“Today, the decision of unelected judges to overturn the will of the people of California on the question of same-sex marriage demonstrates the lengths that unelected judges will go to substitute their own worldview for the wisdom of the American people. The Supreme Court of California chose today to legislate from the bench without any concern or deference for the democratic process.

“This ruling effectively opens the door to allowing the opinion of this state’s court on same-sex marriage to stand as the law of the land for the entire country. These California values are not the values of the majority of the American people – and the manner in which this decision was rendered is not consistent with the values of a democratic society.”

Now, right from the get go there are a couple things wrong with Rep Blount's statement.  One, Supreme Court justices are elected in California.  Two, the State Assembly has passed full marriage equality act"s twice, so Blount's argument the Court acted "without deference for the democratic process" falls flat.  It should also be noted that six of the seven Justices are Republican nominees.

Glenn Greenwald offers some tips on evaluating the Court's rullng:

(1) No rational person can criticize the Court's decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents.
2) Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges "overriding" the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their "marriage" laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed "it is up to the state Supreme Court" to decide the issue.
(3) Numerous states have already adopted laws declaring that they will not recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Moreover, the Defense of Marriage Act makes clear that states are not required to do so.  Today's ruling applies only to California.
(4) The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into "marriage." It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally.  he key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining "marriage" for religious purposes.

Governor Schwarenegger's reaction to the Court's ruling:

I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.

The Governor is referring to a proposed state Constitutional amendment likely to be on the November ballot.  No polling has been done recently, but historical trends suggest passage may not be a slam dunk.

The Field poll questions have remained the same during the six surveys analyzed here. In 1985, only 30% of those polled supported same sex marriage. This increased to 38% in 1997, and the average for surveys in 2003-2006 showed support by 43%.

While only 25% of those born before 1940 are in support, that number has grown by 5% over these years. Those born in the 1940's are supportive at 40%, also a gain of 5%. Similar 7 and 8% increases are found for those born in the 1950's and 1960's, reaching above the 40% threshold. Those born in the 1970's and 1980's are in support by 51% and 58%.

One of the more interesting aspects of the gay marriage question is watching Republicans twist themselves around the axle while claiming they believe in state's rights and, on the other hand, want to legislate morality on a federal scale. 

Here's ex-Republican, now Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr's response to the California ruling (it should be noted Rep. Barr is the author of the Defense of Marriage Act):

"Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.

"Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states' powers should work."

There are some deliriously happy folks in California today.  Why some would want to deny them that happiness escapes me.

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

From MSNBC:

In a speech to Israel's Knesset, Bush said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.  We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Sure sign of a weak argument when one party starts comparing the other to Nazis.

Senator John McCain declared on Thursday that most American troops will be home from Iraq by 2013 and that Iraq will be a functioning democracy with only “spasmodic’’ episodes of violence, a striking departure from his refusal so far to set a date for U.S. withdrawal.

“By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom,’’ Mr. McCain said at the Columbus Convention Center. “The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced.’’

Senator McCain, on numerous occasions during the primary season, ripped into challenger Mitt Romney for setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.  When challenged after his speech, McCain attempted to make a distinction between a date for withdrawal and a date for withdrawal after "victory". 

I would feel a lot better about Senator McCain's forecast if he had a reasonable record of being correct in his predictions.  Here's a sampling of the Senator's previous forecasts on Iraq:

“And I believe that the success will be fairly easy” and “There's no doubt in my mind that... we will be welcomed as liberators.”  [CNN, Larry King Live, 9/24/02. MSNBC, Hardball, 3/24/03]

“I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past... I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991.”  [Face the Nation, 9/15/02]

“There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC Hardball, 4/23/03]

McCain was asked, “at what point will America be able to say the war was won?” He responded, “...it’s clear that the end is, is, is very much in sight.” [ABC, “Good Morning America,” 4/9/03]

Exactly one year before violence in Iraq peaked:  “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”  [The Hill, 12/8/05]

Look, I'm all for hope.  I'm a big fan of hope.  But developing foreign policy, particularly when lives are at stake, based on a "if I just wish hard enough, it will happen" strategy is just more of what the Bush Administration has offered. 

BUT WHAT'S THE PLAN? 

How about this: you define specific and objective metrics (e.g., number of hours of electricity per day, reduced insurgent attacks, infrastructure development, legislative accomplishments, etc.), install folks who buy into the objectives and are replaced if they can't get it done, and withdraw troops based on hitting the metrics? 

That seems to me a reasonable Republican plan.  And one Republicans and Democrats can debate intelligently.  But Senator McCain's complete lack of specifics does nothing to further the debate and, like his equally vague economic policy, just makes voters doubt there's any real substance behind his positions.

President Bush:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” said (President George W.) Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  (Link)

Barack Obama campaign:

It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy — to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. (Link)

Secretary of Defense Gates:

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with (Iran)," (Secretary of Defense Robert) Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."  (Link)

Robert Gates has always seemed to me the odd duck in the Bush Administration; a smart, decent man with good sense.

(The Onion)