Tuesday, October 3, 2006
A Small, Belated Step for Grammarians - The New York Times
An Australian computer programmer says he found the missing “a” from Neil Armstrong’s famous first words from the moon in 1969, when the world heard him say, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” …
Some historians and critics have dogged Mr. Armstrong for not saying the more dramatic and grammatically correct, “One small step for a man.” Without the missing “a,” critics say, Mr. Armstrong said the equivalent of “One small step for mankind, one giant leap for mankind.”
Is this really that big a deal? “One small step for mankind, one giant leap for mankind” would be just a poetic in its own right. It still means that one particular thing is both a small step and a giant leap.
(This concludes the least consequential blog post ever.)
12:37 PM | oil me Wednesday, October 4, 2006
Three years ago, the New Yorker ran a terrific profile of Apple by Calvin Trillin. It’s not online, but I’m sure it will be soon.
[UPDATE: I was right - here it is.]
12:14 PM | oil me As Matt points out, today is the third anniversary of our first date. We’ve decided to celebrate by doing something low-key - we’ll order in some food and watch some good shows on TV.
Which is, of course, totally different from what we do most other nights.
3:47 PM | oil me I keep forgetting to do this. Everyone should go over and take a look at my friend Aaron’s new blog, Anything But Poetry. Aaron is a New York City poet whom I’ve known for more than five years now. (Has it really been that long?) I rarely get to see him, but fortunately we can stay in touch through our blogs.
It’s great to finally see him blogging.
5:19 PM | 1 drop of oil Buffy via South Park: I don’t know why I’ve never seen these before.
6:31 PM | oil me Here’s a video of every utterance of the word “Buffy” during the first season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
6:33 PM | oil me Justice Stevens: Bush’s nemesis. At 86 years old, he’s in excellent shape, he’s mentally sharp, and he shows no signs of retiring anytime soon - luckily for us.
6:52 PM | oil me Thursday, October 5, 2006
On Jennifer 8. Lee of the New York Times, a major go-getter and networker. The article is almost three years old, but it fascinates me. (How’d I find this random piece? I looked her up on Wikipedia after reading the beginning of this article about Malcolm Gladwell.)
And Mike knows her, if I’m not mistaken.
11:41 AM | 2 drops of oil On the Mark Foley scandal and the Republican Congressional leadership, Andrew Sullivan writes:
There is something deeply sick about a Republican elite that is comfortable around gay people, dependent on gay people, staffed by gay people–and yet also rests on brutal exploitation of homophobia to win elections at the base. These public homophobes, just like the ones in the Vatican, may even tolerate gay misbehavior more readily than adjusted gay people do. If you treat gay sex in any form as a shameful secret to keep concealed, the line between adult, consensual contact and the sexual exploitation of the young may not seem so stark. That’s how someone like Speaker Dennis Hastert could have chosen not to know: He was already choosing not to know Foley was gay. In this way, Hastert is a milquetoast, secular version of Cardinal Bernard Law.
For non-New Republic registrants, I’ve posted the complete column after the jump. I’m skeptical of what he says about the Log Cabin Republicans, but other than that he makes some good points.
4:42 PM | 1 drop of oil New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine will not approve legislation banning gay marriage if the state’s highest court rules that such unions are legal, a Corzine spokesman said Thursday.”
There’s no point to that statement; it’s meaningless. The New Jersey Supreme Court won’t rule on whether same-sex marriage is legal; it will rule on whether a ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional. If the court says such a ban is unconstitutional, there’s nothing the legislature can do about it. Corzine is basically saying that he wouldn’t do something that he wouldn’t be constitutionally permitted to do anyway.
And it’s too bad the governor is personally opposed to same-sex marriage.
It’s also too bad the governor appointed a machine Democrat to fill his old Senate seat, one who’s fighting a harder-than-expected contest to retain a Democratic seat in a Democratic-leaning state (although he’s gaining ground, which is good, because if the Democrats win just enough seats to take back the Senate, only to lose the New Jersey seat, heads will roll), and it’s also too bad the governor’s budget cuts made me lose my job, but that’s neither here nor there…
At any rate, a decision in the New Jersey marriage case is expected by October 25.
7:01 PM | oil me Friday, October 6, 2006
My god, why have I never seen this? The New Yorker Cartoon Anti-Caption Contest.
