5. februar 2004

Massachusetts high court give gays full marriage rights The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has declared that only full marriage rights for gays, not merely civili unions, will satisfy the state's constitution. The ruling cannot be appealed to a federal court, and also cannot be overturned by the legislature. Only a state constitutional change can overturn it, and that is a process that will take at least three years. Ironically, by doing the right thing the court may have hurt the democrats who support gay rights. Then again, it is unclear how much the Bush electoral engine has to gain by stressing the point. Bush has already made centrists and fiscally conservatives uneasy enough this year. 10:44:05 PM    comment []  trackback []

Dean saying Wisconsin is make or break Press reports are contradictory on whether Howard Dean has promised to resign from the race unless he wins Wisconsin. Washington state is another critical primary, but he has less of a chance there. It is looking increasingly likely Dean will be out of the race if he fails to win Wisconsin. Even if he isn't, his support will probably evaporate completely in that case. Kerry, Edwards and Clark have all managed wins (well, Kerry have wins, the others have one each), and remain in the race. 10:12:26 PM    comment []  trackback []

Crazy evil IM conversation Don't do this at home. 3:07:26 PM    comment []  trackback []

Fox gay marriage poll There is an opinion poll (unscientific and all that) on the front page of Fox News right now, asking "To what extent should gay couples be legally permitted to commit to one another?" As expected from its mosty conservative audience, the "should not be legally recognized" option leads by 67% right now. But spread the word, and we'll see... 2:48:11 PM    comment []  trackback []

The stars say: NYT needs to shape up How on earth can a supposedly respectable newspaper like the New York Times come up with the idea of writing an analysis of the democratic candidates based on their star charts? Didn't the liberal press, of which the NYT is a card-carrying (standard-bearing?) member, poke fun at the Reagans for their astrology connection? Erin Sullivan, NYT''s house astrologist, writes an immense amount of self-evident punditry about the candidates, and attributes it to her star chart reading. It would be so much more useful if the NYT staff gave her the birth dates of the candidates first, without letting her know who was who. You think Clark would be called a "master strategist" or Kucinich "the peaceful warrior" solely based on the celestial positions at their births? Nah, me neither. Via Volokh. 1:18:39 AM    comment []  trackback []

© Copyright 2004 Jan Haugland. Last update: 01.03.2004; 14:41:33.