4. …Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who yesterday struck down the 2008 ballot initiative banning [government recognition of] same-sex marriage…

    Also, calling it Sin Francrisco is zingier.

    You know, Cavanaugh, there are states other than California.

  5. We’re next, and by “next” we mean polygamy.

    We’re here! and we’re…um…what rhymes with polygamy?

    1. Big of me.

    2. We had polygamy before you did, copycat!

    3. This is why the mormons were so invested in prop 8. The last thing they want to have happen is a polygamy court battle.

  6. The California Jobs Initiative (CJI) is an oil corporation farce and fraud. There is no connection, whatsoever, between greenhouse gas emission reduction and the loss of jobs. This notion is an insult to the intelligence of the people of California. In fact, there is job growth in the clean, renewable energy industry. Chevron employs 65,000 worldwide and CJI is not going to change this. The only jobs created by the oil industry are clean-up jobs after oil spills and deep water, blow-outs and pump-handler jobs. CJI will make fantastic profits for the oil industry, increase air pollution, especially in communities around their refineries, and there will not be lower gas prices. Both Valero and Tesoro are super Enrons.

    1. There are some spanish studies that will shock you, sir. Also, many countries are dialing back their green subsidies because of the problem that you argue doesn’t exist.

    2. There is no connection, whatsoever, between greenhouse gas emission reduction and the loss of jobs.

      Earl,

      If your lungs stop emitting CO2 you will loose your job. At least in the private sector.

    3. Well, if you build Diesel powered generator to drive arc lights that drive solar cells, then, yes, you will increase the number of jobs.

      1. And enormous fan farms to keep the windmills turning…

    4. The only jobs created by the oil industry are clean-up jobs after oil spills and deep water, blow-outs and pump-handler jobs.

      Prove it.

    5. Earl Richards|8.5.10 @ 4:30PM|#
      “The California Jobs Initiative (CJI) is an oil corporation farce and fraud. There is no connection, whatsoever, between greenhouse gas emission reduction and the loss of jobs….”
      Glad to see you’re not just lying in one forum.

  7. CHA CHING!

  8. The only jobs created by the oil industry are clean-up jobs after oil spills and deep water, blow-outs and pump-handler jobs.

    Ooh, zing.

  9. The only jobs created by the oil industry are clean-up jobs after oil spills and deep water, blow-outs and pump-handler jobs.

    Damn. I guess me and the wife don’t have jobs because of selling things to the oil industry? Hmm. I’ll have to break the news to her that our jobs are imaginary.

  10. For once and for all stop calling it “gay marriage”, it’s “same sex marriage”. Because unless the couple is going to have sex in front of a judge to proven their “gayness” then there is no way to tell if they really are. Hell there are tons of gays who are married to straights and have had kids with them.

    1. +1

  11. Prop.23 is an extreme long shot that is opposed by the current governor and both the Republican and Democratic candidates to replace him.

    Knowing nothing else about it, Prop 23 suddenly sounds like it may be a reasonable thing.

  12. rctlfy.wordpress.com

    See why my ass shakes when I give head!

    1. You piece of shit. Leave me alone. You are a complete bore spoofing me all day. Why don’t you find something else to do? I gave you a place to put your childish remarks. Nobody here is interested in reading your tired spoof. You know damn well I stopped posting months ago.

  13. Here’s my solution.

    Every state government office would have available a ‘spousal designation’ form. Any two adults could, for a $5 filing fee, be able to sign the form.
    “We, the undersigned, hereby bestow upon each other all spousal rights and responsibilities, revocable at any time by either party, with, or without cause. This agreement supersedes any other spousal agreements that either of us may have entered into prior to this date.”
    Then, if those two people want to tell people they’re ‘married’, or not, is their business. The ‘rights and responsibilities’ part is what all this is really about anyway, right?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.