12:09 PM | oil me Thursday, October 12, 2006
Here’s a very neat infographic showing the path of yesterday’s plane crash on the Upper East Side in Manhattan.
10:25 AM | oil me I was really looking forward to Mark Warner’s running for president in 2008. Now I’m going to have to pick a new favorite candidate.
Grrrrrr.
11:04 AM | 3 drops of oil The ten nicest blocks in New York City, from Time Out New York. [via Gothamist]
12:57 PM | 1 drop of oil Friday, October 13, 2006
Andy Dick goes on Martha Stewart’s TV show; wackiness ensues.
5:51 PM | oil me This is great: a video blog of TV show main title sequences, using YouTube.
6:32 PM | oil me Saturday, October 14, 2006
Okay, I’m going to complain about something really inconsequential. But that’s okay, because what else is a blog for?
Anyway:
I love the New Yorker, but one thing that annoys me is that each article in the magazine has two different subtitles that are slightly different but essentially the same. The Table of Contents uses one subtitle, and the first page of the an article uses a different subtitle. What’s the point? Why not just use the same subtitle?
Some examples from the current issue:
Murdoch’s Game
Subtitle 1: A mogul’s unpredictable politics.
Subtitle 2: Will he move left in 2008?
It Should Happen to You
Subtitle 1: Fame, the YouTube way.
Subtitle 2: The anxieties of YouTube fame.
Paranoid Style
Subtitle 1: Conspiracy-theory journalism since 9/11.
Subtitle 2: How conspiract theories become news.
The Crusader
Subtitle 1: A magazine editor takes on the monarchy.
Subtitle 2: A Moroccan journalist takes on the King.
Tabloid Days
Subtitle 1: A gutter-press apprenticeship.
Subtitle 2: An apprenticeship in the gutter.
The Formula
Subtitle 1: Could a computer predict movie hits?
Subtitle 2: What if you built a machine to predict hit movies?
I really don’t see the point of this.
In other words:
I’m not sure what the point is.
10:44 AM | 1 drop of oil Monday, October 16, 2006
Possible new book purchase, or at least perusal: The Rejection Collection: Cartoons You Never Saw, and Never Will See, in The New Yorker.
So I decided to collect the best rejects from a number of my friends and colleagues — all regular New Yorker cartoonists, but all of whom, like me, have nine out of 10 of their submissions rejected. I gathered them together into a book, “The Rejection Collection.”
Why were these particular cartoons rejected? I can’t say for sure. I guess some were too racy, rude or rowdy. Some are too politically incorrect or too weird. A few are probably too dumb.
4:40 PM | oil me Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Fun fact:
If people could shrink, they would suffocate, because oxygen molecules would be too big for their bodies.
1:52 PM | 2 drops of oil Why is the New Jersey Supreme Court taking so long to issue a decision in Lewis v. Harris, the same-sex marriage case? The word is that the decision will be announced by October 25 (eight days from now), the day before Chief Justice Deborah Poritz reaches mandatory retirement age and must step down. That’s just 13 days before election day.
Same-sex marriage hasn’t been a galvanizing issue for Republicans in this election cycle, but a decision from New Jersey’s high court in favor of it could certainly make it one. New Jersey has a relatively liberal high court compared to other states; the New Jersey Supreme Court, after all, is the body that ruled that the Boy Scouts had to let in gays, before that decision was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. New Jersey is more likely than New York or Washington to issue a pro-gay-marriage decision.
The court heard oral arguments in the case in February. That was eight months ago. The U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t take this long to issue decisions. Why are state courts taking this long? New York took a long time to issue its marriage decision, and Washington State took fifteen months. Courts must be aware that the issue is a big hot gay potato, and perhaps the judges take time to craft their language. (That doesn’t explain the shoddy workmanship and thinking behind the anti-same-sex opinion in New York, though.)
I want the decision to be announced already. Enough is enough.
2:09 PM | 6 drops of oil Thursday, October 19, 2006
Coming Tuesday, November 7: The Two Towers: The Complete Recordings.
Like The Fellowship of the Ring: The Complete Recordings, it consists of three CDs, holding the complete soundtrack of the movie - just over three hours of music - as well as a DVD-audio disc containing the entire sountrack. I own the first recording and I’m looking forward to this one as well.
Here’s the track listing.
Here’s the press release.
6:32 PM | oil me Friday, October 20, 2006
Anna Russell, the “prima donna of operatic parody,” has died. This is one entertaining obituary.
