July 03, 2009

Friday Videos love a good conversation at 3 a.m.

Constant Readers,

-1 My friend, D (who is my brother from another mother) emailed me this without comment. It is the cover of this Sunday's New York Times. (To Beth - who is out of town - I'll grab you a copy!)

Wow. Um. Just. I mean...Wow.

Here's the story that follows the cover. The story itself is actually about Gavin, Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner, etc...not exactly a difficult beauty contest to win so I see why they put our Dear Leader on the cover.

Doesn't it look a little like he's a religious figure? Anyway, whether you want to throw darts at it or lick it (or both) get your copy early - I'm sure they'll be flying off the racks.

Also, there's a really amazing article this week in Rolling Stone. My friend Art alerted me to it. So, grab one of those, too. 

On to videos! 

BONUS: Okay, you are really not going to believe this. I didn't. But I think it is real. Taylor Swift rapping about being a thug. I can't embed it, so just go to the video here. I'll wait.

Back? Okay....

Several people sent me this video. Allow me to give you the (extremely abbreviated) set-up:

At Wednesday's meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee, everyone was congratulating themselves at negotiating with the Mayor's office to get $44 million in add-backs. Chris Daly pointed out that the Mayor can just refuse to spend the money on the designated projects, so the fight ain't over.

And Avalos was all: but he told me he wouldn't make cuts without consulting us. And he put it in a letter!

And Daly was all: Hello? The Mayor came to the Board several months ago and SAID he'd work with us on mid-year budget cuts for 2008-2009. And he didn't! Your letter is worthless!

And then he said this:


Ultimately, Supervisor Mirkarimi's proposal designed to give the Board leverage in mid-year reductions did not even get a second, so it was not voted on. 

So, I got some flack for writing that one should not need a prescription for medicine containing ephedrine. Well, the United States is about to let poppy farmers in Afghanistan grow their heroin flowers at will. Hysterical people can have a new cause

A friend sent me this joke: "In all fairness to Gov Sanford's aides, 'I'm humping some Argentinean tail' sounds a lot like 'I'm hiking some Appalachian trail' when you're on a fuzzy satellite phone." Watch as some folks take Sanford to task for his anti-gay marriage stance.

Stephen Colbert also has a great mashup of politicians who lambasted Bill Clinton and went on to cheat on their spouses - Sanford included. Bring on the hypocrisy!

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Clinton Curse
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorJeff Goldblum

Sanford, of course, made headlines when he tried to refuse $700 million in bailout money. Here's a video that envisions a collection of mall stores asking for bailout money. There's the Ref from Footlocker, d-bags from Ab & Fitch, and - probably my favorite - the Hot Topic guy.

How does one get to be a guest on Glen Beck's show? Write the craziest essay? Here's a dude saying that Americans have forgotten about 9/11 and need to be reminded about how mad we should be. Best way to do that? Another attack. I know don't why I continue to be amazed at his show...

In honor of this holiday weekend, here's a little something called "The Star Mangled Banner" - a collection of awesomely bad anthem singing. These are our fellow Americans. Be proud.

This Daily Show moment of Zen will show you how not to handle fireworks. Rule 1: make everything as terrifying as possible. 

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Moment of Zen - Fireworks Safety Tips
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorJason Jones in Iran

And finally, here are six puppies playing in a little pen. This is what heaven looks like. I'm sure of it

Have a great holiday weekend, y'all!

-Melissa

July 02, 2009

Sadly, no food fight at breakfast

Cat_fight I had already agreed to attend the Alice B. Toklas Pride Day breakfast when I learned that gubernatorial hopefuls Attorney General Jerry Brown and Mistermayor would be there. Obviously I was giddy. I imagined Mayor Gavin Newsom arranging to have a wheelchair available for the 71-year-old Brown “just in case,” and Brown presenting Newsom with a signed copy of “California Dreaming: The Political Odyssey of Pat and Jerry Brown.

When the time came for the event, they were not hugging, that’s for sure, but neither man made a snide remark about the other while speechifying. Newsom even stood when the room gave Brown an ovation for his work on behalf of same-sex marriage. Brown was already standing when the room did the same for Newsom. Obviously I was disappointed at the civility and maturity the men displayed, but I remain hopeful that it won’t last.

