Lower courts almost overshadow SCOTUS on #gaymarriage and #WarOnTerror

Two big rulings today, from two different appellate courts, each almost as big, relative to the level of the court, as the Supreme Court's cellphone privacy ruling.

First, a federal district court judge in Oregon said the no-fly list is unconstitutional because it violates due process of the Fifth Amendment:

Previously the government has argued that because other modes of travel on land and sea are available, there is no right to travel by air and no need to change the no-fly list procedures.

“Such an argument ignores the numerous reasons that an individual may have for wanting or needing to travel overseas quickly, such as the birth of a child, the death of a loved one, a business opportunity or a religious obligation,” District Judge Anna J. Brown wrote. “A prohibition on flying turns routine international travel into an odyssey that imposes significant logistical, economic and physical demands on travelers.”

Bingo.

Now, Team Obama's likely response, if it loses this case at both appellate and Supreme Court level? Expand this to a no-train, no-bus zone, I'm sure. Given that Dear Leader is a Bushie or worse on privacy rights and the War on Terra, what else would you expect?

More seriously, given that an appellate court remanded this back to district court after saying it was improperly dismissed, I'm sure the Justice Department is working up a tweaked version of the no-fly list, so that The Most Transparent Administration in History™ will make it easy to get their names removed if they are there inadvertently.

Oh, was that not serious enough, either?

And, the first appellate court to rule on the matter says that Utah's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. The 10th Circuit, in Denver, upheld the district court's ruling.

This is what I'm sure Anthony Kennedy, in his hair-splitting ruling on California's Proposition 8 and the feds' Defense of Marriage Act all of a year ago was hoping to avoid ... a stampede toward gay marriage bans being tossed.

But, it's happening.

Eich and Mozilla — SJW overkill or legitimate action?

Brendan Eich/Wikipedia photo

By now, everyone tuned in to gay rights news knows that protests by gay activists and others concerned about civil rights have forced Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich out of his CEO's position, after it was discovered he had given money to the campaign to pass Proposition 8 in California.

Then, even as Eich was stepping down, senior leaders in promoting gay awareness, starting with Andrew Sullivan, cried foul.Contra the likes of Sully and Tod Robberson of the Dallas Morning News, while Eich has his right to his personal views, activists have a right to protest against Mozilla hiring him as CEO.

Besides, as the Guardian has documented, this is part of a pattern of Eich's, who also made donations to Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, and to Buchanan back when he was challenging Poppy Bush in the early 1990s.

Another gay activist, whom I certainly respect more than Sullivan in general, Michelangelo Signorile, tells Sully, at least, to get a clue (and drop some pretenses). Another gay activist, John Aravosis, says, please, don't call this personal choice.

He then brings up the issue of, what if Eich had contributed to the KKK? Well, given that Eich contributed to Ron Paul at the time that racist newsletters were going out from his congressional office under his byline as publisher, that's not just a theoretical question.

(And, apologies for saying in a Facebook thread that Aravosis' stance was the same as Sully's.)

Aravosis, in a later post, was worried somewhat, but didn't go into Sully territory. However, he does worry about the likes of Suey Park and Brittany Cooper of #CancelColbert infamy, steering something like this in the ditch. I think he's probably about right on this issue.

Per people who say that inclusiveness should include being inclusive of the refusing-to-be-inclusive, tosh. That's as nonsensical as "the set of all sets which are not members of this set" or similar.

Per people claiming this isn't free speech? Sure it is. It's certainly more that than money is, contra John Roberts. More than that, banding together to threaten boycotts or other actions is explicitly freedom of assembly, the most forgotten of the four freedoms of the First Amendment.

People who know me know that I am by no means in the corner of the "social justice warrior" movement. But, this was more broadly supported than that. And, no, contra Sully, he wasn't being asked to "repent." Actually, Mozilla was asked to repent.

As for the claim that SJWs should now stop using JavaScript because he invented it? Tosh.

I don't stop reading what Harrison Schmitt said about walking on the moon and doing professional geology work during Apollo 17 because we found out 20-plus years later that he's a climate change denier. Red herring.

As for the idea that right-wingers could do similar boycotts?

Well, we already know that Hobby Lobby, wanting a contraceptive exemption from portions of Obamacare, invests in contraceptive makers, and as of yet, I've heard bupkis about any threatened Religious Right boycott of it. It may happen soon enough, but I'll give you 50-50 odds that, other than the fringes, the real fringest, of the Religious Right, there is no such boycott threat.