Ms. Russell gave a number of explanations for why her ambitions changed from being a serious singer to being a serious satirist. Ms. Russell said that one factor was that when she was 16, bones in her face were broken by a hockey stick: “That ruined my acoustic.”
…
The main inspirational trauma for her career may have been a British touring company production of Mascagni’s “Cavalleria Rusticana,” in which she sang Santuzza as a substitute. The tenor, who was supposed to shove her, did not expect her considerable girth and fell backward. She herself then tripped and literally brought the house down, the sets collapsing to the accompaniment of an audience roaring with laughter.
9:43 AM | oil me Dallas Voice | New Jersey ruling could be blockbuster
Quotes from an article about New Jersey’s pending gay marriage decision:
Conventional wisdom says the New Jersey Supreme Court will decide whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage on or before Wednesday…. But conventional wisdom has been wrong before.
True. But conventional wisdom is usually right.
Unlike Massachusetts, New Jersey does not have a residency requirement, so a door that opens in the Garden State will be open to all Americans. Surely hundreds of couples will make a beeline to the state, and just as surely the far right will fire up the engines on its next backlash machine.
That’s also true - and a reason why I’m worried.
The mainstream press appears oblivious to this impending development, so expect the ink to flow and the strings to pull out of the chatty Cathys on the cable news channels as reporters and analysts suddenly come to grips with a decision that has been in the works since February.
Again, true. The New Jersey case seems to be very much under the media’s radar. It’ll be fun to watch all the breathless analysis.
10:31 AM | oil me Saturday, October 21, 2006
As I’ve said before, I used to watch very little TV, but once Matt and I got together, I fell under his evil influence. His TiVonfluence. Whatever. Anyway, thanks to Matt, I now watch much more TV than I used to. Fortunately, the TiVo lets us skip the commercials, so our watching is more efficient. Here’s a rundown of what I’ve/we’ve been watching, night by night, since the new season began.
Sunday:
Desperate Housewives - Season 3. I watch this out of habit. I could probably stop. But I won’t.
Monday:
How I Met Your Mother - Season 2. My favorite sitcom on TV. I love the cast, I love the writing, I love the twists that occur, and even though it’s filmed in Hollywood, it captures New York better than Friends ever did. And the cast is half-Jewish - Josh Radnor (Ted), Jason Segel (Marshall), and half of Alyson Hannigan (Lily) (Alyson’s mother is Jewish).
The New Adventures of Old Christine - Season 1.5. I love Julia Louis-Dreyfus on this show and I love the character she plays. Christine has poor judgment and always “goes there” when nobody else would. She’s so cringeworthy. That’s why I love it. The episode last season where she shook her chest at potential dates was priceless.
Prison Break - Season 2. I like how they’ve moved away from the prison setting this year. It makes the show fresher. And they keep randomly killing people off, so you never know who’s going to survive from week to week. So much suspense, this show.
Vanished - Season 1. Well, I was watching this, but in the most recent episode, they killed off the main character, played by Gale Harold, and while his replacement, Eddie Cibrian, is nice to look at, his character seems like he’s going to be trashy and boring. Plus it’s moving to Fridays, when other stuff is on. I’m dropping it.
Heroes - Season 1. This is the biggest surprise for me. I wasn’t expecting much from this, and I didn’t even watch it right away, but then we downloaded the first couple of episodes and watched them and I immediately got caught up in it. I really enjoy this show. It’s like a comic book. It keeps me watching. (We don’t actually watch this on Mondays; we watch the repeats on Friday nights on the Sci-Fi Channel because it conflicts with something on Mondays.)
Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip - Season 1. Sigh. This is the biggest disappointment of the season for me. I was expecting so much - perhaps too much. The main problems with this show: (1) The sketches aren’t funny. (2) Harriet, Sarah Paulson’s character, isn’t funny. (3) Harriet and Matt (Matthew Perry) lack chemistry, and there’s too much focus on them. (4) Nobody really tries to get comedy writers’ autographs in real life. (5) Nobody really cares if network presidents have drunk driving convictions in real life, because (6) late-night comedy is just not as fraught with consequences as the American presidency and I can’t bring myself to care. I’ll probably keep watching, but the show just isn’t working for me. The main problem is that I miss The West Wing and I wanted this show to replace it. It’s not happening.