(Here's my BFF, Beth's take on the breakfast!)

 Also at the breakfast:

I want to thank you for all your cards and letters while I was out hiking the Appalachian trail ... with Ed Jew,” San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano said to huge laughter.

And speaking of Ammiano:

He was one of two members of the state Assembly Public Safety Committee who voted against SB 484, which would have required a prescription for over-the-counter medicine that contains ephedrine and ephedrine-related products. The measure (the perils of which I wrote about last week) failed to garner four votes and is dead unless the chair of the committee, Juan Arambula, D-Fresno, decides to reconsider it.

San Francisco's own stimulus package

July 2 November’s ballot continues to take shape, as the Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to lay the groundwork for a $368 million bond for road and sidewalk improvements. The proposed measure would be repaid over 20 years with property taxes. And because it’s a “general obligation” bond, it will need the approval of 66 percent of voters. (California Constitution, Art. 16, sec. 18(a).)

Supervisor Bevan Dufty figured: While we’re rooting around in the guts of our streets, we should put some utility wires underground. But his proposal to add $20 million to the measure for that purpose never made it out of the Budget and Finance Committee.

On Tuesday, the board approved a resolution declaring that approving the bond would be in the public interest (a necessary precursor to the official bond measure) by a vote of 9-2, with supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier and Sean Elsbernd voting no. (Here's the resolution:
Download Street Bond.)

Here’s my dramatic interpretation of the debate (these are not quotes):

Elsbernd: This bond is basically saying: Streets are no longer a budget priority, so lets pile it on to the property-tax payers of The City. Last year, voters approved more than $1 billion in bonds — can we give citizens a break? Do we have to have a bond measure on every dang ballot?

Ed Riskin, director, Department of Public Works: In the past 20 years, The City’s pavement-condition index score has gone from 78 to 64 because streets have been neglected. We need to fix the Hall of Justice at 850 Bryant St., and there’s not enough general fund money to do that plus get our roads in order, so we need to put this in a bond.

Elsbernd: The resolution says this money is for road repairs. That is maintenance. Bonds are not supposed to be used for maintenance. Bonds are for humongous one-time expenditures like overhauling San Francisco General Hospital, which voters approved last year.

Riskin: If it makes you feel any better, we will still fix potholes and fill pavement cracks with general fund money.

Nani Coloretti, mayor’s budget director: Let me add that the state is cutting funds to The City, including the cash we get from the gas tax to take care of our streets.

Elsbernd: We don’t use the gas tax to resurface our streets like we are supposed to! We use it to clean our streets. If we used the money for its intended purpose, we wouldn’t be asking voters to approve yet another bond.

David Chiu, board president: First of all, Elsbernd is being a total killjoy. The board should get bonus points for working with Mistermayor’s office on this. Second, I want to point out that passing this bond won’t result in a tax increase (you just won’t see a decrease). Third, if we wait too long, our streets will be even more janky, which will make repairing them even more expensive. And you know what? In a year like this, when we’re talking about cutting services and stuff, we can’t prioritize street repairs as a general fund expense.

Elsbernd: We’re looking at an $85 million increase in retirement benefit costs this year, and a $40 million increase in the cost for health care benefits that The City has to pay. The reason there’s no money for streets is because we refuse to make difficult decisions.

Coloretti:
This will create 2,600 jobs, too.

Riskin: Yeah, man. It’s about jobs.

QUOTES OF THE MEETING:


 “Those who are considering placing a parcel tax on the November ballot: You’re gonna go to the voters with a parcel tax and a general obligation bond at the same time? In this economy? Good luck.” — Supervisor Sean Elsbernd at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, speaking out against a proposed $368 million bond for street improvements on the November ballot.

“If any of us had thought that Supervisor Elsbernd lost his edge becoming a parent, I think we were welcoming the moment when he tossed that microphone aside and stepped away with a look of disgust that we see on his face right now.” — Supervisor Bevan Dufty, commenting on new father Elsbernd’s vehement opposition to the proposed street bond, and Elsbernd’s signature “microphone toss.”