Related to that, Brian Beutler nails it on wingnuts getting into a fake tizzy on this issue.

My example, even more than his? If conservatives really care about freedom of speech and freedom of assembly (technically, it's NOT freedom of "association") then they can start working to repeal "right to get fired" laws in red and pale-pink states. (It's my blog, and I'll call said laws what they are.) As every liberal, and every honest conservative, knows, "right to get fired" laws are regularly used to stifle free speech at the workplace.

OTOH (April 8): OKCupid's CEO (remember, that's the company that started this all) lives in a partial glass house. Even if Yagan has rethought some of his politics, per the MoJo story, this may have been a PR stunt as much as anything. And so, would-be gay lovers? You've been used like a $2 tool. How's it feel?

On the third hand (April 8) Jamelle Bouie says not so quick on castigating OK Cupid's Sam Yagan as a hypocrite. And, I'll at least halfway agree, since Yagan's was a contribution to a politician and Eich's Prop 8 was to a special-interest cause. With a Congresscritter like Cannon, he may have been pushing a specific piece of legislation Yagan liked. And Eich's longer list of contributions, to me, as noted above, establish a pattern.

Gay marriage and black opposition ... still an issue?

At the time that California voters approved Proposition 8, there was debate over the "whys" of it losing.

Mormons were blamed for pumping a bunch of money into the race, first of all. Whether that had any over-the-top help was unclear.

Some pointed the finger in part at black opposition. I was among those.

And I still am, due in part to research aggregation by Nate Silver at the New York Times' 538 blog.

For projected gay marriage support in Mississippi to be at just 21 percent in 2008, or 26 percent now, involves more than just white Republican opposition.

I'm not saying that black Democrats have the same degree of opposition, but simple demographics says they have to be more opposed than white Democrats.

That's supported by, in order from the bottom, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, Arkansas and South Carolina being next in degree of opposition. All are "original Confederacy" states, along with Texas, separated from them by just Oklahoma. All have large black populations.

But that's not all.

In Maryland, we saw black elected officials oppose gay marriage legalization, as I blogged here. And, as Matthew Lind noted at the time Prop. 8 won, only 31 percent of blacks supported gay marriage in general, as I noted here.

On my first link, I note the especial opposition of black churches, who are going to be more concentrated in the South. So, this could become more and more of a flash point within the Democratic Party for some time. That said, this is nothing new. The start of both women's liberation and gay rights movements 45-50 years ago saw tensions between white women, or gays and lesbians, and minority members of those groups.

Will SCOTUS decide not to decide Prop 8?

That appears to be the fervent hope of one New York Times guest columnist.

Who amazes me, by showing that a law professor can so blatantly let the emotions of wishful thinking trump rational thought processes.

If the Supreme Court really wanted to dodge the issue for now, it could have simply refused to grant certiatori on the case on the first place.

But, instead, the Chicago Black Sox Nine in Black have decided they want to say something, whatever that "something" turns out to be.

As I've said before, the "target" and kingmaker is Justice Anthony Kennedy. The Obama Administration showed that in its amicus brief.

Here's the heart of the amicus:

The government’s brief concludes with a ringing denunciation of the California ban on same-sex marriage, which it said is based in “impermissible prejudice.” 

It then cited a concurrence in a 2001 Supreme Court case that said prejudice might not rise “from malice or hostile animus,” and might well be the result of “insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.” 

No matter, the brief said. “Prejudice may not, however, be the basis for differential treatment under the law.” 

The author of that concurrence is Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is expected to be a crucial voice within the court in both of the current cases. (That argument is similar to the one made in the administration’s brief in a second case before the Supreme Court concerning the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.)

Will Kennedy mind being referenced so directly? Actually, he may be flattered; he's got one of the bigger egos on the court.

That said, will the trick work?

I'd say yes, in part because the Administration narrowly tailored the amicus to the state (pun intended) at hand, rather than going national.

I predict Kennedy votes as part of a 5-4 majority to boot Prop. 8. And, even if the ruling is tailored to California, it will be a precedent of sorts.

Some indication of how Kennedy may be leaning might be inferred from the Nine giving the Department of Justice speaking time on its amicus brief.

Meanwhile, per Lyle Denniston and others, it looks like DOMA is toast, toast, toast. Again, Kennedy seems to be leading the charge on killing it in some way, shape or form.