Tuesday:
Veronica Mars - Season 3. Near-perfect writing and acting. Weevil working on the campus is a bit contrived, but I can deal with that. Kristen Bell: television goddess.
Wednesday:
30 Rock - Season 1. Another pleasant surprise. I wasn’t sure what to expect from this, but the two episodes so far have been hilarious. It has a twisted Arrested Development sensibility to it. I love the goofy, grinning NBC page who shows up everywhere in his navy blue blazer.
Justice - Season 1. Victor Garber as an arrogant, high-powered lawyer. I wasn’t planning to watch this, because I don’t usually watch procedurals, but we happened to catch the season premiere and were drawn in. It’s fun. Not a must-see, but fun. I could dump it if necessary.
Lost - Season 3. One of the highlights of my week, TV-wise. Some people say they don’t reveal enough of the mystery from week to week, but that’s okay with me. I can just watch the show and enjoy the ride. So far it’s not quite up to last year’s suspense level. I miss the hatch, with its retro-70s environment, and I’m not too fond of the Others’ plot so far, but hey - it’s Lost. I trust the writers.
The Nine - Season 1. Very intriguing so far. It’s on right after Lost, but we’re usually drained at the end of Lost and don’t want to spoil the mood, so we watch it a couple of days later. I can watch Scott Wolf for hours…
Thursday:
Smallville - Season 6. It’s so-so, but I’ve watched it for five years and I’ll keep doing so. I don’t mind laughing at it when ridiculous plot holes develop, as they often do. And I’ll never like Lana. Justin Hartley has been playing the Oliver Queen, a.k.a. the Green Arrow, lately. He makes me quiver. Get it? Never mind…
Ugly Betty - Season 1. I’ve only seen one episode so far, but I really enjoyed it. It conflicts with something, so we download it.
Friday:
Battlestar Galactica - Season 3. Like no other show on TV. An incredible season so far, even if my brain always has to work hard to keep up with what’s happening.
Theater Talk, a show on New York’s local PBS station. Great way to keep up with the latest Broadway happenings. Hosted by Michael Riedel of the New York Post and Susan Haskins. The best episodes are the ones where they have a panel that includes columnist Michael Musto. He’s such a bitchy queen. I love him.
Saturday:
Saturday Night Live - Season 32! Fortunately, with TiVo, we can breeze through this in about 45 minutes.
So, that’s the TV we watch every week. I’ve also caught The Class, Two and a Half Men, and Brothers and Sisters occasionally. And Matt actually watches a couple of other things I don’t watch.
It strikes me now that this is all rather pathetic.
I do, in fact, have a life.
Honest…
1:49 AM | 5 drops of oil This video of a guy proposing to his boyfriend is achingly sweet:
This is the newspaper article referenced therein.
[via Tim]
2:17 PM | 9 drops of oil Nathan Lane on his movie version of The Producers, which earned a measly $19.5 million at the box office: “the most expensive Lincoln Center archive recording ever done.”
Hee hee.
2:23 PM | 1 drop of oil Sunday, October 22, 2006
New York Times | Speculation on Gay Marriage Ruling Swirls in New Jersey
Will the New Jersey Supreme Court issue its same-sex marriage decision this week?
Maybe not.
This in-depth article from tomorrow’s New York Times states that although Chief Justice Deborah Poritz retires on Thursday, the case doesn’t have to be announced by then. A retired justice can apparently vote and write opinions in cases that he or she took part in hearing. The decision could be announced after Election Day - perhaps way after Election Day. Apparently a recent decision in another case was issued 20 months after oral arguments. (It’s been only eight months since oral arguments in Lewis, the marriage case.)
Also from the article: “the small circle of obsessive court-watchers here are stuck staring at the Supreme Court’s Web site, www.judiciary.state.nj.us/supreme/index.htm, where a list of decisions to be issued the next day is posted each weekday at 10 a.m.”
10:34 PM | 1 drop of oil Tuesday, October 24, 2006
NJ Gay Marriage Ruling Unlikely This Week | 365gay.com
[Chief Justice Deborah Poritz’s] last day on the bench will be Wednesday and both supporters and opponents of gay marriage have said they believe the ruling would be issued before then.
But the court Tuesday on its Web site said that no rulings are expected on Wednesday. That also makes it unlikely any decision will be issued this week.