June 26, 2009

Friday Videos will Gladly Give You the Sports Section of the Paper

Constant Readers,

Everyone is dying. Go get a check-up.

Let's start with a few unconventional tributes, shall we?

My stage name is Ed McMuffin (long story) so Ed McMahon's will go first...

Here's a seriously whacked-out Farah tribute. People be crazy.

I'm sure that, of all the gestures of love and support that are making Michael Jackson smile in heaven right now, none is more wonderful to him than this - a New Kids On The Block tribute performed at a concert in Detroit.

While we're thinking about music...this new Lily Allen song is called "Fuck You Very Much" and it's obviously not safe for work. But it could be San Francisco's theme song.

When trolling in the music section of YouTube, I found this video by Depeche Mode (who knew?) for a song called "Peace." The vid follows a female soldier who has just been discharged from the military. Powerful stuff.

On to the funny...this kid looks more like Alf than Rick Sanchez, and yet his impression is just wonderful! Excellent video...

The Louisiana legislature decided to honor a local rapper named "Hurricane Chris" (so, there's that) who has a popular song out called "Halle Berry." (Walter still rules, though.)  They let him perform the song on the floor of the esteemed assembly floor. Ridiculous as this is - remember that at least Louisiana isn't about to have to pay it's bills with I.O.U.s. Thanks to Brit and Alex for sending me this! 

Watch Jon Stewart respond to the White House's assertion that taped interviews with Dick Cheney should be kept confidential because future V.P.s might be reluctant to be interviewed if they think the info will get out and used for fodder on The Daily Show.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Cheney Predacted
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorJason Jones in Iran

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Crazytown) explains why the census is just a way for the Obama administration to collect information to be used later to round people up and put them in internment camps.

This is a tape of a gay exorcism. I don't know what to say, except: see Lily Allen video.

If you want to see more of the weirdness, go here for a longer version. 

This video is of three commercials for magic sex dust, or something. In the first video, wearing pigtails, is the younger sister of one of my best friends. I've known her since she was 12. Hehe! Go Brooke!!

VIAPREN RUSH DELIVERY AD CAMPAIGN

And finally, here's a video about a cat named Winston. Winston is basically the cat version of me. Except that he is adorable.


Have a great weekend, y'all!

--Melissa

June 25, 2009

SB 484 Is All Methed Up

June 25 I’ve had asthma my whole life, but for the past 15 years or so it has been mild enough to control with over-the-counter medication.

I tell you this because I want to be upfront about my bias — my wheezing, unadulterated rage, really — at a law being debated right now in Sacramento that will require a prescription for the purchase of any medication that contains ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, norpseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine (let’s just call all this "ephedrine" for the purpose of this article). Zyrtec-D, Claritin-D, Sudafed and Advil Cold and Sinus are some of the drugs you will need a doctor’s permission to purchase under the proposed law, all because some people use these drugs to make methamphetamine.

The bill, SB 484, has already passed the Senate, where state Sen. Mark Leno voted in favor (say it ain’t so, Mark!) and state Sen. Leland Yee voted against.

On Tuesday, it will be in front of two former San Francisco supervisors (Assembly members Tom Ammiano and Fiona Ma) during a Public Safety Committee meeting.

The law is modeled after one passed in Oregon in 2005. And since Oregon and California are basically twins, some folks think it would be a good idea to try it here because our state government is humming along with no bigger issues. To be clear: Meth is a huge problem that has affected even my own family and I agree that we should be working to fight this scourge, but SB 484 is misguided nonsense.

Snapshot 2009-06-25 12-58-44  In Oregon, where this very law has been "successful," local meth production is down. But according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, the market "has been increasingly supplied with methamphetamine from other southwestern states and Mexico." (Senate Analyst Report:
Download SB 484 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis.)  And a recent study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows that the rate of meth use in Oregon is greater than California. (Great. Next we’ll be copying Louisiana’s emergency-evacuation program.)