Per Denniston, though, the "killing" could be even narrower than the Court's Prop. 8 ruling. As he notes with DOMA, the issue hangs on what level of "scrutiny" sexual orientation should get from the court. For example, racial-related issues get "strict scrutiny" while gender-related issues get a somewhat looser "high scrutiny." The Court has never ruled what level of scrutiny should attend sexual orientation cases.


Meanwhile, further thoughts per my previous touting of Kennedy's vote. Flipping religious right arguments on their head, he asked whether kids of gay parents might not be harmed by blocking the parents from getting married. 

Michael McConnell has a different tack. He notes that SCOTUS could, in the Prop. 8 case, find that the Californians suing to uphold it don't have legal standing. It seems to be a a strong argument legally, but I think actually suffers the same problems as Cole's top-linked column, or at least similar ones.

None of the lower courts even considered the "standing" issue. Frankly, I don't think the plaintiffs do have standing, but, if the lower courts haven't raised this issue, it would seem weird that the Supremes would now inject it.

Second, a denial of cert would have been an even easier route to take to kick hard decisions down the road.

So, bottom line is that the Nine in Black won't do what McConnell wants, or Cole.

So, what will happen?

I predict the court will take a middle ground, ruling Prop. 8 unconstitutional while paving the way for some sort of quasi-precedent on the DOMA case and how it affects states that have civil unions but not gay marriages.

And, general papers like the New York Times and insiders like The Hill both indicate that SCOTUS appears likely to rule against Prop. 8, but to keep a fairly narrow ruling. Whether it's California-only, or the "middle ground," remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, Team Obama is still chickenshit on DOMA. It will no longer defend it, but it won't give back Ms. Thayer's $360,000 in federal taxes she had to pay because she wasn't legally married. 

This all misses the bigger issue, and that's the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. What happens when a gay couple married in Massachusetts moves to a "red" state that bans gay marriage, but has different state income tax rates for married couples filing jointly, like the federal tax returns? Or bars a gay spouse from a hospital room? Etc., etc.

At some point, the Nine in Black will have to tackle that issue.

And, assuming I'm right, fellow people concerned with gay rights should stop cringing so much, unlike Cole and McConnell.


And polls, even at Faux News, show that gay marriage opponents are a minority, and one that's growing ever smaller.

At the same time, that research shows that the South is hugely anti-gay marriage, so hugely that it can't be all white opposition. It has to be blacks, too.

This again goes to Prop. 8, and some PC liberals wanting to say black opposition had nothing to do with it losing. Bullshit. Sorry, but that's what it is.

Anthony Kennedy — more than ever, the gay rights swing vote

As many expected, but of which one could never be sure until it happened, the Obama Administration officially filed an amicus brief earlier today in the California Proposition 8 appeal before the Supreme Court.

And, the verbal judo is clearly targeted at Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, despite a fairly consistent conservative vote pattern on anything involving business or money, is a moderate liberal on at least a certain amount of civil rights issues.

Here's the heart of the amicus:

The government’s brief concludes with a ringing denunciation of the California ban on same-sex marriage, which it said is based in “impermissible prejudice.” 

It then cited a concurrence in a 2001 Supreme Court case that said prejudice might not rise “from malice or hostile animus,” and might well be the result of “insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.” 

No matter, the brief said. “Prejudice may not, however, be the basis for differential treatment under the law.” 

The author of that concurrence is Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is expected to be a crucial voice within the court in both of the current cases. (That argument is similar to the one made in the administration’s brief in a second case before the Supreme Court concerning the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.)

Will Kennedy mind being referenced so directly? Actually, he may be flattered; he's got one of the bigger egos on the court.

That said, will the trick work?

I'd say yes, in part because the Administration narrowly tailored the amicus to the state (pun intended) at hand, rather than going national.

I predict Kennedy votes as part of a 5-4 majority to boot Prop. 8. And, even if the ruling is tailored to California, it will be a precedent of sorts.

Update, March 15: Some indication of how Kennedy may be leaning might be inferred from the Nine giving the Department of Justice speaking time on its amicus brief.

Michael McConnell has a different tack. He notes that SCOTUS could, in the Prop. 8 case, find that the Californians suing to uphold it don't have legal standing. It's actually a strong argument legally.

Meanwhile, per Lyle Denniston and others, it looks like DOMA is toast, toast, toast. Again, Kennedy seems to be leading the charge on killing it in some way, shape or form.

Did Obama set a new progressive agenda? (Updated)

So claims BuzzFeed, in part based on these quotes:

"Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law –- for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well," Obama said, going farther than ever before in support for gay marriage.  

"We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations," Obama said. "Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms."