Some legal analysts now suggest the court will not deliver a ruling before next month’s election out of concerns it could influence, one way or another, the outcome. They point to the ruling on same-sex marriage handed down in Massachusetts which came more than a week after the 2004 election.
If true, this would be a relief. No need to give Republicans a cudgel right now.
12:06 PM | 2 drops of oil The New Jersey Supreme Court will issue its marriage decision tomorrow at 3 p.m. Here’s the official announcement. The decision will be viewable tomorrow afternoon here.
If, as I expect, the decision is in favor of same-sex marriage, that will of course be terrific - although I think it might cost Democrats the elections.
4:46 PM | 8 drops of oil Advance copies of Thomas Pynchon’s new opus, Against the Day, have been sent out. Not that I’ll be getting one, but still — *drool*.
5:28 PM | oil me Wednesday, October 25, 2006
From the (New Jersey) Star-Ledger: Tense wait for a ruling on N.J. gay marriage.
1:12 AM | oil me “The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.”
In other words, they followed Vermont.
The legislature has 180 days to create a framework.
Here is the decision.
3:01 PM | 1 drop of oil Star-Ledger: Supreme Court backs civil unions, but not same-sex marriage.
The high court adopted an approach similar to that taken by the Vermont Supreme Court in 1999, which ruled lawmakers can reserve the term “marriage” for the union of one man and one woman, but must grant all couples equal legal protections. Vermont lawmakers responded by allowing same-sex couples to form “civil unions.”
…
Even so, today’s ruling exponentially increases the legal benefits available to same-sex couples who formalize their unions. A 2004 law allowing same-sex couples to form “domestic partnerships” gave them only a fraction of the more than 800 rights conferred by marriage, albeit some of the most important ones.
3:21 PM | oil me From the opinion:
To comply with the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, the State must provide to committed same-sex couples, on equal terms, the full rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. The State can fulfill that constitutional requirement in one of two ways. It can either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or enact a parallel statutory structure by another name, in which same-sex couples would not only enjoy the rights and benefits, but also bear the burdens and obligations of civil marriage. If the State proceeds with a parallel scheme, it cannot make entry into a same-sex civil union any more difficult than it is for heterosexual couples to enter the state of marriage. It may, however, regulate that scheme similarly to marriage and, for instance, restrict civil unions based on age and consanguinity and prohibit polygamous
relationships.The constitutional relief that we give to plaintiffs cannot be effectuated immediately or by this Court alone. The implementation of this constitutional mandate will require the cooperation of the Legislature. To bring the State into compliance with Article I, Paragraph 1 so that plaintiffs can exercise their full constitutional rights, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days of the date of this decision.
3:27 PM | oil me New York Times: N.J. Court Backs Rights for Same-Sex Unions.
3:34 PM | oil me Associated Press: NJ Court Stops Short of Gay Marriage OK.
(Update: new AP headline for same article as of 5:51 p.m.: “N.J. Court Opens Door to Gay Marriage.” The CNN headline for the same AP article is, “Same-sex marriage wins state battle.” Confusion, anyone?)
3:39 PM | oil me This is a great day for gay couples in New Jersey. The state supreme court has granted them the right to marriage in all but name. The important thing to realize is that they have won full legal equality for their relationships. The action now moves to the state legislature, which has until April 25, 2007 to decide whether to call these relationships marriages, civil unions, or something else.
Here are some of the rights that gay couples in New Jersey will be able to receive as of next April 25, none of which they can receive now:
- joint property ownership,
- the right to employer-granted health insurance coverage for a spouse,
- statutory leave for the purpose of caring for an ill spouse,
- presumption of dual parentage to the non-biological parent of a child born to one partner (second-parent adoptions no longer necessary),
- survivor benefits should a partner die,
- tax deductions for spousal medical expenses,
- the right not to testify against one’s spouse in court,
and tons of others. All the rights that married couples have, in fact.
In mandating that the state legislature grant gay couples all the rights of marriage but letting the legislature choose what to call this package of rights, the New Jersey Supreme Court has become the first state high court to follow Vermont’s lead. Anyone interested in what happens next in New Jersey should read a great book about how the legislative and statewide debate played out in Vermont in 1999-2000: Civil Wars: The Battle for Gay Marriage, by David Moats. After the Vermont Supreme Court’s decision mandating equal rights, it was not a foregone conclusion that the state legislature would grant only civil unions. It might well have granted marriage, and there was a substantive, emotional debate over whether it would do so. It’s likely that a similar debate will now happen in New Jersey. As the court writes, “Plaintiffs’ quest does not end here. Their next appeal must be to their fellow citizens whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives.”