In 2005, the federal government prohibited the purchase of more than 7.5 grams of ephedrine per month and made it so you have to show identification and sign a promise to be good with your sniffles medicine. (21 U.S.C. sec. 830(e).) The number of labs busted in California declined 83 percent from 2003 to 2007. Oregon saw a 95 percent total reduction during the same period. (See Analyst Report, above.) So we’re talking about a difference of 12 percent, or 64 labs in California, potentially attributable to requiring a prescription. And that’s only if we assume zero difference in law-enforcement resources.

Bearing in mind that there’s no evidence that meth use diminishes with the elimination of local labs (there is some evidence that use actually increases with the more pure product from Mexico — just ask Iowa), let’s look at some of the costs associated with requiring a prescription: 

  • In 2008, the state received about $4.5 million in sales-tax revenue from ephedrine products. Prescriptions are not taxed, so that money’s gone.
  • California’s 8 million uninsured surely count asthma and allergy sufferers among their ranks, and trips to the emergency room when an attack strikes will be paid for by the collective goodwill of taxpayers. Medicaid costs will rise, too.
  • Aside from the collective costs, there are the personal costs borne by you and me when we want medicine that works. Studies confirm what we all know: Drugs containing the "substitute" phenylephrine instead of ephedrine don’t work as well and have to be taken more frequently. These costs include time off work, co-pay for a doctor visit and the cost of the drug itself (reportedly, Sudafed costs $25 in Oregon), not to mention the toll all of this ridiculousness takes on one’s mental health.


Instead of limiting effective medicine to the persistent and insured, other states like Kentucky and Massachusetts actually target the problem — people who hoard ephedrine from multiple sources — and have simply created computer systems that better track such purchases. There’s a thought.

Note that, in addition to free time and evil, meth producers also require things like fingernail polish, paint thinner, table salt, vehicle starter fluid, matches, and pots and pans. Let’s hope The City’s representatives help defeat SB 484, or else we’ll soon need a note from our mothers to engineer a pedicure.

June 19, 2009

Friday Videos are Glad to be Home

Constant Readers,

In the last few weeks, I have traveled to four cities and learned that I really don't like tapas. I've tried, y'all. I swear. But I'm just too country.  What's up with those small plates? And anyway, I don't like to share. I want a big plate of mac and cheese and some alone time to inhale it. Which may explain the breakup, now that I think about it.

Anyway  I'm glad to be home in SF, where the wine selection is generally respectable and, when, in the taxi on the way home from the airport I call one friend, another one picks up the phone and I can hear a third in the background. Much love to my little SF family.  

On with the fun!

If you don't enjoy the wonders of public comment, you should leave this site and never come back. I love our characters, but SF certainly hasn't cornered the market on great comment. Here's a video of Santa Cruz comments. Many thanks to Brock and Dewar for alerting me to this awesomeness!   

Okay, were' changing gears here for a second. As you know, there is some election fuckery going on in Iran - here's a video of a massive silent protest. Eerie. Wonderful. 

So, right before the  Shiite hit the fan in Iran, The Daily Show sent a correspondent to talk to the people who hate us. I swear, you will not be disappointed if you watch this. It may be one of their best segments yet. When he gives the cigarettes to the little girl, I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Who doesn't love a little Marlboro-child action? 

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Minarets of Menace
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorJason Jones in Iran

One would think Babs has been in office long enough to not be insecure about this sort of thing. Frankly, I don't like being called "Ma'am" either (especially by the JV tranny muppets at Sephora) but people call male Senators "sir" all the time. Still, I always love a little bitchitude. Say it, sister.  

This statement is a punchline by itself: Sean Hannity declares the journalism is dead.


Honestly, there are some videos that I can watch over and over again. Only, like, three of them, though. Here's one of them. Natalie Portman rapping. I love her more each time I watch.

 

So, Obama killed a fly. Stop the fucking presses! Though I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of Karate Kid when I heard about it.

I won't ruin this one by explaining it. Just watch. It's safe for work, but put down your beverage.

And finally, much love to my friend who sent me a link that he knew damn well is crack for someone like me. You can see pics like this (baby otters - WANT!!!) there:

Gal_otters_2  

Argh!! GO already! NOW!  It's here!

And have a great weekend, y'all!!