And, pre-Inauguration, his list of executive actions on gun control.

Well, pardon me if I hold my breath until we see action, not words.

Will the Obama Department of Justice file an amicus brief when gay marriage hits the Supreme Court? If not, how will he explain himself?

Will he propose climate legislation, and do it smartly by starting with the Senate? And, who will replace Lisa Jackson at EPA and Kenny Boy Salazar at Interior? Those two Cabinet positions will be clear "tells." So will be any split in reaction to them between more conservative, establishmentarian "Gang Green" environmental groups and more aggressive ones like the Center for Biological Diversity. And, no, just because he spoke a lot about climate change doesn't mean he will be able to get much done, or even try to.

On gun control, in case you've not read what I've already written, here's a summary:
1. He never hired someone to run ATF, a vacancy he inherited from Bush;
2. He's prosecuted 1/10 of 1 percent of gun purchase violations;
3. Getting CDC, NIMH, etc. to look at mental health/gun violence connections requires money. Unless Obama wants to redistribute the current budgetary pie for those agencies, money requires Congressional action.

On voting rights, the real action would be to nationalize voting laws, at least for federal-level offices. States would have to adjust laws for state-level offices rather than have dual ballots. Combine that with giving the Federal Elections Commission more powers. Then, nationalize the Voting Rights Act. It placates Southerners, addresses discrimination against American Indians and Hispanics outside the South, addresses GOP-controlled Northern states attempts at inner city anti-black voter discrimination and more.

Are you holding your breath over anything even close to that?

So, while not to put too much a damper on dyed-in-the-wool Democrats' parties, I'm not holding my breath. This man has had more liberal yearnings psychologically projected on him, and in my opinion undeservedly so, than anybody since Jack Kennedy. If only Chris Hitchens were still alive, and still alive without having jumped headfirst into the shallow waters of neoconservativism, he could be writing away.

So, if "speak" = "set" then Obama (although he didn't mention gun control today) theoretically set a a new progressive agenda. But, since he referred to "We the People" enough, let's look at the paragraph, the prologue to the Constitution, that made those words famous:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

See all those "action" verbs? None of them is about "speaking."

And, via another blog, the whole speech is here. Kind of panders to Lincolnisms, doesn't it? On the written word, it looks kind of ... long, too.

Finally, as a secularist, one who has noted Obama's occasional references to secularism in the past, but also his religion-only moral compass at times like his post-Newtown speech, I find the speech is a bit God-heavy. Five references, and with the male pronoun after the last one, all clearly aimed at the traditional (Judeo fig leaf)-Christian one.

Update, Jan. 22: Per White House spokesman Jay Carney, Dear Leader, aka Compromiser-in-Chief, is already backpedaling.

(I)n the White House briefing room a day later, Obama spokesman Jay Carney said he couldn't speculate about future actions. He said that while climate change was a priority for the president, "it is not a singular priority."

On gay rights, the president had declared that the nation's journey is "not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

But Carney said the president was speaking about his personal views and would not take federal action on same-sex marriage, which he continues to see as a state issue.

So, get a clue, Obamiacs.

There will be NO amicus brief in the Proposition 8 case. Other than playing around the edges, there will be no new actions on climate change and global warming. (Nor on other environmental issues, sadly, including no wilderness designation in an area around Canyonlands National Park that really needs it.) There will be no requests for Congressional funding for any of his so-called "executive actions" on gun control that need money.

Beyond that, the address had nothing about trade issues, nothing about financial regulation issues, basically nothing about economic liberalism.

Besides, Harry Reid has no balls and won't get any real Senate filibuster reform, despite his claims.

Gays yesterday, today and tomorrow

First, a man buried 2,500-2,800 years ago is NOT likely a gay caveman. The person may, or may not, be a transgender individual of some sort, though.

And, he's not a gay caveman. And, "he" may not even be male.

But, Vaughn Walker IS a gay judge. (Well, a retired one, now.) Walker was the federal judge who struck down California's Proposition 8. He says, rightfully, he saw no reason to recuse himself, but, the Religious Right will certainly run with this.

And, the Religious Right will also likely run with the news that gay adults in America may "only" be 2 percent of the population, not 3-5 percent.

But, the study notes another 2 percent identify as bisexual AND that more than 8 percent of U.S. adults have had at least one same-sex sexual experience. While that's not the 1-in-10 of some estimates on gay/lesbian numbers, it's close enough, in terms of at least one-time activity, it ought to shut up the Religious Right.