Much has changed in seven years. Civil unions were a radical idea then, but they have since become the moderate position. Even President Bush supports letting states create civil unions (although he wouldn’t endorse them were he still a governor). A CBS poll almost two years ago found that 57% of people supported either marriage or civil unions, while 41% opposed any such recognition. That was in Feburary 2005, and the numbers have likely increased since then; (or at any rate have not likely decreased).
What’s amazing about this decision is that all seven of the justices supported, at the very least, equal marriage rights, no matter the name. That was unanimous. Four justices said the name should be left up to the legislature; three said this was not enough and that the court should have granted marriage, including the departing chief justice, Deborah Poritz. That’s even more judicial support than equal rights received in the high courts of Vermont or Massachusetts. [Correction: the Vermont vote was 4-1, with the 1 in favor of full marriage.] That is absolutely wonderful. Of course, it helps that New Jersey already had a Law Against Discrimination that banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, among other characteristics. That was the key to this decision. New Jersey has long been in the forefront of protecting gay rights.
It’s more than that, though. As Chief Justice Poritz wrote, significantly: “the majority is able to conclude that no interest has been advanced by the State to support denying the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.”
Here are some quotes from the majority opinion:
[W]e must be careful not to impose our personal value system on eight-and-one-half million people, thus bypassing the democratic process as the primary means of effecting social change in this State. That being said, this Court will never abandon its responsibility to protect the fundamental rights of all of our citizens, even the most alienated and disfavored, no matter how strong the winds of popular opinion may blow.
On the rights of children:
Disparate treatment of committed same-sex couples, moreover, directly disadvantages their children…. There is something distinctly unfair about the State recognizing the right of same-sex couples to raise natural and adopted children and placing foster children with those couples, and yet denying those children the financial and social benefits and privileges available to children in heterosexual households. Five of the seven plaintiff couples are raising or have raised children. There is no rational basis for visiting on those children a flawed and unfair scheme directed at their parents. To the extent that families are strengthened by encouraging monogamous relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, we cannot discern any public need that would justify the legal disabilities that now afflict same-sex domestic partnerships.
On marriage vs. civil unions:
Raised here is the perplexing question — “what’s in a name?” — and is a name itself of constitutional magnitude after the State is required to provide full statutory rights and benefits to same-sex couples? We are mindful that in the cultural clash over same-sex marriage, the word marriage itself — independent of the rights and benefits of marriage — has an evocative and important meaning to both parties. Under our equal protection jurisprudence, however, plaintiffs’ claimed right to the name of marriage is surely not the same now that equal rights and benefits must be conferred on committed same-sex couples.
On the Legislature:
The Legislature is free to break from the historical traditions that have limited the definition of marriage to heterosexual couples or to frame a civil union style structure, as Vermont and Connecticut have done.
On the future:
New language is developing to describe new social and familial relationships, and in time will find its place in our common vocabulary. Through a better understanding of those new relationships and acceptance forged in the democratic process, rather than by judicial fiat, the proper labels will take hold. However the Legislature may act, same-sex couples will be free to call their relationships by the name they choose and to sanctify their relationships in religious ceremonies in houses of worship.
So, as of Wednesday, April 25, 2007, you will be able to drive through a long stretch of territory from the southern tip of New Jersey near Delaware, up through New Jersey, and (with the glaring exception of a few minutes passing through Manhattan or driving up and over the Tappan Zee Bridge), up through Connecticut, Massachussets, and Vermont, all the way up to the Candian border, where Americans live in states that grant their relationships full equality.
It’s disappointing that the court, by one vote, declined to call it marriage. As the Chief Justice wrote in her concurrence/dissent, “We must not underestimate the power of language. Labels set people apart as surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities. Labels are used to perpetuate prejudice about differences that, in this case, are embedded in the law.” The majority did not convincingly explain, in fact barely explained, why interracial couples in Loving deserved the word “marriage” but gay couples today do not. (One wonders if interracial couples would have been limited to entering “civil unions” if the concept existed 40 years ago.)