Not that they're not trying.

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies with the conservative Family Research Center, welcomed Gates' findings as further repudiation of the Kinsey 1-in-10 estimate.

Sprigg also was intrigued by the relatively high portion of bisexual people tallied by Gates.

"I see this as somewhat of a problem for the gay political movement," Sprigg said. "It undermines the idea that being born homosexual is an immutable characteristic that can't be changed."

Many gay rights advocates have long moved beyond using "immutability as an anchor, first of all.

Second, as I noted, the "activity" numbers should give Sprigg additional food for thought. If as many people as identified as "gay/lesbian" or "bisexual" combined have been OK with having at least one same-sex sexual experience, it undercuts HIS argument that homosexuality is unnatural.

Gary Gates, the researcher behind the numbers, says the lower percentage for "gay/lesbian" than conventional wisdom is probably because nobody sorted out the data like he has.

In any case, a dialogue on the numbers is part of what he wants.

"Yes, this is a credible estimate, but I'm fine to have a debate with someone about whether I'm right or wrong," he said. "The academic side of me says everything comes with caveats. But there is a level of power associated with having a number that can move dialogues along and hopefully move things forward."

And, with the exception of people like Sprigg, that's where we're at.

With gays like this ...

With a gay man like Jonathan Rauch defending California's Prop. 8, and with an argument that could have been used to defend "separate but equal" AND defend the idea that the Supreme Court had no right considering Brown as a case, gay marriage advocates don't need the Mormons, the Christian Religions Right or any other enemies.

Rauch is also, along with people like Michael O'Hanlon on foreign warmongering policy, more proof that Brookings is NOT a "liberal" think tank.

Ed Meese gets his briefs in a knot over Prop. 8

See how many mistakes he makes in his column. (Like calling attempts to level the playing field an example of judicial bias.)

The conservative case for gay marriage

Is made quite well by Ted Olsen. Now, he just needs judges to believe him, including five people in black robes on the Supreme Court, ultimately.

Equality California holds Prop. 8 fire until 2012

I’m not sure that decision. And, per the story, other gay rights groups agree.

I think EC will have to jump in line, if enough of these other groups push for a 2010 repeal.

A new thought on blacks and Prop. 8

Yes, we can also blame the Mormons, or the Christian Right, but in regards to last November’s vote on Proposition 8 in California, Michael Lind reminds us that, nationally, only 31 percent of black Democrats are OK with gay marriage, combined with 61 percent of white Democrats. Quoting the AP, via Lind:

California's black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, also provided key support in favor of the state's same-sex marriage ban. Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for the Associated Press. More than half of Latino voters supported Proposition 8, while whites were split.

It’s part of a Lind story about warning against demonizing Southerners, and a good warnig.

Blacks and Latinos, it appears, are allowed to hold conventionally conservative social views about gay rights, abortion and (in the case of blacks) immigration without being mocked and denounced by elite white liberals in the pages of the Washington Post and Mother Jones, as long as they vote for the Democratic Party on the basis of other issues.

All worth remembering.
-END-

Who gets to define gay marriage rights?

An interesting tussle from various legal personages, including the city of San Francisco and some gay rights groups, wanting in on the Boies-Olsen federal lawsuit as co-plaintiffs, and the efforts to shut them out, in the wake of the Proposition 8 victory.

Prop. 8 has Federal court challenge – will it get bounced?

Wasting no time, Ted Olsen and David Boies, who squared off against each other in Bush v. Gore nearly nine years ago, filed federal suit, and already did so last Friday.

The Advocate notes:

The attorneys argue that relegating same-sex couples to domestic partnerships instead of granting them full marriage rights is a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It sounds great, but a number of states have domestic partnerships on the book and nobody’s ever filed federal suit there. (State suits, different matter.) Since the California Supreme Court specifically kept intact already-performed gay marriages, I don’t see where the two clients of Olsen/Boies can get legal standing.

A federal district court, I would think, would say that marriage was a matter of state law and boot this case in 30 seconds. Now, if the plaintiffs were married in, say Massachusetts, then moved back to California after the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, and now had reasonable belief that their marriage could be in jeopardy, they could certainly sue under the “full faith and credit clause.” But that is neither substantive due process nor equal protection.

Beyond this reason, a federal court could argue in another way, since the right to gay marriage once existed in California, and already codified marriages are not being undone, the federal government has no business intervening to rectify a personal choice not to get married before now.