The power now lies with the legislature. Supporters now have to convince the legislature that gay couples deserve to have their relationships legally defined as marriages. Six months of debate lie ahead.
Still, the importance of this decision should not be understated. Gay couples in New Jersey will now have solid, tangible equal rights and legal protections for their relationships. Equal rights for gay couples.
Outstanding.
6:01 PM | 3 drops of oil Press release from Garden State Equality:
Those who would view today’s Supreme Court ruling as a victory for same-sex couples are dead wrong. So help us God, New Jersey’s LGBTI community and our millions of straight allies will settle for nothing less than 100% marriage equality. Let decision makers from Morristown to Moorestown, from Maplewood to Maple Shade, recognize that fundamental fact right now.
So today, without missing a beat, Garden State Equality announces that Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo, the Assembly Speaker Pro Tem, joined by Assemblyman Brian Stack and Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, will introduce marriage-equality legislation. Thousands of us will now hit the streets, the phones and the hallways to get this legislation passed.
As the late Lt. Laurel Hester and too many other cases across New Jersey have shown, half-steps short of marriage — like New Jersey’s domestic-partnership law and also civil union laws — don’t work in the real world. Hospitals and other employers have told domestic-partnered couples across New Jersey: We don’t care what the domestic partnership law says. You’re not married.
That’s why it wouldn’t matter if the legislature added all the rights in the world to the current law without calling it marriage. Marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally understands and accepts.
We’re not seeking marriage merely for some moral, ethereal victory. We’re seeking marriage because New Jersey has proven that marriage is the only way a gay civil rights law will ever work in the real world…
As you’ve seen from Garden State Equality’s hundreds of events and thousands of e-mails over the past few years — a breathless pace of activity that’s not going to abate, so help us God — we never give up and we never give in to those who tell us no.
Hell no. Over our dead bodies will we settle for less than 100% marriage equality. The people of New Jersey wouldn’t want us to. According to the 2006 Zogby-Garden State Equality Poll, New Jersey favors marriage equality by 56% to 39%. Every other recent poll in New Jersey also shows a majority of voters favor marriage equality.
Don’t count gay marriage out in New Jersey. Its supporters are going to fight, and fight hard.
6:17 PM | 1 drop of oil Statement from Alan Van Cappelle, head of New York’s Empire State Pride Agenda:
This is a wonderful day for same-sex couples and their families in New Jersey. Very soon they will have access to the protections and responsibilities that all loving, committed couples need to take care of each other. We celebrate this decision with our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) neighbors in New Jersey and look forward to the day when New York will take the same stand against discrimination and support marriage equality for our families.
…
As a result of today’s decision in New Jersey, New York falls even further behind its neighbors in protecting same-sex couples and their families. With the exception of Pennsylvania, every U.S. state and Canadian province bordering New York has passed some type of comprehensive measure to protect gay and lesbian families. Protections for our families in New York are woefully inadequate and we are being left out in the cold to fend for ourselves. It’s time for Albany to step up and start leading.
6:23 PM | oil me Freedom to Marry says, “Victory in New Jersey!”
6:26 PM | oil me We went to see a preview of Mary Poppins on Broadway tonight. About 15 minutes into Act II, the show stopped. Three actors were performing a scene in front of the scrim, during which we heard what sounded like furniture moving around behind the curtain. The scene ended with the three actors walking offstage, and then… nothing happened. Silence.
We sat there a few seconds. Then a voice came over a loudspeaker announcing a delay. We sat tight.
About ten minutes later, one of the producers, Thomas Schumacher, walked onto the stage from the wings and told us that there was a problem with the foundation and they were trying to fix it. He apologized, quite charmingly, and said he hoped to return in five or ten minutes with the news that it was fixed. Then he disappeared again.
Fifteen minutes later, he reappeared and told us they couldn’t seem to fix the problem and that we would get refunds.
Sigh.
Of course, by the time we got home, we saw that an audience member had already posted about it on All That Chat while sitting in the audience.
Theater geeks…
11:08 PM | 1 drop of oil Thursday, October 26, 2006
From today’s Star-Ledger:
Lead article: Court expands gay rights.
Lead editorial: Still denied equality. “[T]his ruling still comes up short practically and morally.”
Op-Ed: Timid justices lacked courage to say, ‘I do.’ “The New Jersey Supreme Court choked. Choked on a word. Just one word.”
And here’s a great Q&A on what the decision means.
10:23 AM | 1 drop of oil Dahlia Lithwick: The New Jersey gay marriage decision ain’t activism.
If you care at all about states’ rights and state autonomy, read this decision. If you believe in judicial minimalism, read this decision. If you think judges should engage in careful scrutiny of state law, read this decision before blasting it as activism. This was a state court taking care of state business.
10:32 AM | 1 drop of oil “Yesterday in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage. I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.”
But remember, the court didn’t order the legislature to create gay marriage. It said that the state constitution requires equal rights for gay couples, and it will let the legislature decide whether this will come in the form of marriage or of civil unions.
And remember, as I noted yesterday, that President Bush has stated that he doesn’t oppose civil unions. “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so,” he said shortly before the 2004 elections. He also said, “I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others.” (Emphasis added.)
So: the New Jersey Supreme Court did not order the legislature to create gay marriage. If the legislature decides to create civil unions, Bush would presumably not have a problem with that. But if the legislature goes the extra step and creates marriage for gays, that would be entirely the legislature’s choice; the court would not be imposing it.
Therefore, Bush is wrong. The court did not “raise doubts about the institution of marriage.” It mandated no more than civil unions, something the president has already stated he supports.
So Bush is a flip-flopper.
But let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. The only interpretation that would show consistency in Bush’s statements is that he believes civil unions should be entirely a choice of the legislature and that courts should stay out of it. But it’s a court’s job to interpret the constitution; that’s the principle of judicial review, a principle that goes back to the founding of our nation. And when the constitional principle of equal protection is combined with New Jersey’s longstanding Law Against Discrimination that bars differential treatment based on sexual orientation, equal rights for gay couples is obvious. The members of the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously agreed on this. It was entirely within the court’s purview to order equal rights.
Bush is just plain wrong.
(Big surprise.)
5:48 PM | 1 drop of oil Analysis: The issue of same-sex marriage doesn’t increase voter turnout.
5:56 PM | oil me Friday, October 27, 2006
Great post on the New Jersey case:
Either the New Jersey State Constitution — as defined by the governing precedents applying it — compels the legal conclusion reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court or it does not. That is the only relevant issue. It’s not a matter of picking and choosing which issues we think it would be nice for a court to resolve and which ones we’d sort of prefer — given our subjective druthers — the court leave to the will of the majority.
…
Courts have no right to “stay out of” debates over laws if those laws violate constitutional guarantees.
…
It is impossible — at least without falling into total recklessness — to simply look at the result of a court case, decide whether or not you like it, and then pronounce it as either judicially sound or judicially irresponsible. Yet that is what virtually all of these commenters are doing who are condemning the New Jersey Supreme Court for “judicial activism.”
Read the whole thing - it’s really good.
1:10 PM | oil me Sunday, October 29, 2006
The Hullabaloo Dancers dance to the “Batman” TV theme song. Surreal. [via Homer]
3:01 PM | oil me I’m not making this up.
Our chorus is going to sing on the Howard Stern Show on Wednesday morning.
We’re going to be singing with Borat.
I’m not making this up.
4:23 PM | 3 drops of oil Monday, October 30, 2006
Well, never mind - our radio gig has been canceled for some reason.
Oh well.
4:33 PM | oil me New York Law School professor Arthur Leonard, a well-known expert in gay rights law, has written a GREAT post about the history of same-sex marriage litigation strategy. According to Leonard, when gay rights litigators put together the list of states in which they had the greatest likelihood of winning gay marriage cases, the three states at the top of the list were Vermont, Massachusetts and New Jersey - the three states where we’ve (essentially) won so far. Cases filed in other states after the 2004 San Francisco marriage fervor - such as “copycat litigation” in Washington and New York - have not succeeded.
Leonard’s point: “[T]he wins have come in cases resulting from careful planning and strategy, not part of a rush to litigate in response to popular community pressure… And perhaps [] there is some lesson in that for all of us in thinking about future test case litigation for the LGBT community.”
The post is a great read.
4:42 PM | oil me Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Priceless.
We actually saw this show on Friday night, and Julie White was terrific.
10:52 AM | 1 drop of oil 
George W. Bush is gone in
days hr min sec
Recent Comments
Mipiel: The California Constitution has been amended so many times through
Evan: Funny as the notion of Christopher vs. Danny Strong [best
Daniel: Well, it's too late for what if's. I am so