That said, the suit claims “relegating” the two sets of plaintiffs to domestic partnership violates equal protection and due process. I don’t know if that angle, and that word, is enough for a federal court, versus a state that has domestic partnerships and has never allowed gay marriages, or not. It seems a pretty thin reed from this educated, analytical layperson’s angle.

Also, if Olsen and Boies have felt the way they have for some time, why didn’t they consider a suit in one of those other domestic partnership states? Surely somebody has contacted Boies, at least.

“For a long time I’ve personally felt that we are doing a grave injustice for people throughout this country by denying equality to gay and lesbian individuals,” Olson said in an interview with The Advocate. “The individuals that we represent and will be representing in this case feel they’re being denied their rights. And they’re entitled to have a court vindicate those rights.”

Agreed, but I still do not think, as smart, and as backgrounded in constitutional law, as you and Boies are, you can get standing for your clients.

So, that said, I think the duo has a better chance in a state outside California, because the domestic partnership idea's never been challenged in federal court, just at the state level.

That said, substantive due process was how gay sexual rights were staked out in Lawrence. But, the court's moved right since then, albeit the Lawrence ruling of 6-3 leaving Alito for O’Connor as a “disposable” vote — IF Kennedy would vote the same as he did on Lawrence. And that is certainly no given.

The ACLU and many gay rights groups worry that it’s a risky strategy, too, on any possible SCOTUS vote.

Another issue: are Boies and Olsen legal spotlight hoggers.?

Cal Supremes do as expected

How the California high court can justify its logic behind upholding Prop. 8, yet upholding the validity of gay marriages already in place, I have no idea. But, it has.

How about an atheist on SCOTUS? A gay?

Per Robert Barnes, it’s true that, beyond race and gender, today’s Supreme Court is still very homogenous.

Want to diversify it?

Name an atheist, President Obama.

If that’s a bit too much, name someone who’s neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Like a Green.

Or, since you may make your announcement today, the same day that the California Supreme Court will announce its collective wisdom on Prop. 8, how about the first openly gay person on the court?

That said, read Barnes’ article for yourself to see how weak of tea the mainstream media is serving on this issue.

Barnes thinks a state university grad on SCOTUS would be expanding the diversity. Well, technically, it would. Probably, so would naming someone who spoke fluent Pig Latin.

Hell, how about a gay atheist who also went to State U.?

I dunno if he went to State U., but ... Someone who actually would have TOTALLY fit my request? Glenn Greenwald.

(CNN does better on its diversity story, getting gays in there, but nary a word about an atheist for the High Court.)

Obama undercutting Prop. 8 noisemaking?

Latest word is that President Barack Obama plans on unveiling his SCOTUS nominee as early as May 26. Of course, at noon Eastern time that day, the California Supreme Court is supposed to announce its Prop. 8 ruling.

Of course, the folks on the Golden State bench might actually like Obama running some flak like that for them.

Prop. 8 – set watches for 10 a.m. PDT May 26

That’s when the California Supreme Court is supposed to announce its legal ruling. And going by tea-leaf readings, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom was right to ask for a delay from the 30th anniversary of the White Night riots after Dan White sentencing.

Those tea leaves?

Looks like the California Supremes will keep Prop. 8 legal, with a couple of dissenting judges, while upholding the validity of existing gay marriages.

And so, Equality California and other groups, which overreached by not trying to force Prop. 8 past the California Legislature last summer as a major constitutional revision, instead, greedily betting it could be killed at the ballot box, will officially, and sadly, be hoist by their own petard.

Rick Warren, chicken

A week after stereotyping atheists, Part of America’s Pastor, Rick Warren, ducked an appearance on ABC’s “This Week.” He was supposedly going to try to address how he lied about not supporting California’s gay-marriage banning Proposition 8 last year when he’s on videotape record as actually doing that.

His excuse for skipping? Via a spokesperson (Sign No. 1 Rick’s about to tell another lie), he claims it was because of Easter week.

You knew where Easter fell on the calendar when you signed up for the booking.

He either never should have signed up in the first place, or else signed up for another date. It looks like he wanted an out.

Iowa: 3 down, 47 to go on gay marriage

Iowa, by unanimous state Supreme Court ruling, is to legalize gay marriage.

Sidebar note to California gay activists who did the wrong thing last year in “doubling down” to try to get a ballot-box win over Prop. 8 rather than forcing it to go through California Assembly approval for ballot access is now in order.

NONE of the early black civil-rights wins came by vote at all, rather than court action. And, any later ones came from inside Congress, not via public referendums. Take notes.