-Melissa

June 18, 2009

Bill Barnes is Back at the Board

June 18 The rumors are true: Bill Barnes will be Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier’s new legislative aide. Alioto-Pier told me so on Tuesday.

For those of you who have a life, allow me to explain the significance of this: Barnes used to work for Supervisor Chris Daly. And, while our local politicians would all be burned as witches for their liberal beliefs in other American cities, Daly and Alioto-Pier are on opposite sides of what passes for a political spectrum in San Francisco.

Daly is a leader in The City’s progressive movement who is well known for his affordable housing advocacy and general lack of shyness. Alioto-Pier’s name contains the word “Alioto.” Her district (District Two) includes the Marina and she almost always votes the same way as moderate Supervisors Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chu.

(Barnes' bio here.)

Barnes was the campaign manager for Supervisor Chris Daly’s first successful bid to join the Board of Supes in 2000. He then immediately joined Daly’s staff where he served as a legislative aide until 2004.

(My dear friend/human encyclopedia reminded me that Barnes ran for District 5 Supe in 2004; he lost to Ross Mirkarimi.) In 2006, he worked as a legislative aide to then-Supervisor Fiona Ma and when she was elected to the State Assembly in 2006, he went to Sacramento to serve as her Chief of Staff.

He resigned that post in December 2008 and for the past few months has been working for San Francisco Firefighters Local 798 in their effort to prevent firehouse closures.

His recent gig with Local 798 plus him at odds with current progressives on the Board (including Daly) who want to take money from police and fire to stave off other cuts to social services. That, plus his new position with Alioto-Pier’s office will make for one very interesting “Welcome Back to City Hall” party in early July.

Halting Haight Head Shops

Technicality At Monday’s Land Use and Economic Development Committee meeting, Supervisors Sophie Maxwell, Eric Mar and David Chiu voted to send to the full Board an ordinance that would more severely curtail the sale of tobacco paraphernalia in the Haight.  (Here's the proposal: Download Tobacco Paraphernalia.)

Fed up with the number of “head shops” along Haight Street, last October Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi passed legislation requiring any new “tobacco paraphernalia establishment” along that street to get a Conditional Use permit - an arduous and public process whereby retailers have to prove to the Planning Commission that there’s a need for their particular shop.

One problem: the law defines “tobacco paraphernalia establishment” as any place that dedicates more than 15 percent of retail floor space to tobacco-related wares. (Planning Code sec. 790.123.) Why 15 percent? Why focus on floor space? Arbitrary rules like this are as good as a sign that says: “Let the Skirting Begin!”

And sure enough, hilarity ensued. Recently, some enterprising head shop retailer started selling tobacco tackle on Haight Street without a Conditional Use permit. How? The shelf where the tobacco doohickeys are sold only takes up 12 percent of the floor space - but stretches all the way to the ceiling. (This situation was explained at Monday's hearing.)

Mirkarimi’s new proposal does away with the 15 percent rule and now says that any new store that wants to sell any tobacco paraphernalia along Haight Street (upper and lower) has to get a permit. It will be heard by the full Board of Supervisors in the coming weeks where it will likely get 100 percent support.

Note: The (supremely dumb) 15 percent rule applies to all Commercial and Industrial districts in the City thanks to a law spearheaded by former Supervisor Sandoval. (Here's the law - it's almost 300 pages long: Download Tobacco Shop Limits.)

Public comment on Mistermayor's interim budget - what you missed

Image Constant Readers,

I've been out of town this week for work - so apologies for the paucity of posts.

Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting went on for over five hours, mostly owing to the public comment  on Mistermayor’s interim budget. In the end, a majority of Board members voted to reject the budget because they believe it cuts too much from public health while increasing budgets for police and fire departments.

Outside, there were dueling rallies - first a “Fight the Mayor's Budget Cuts” event that started at 12:30 p.m. then a “Public Safety Rally” commencing at 1 p.m.

While a number of police and firefighters were present outside and at the Board meeting, only a handful spoke during public comment. Those who did speak stressed the fact that the police and firefighters work with public health employees all the time - delivering injured people to the emergency room, for example. They were not happy being pitted against public health interests.

Representatives from programs whose fate is uncertain under the Mayor’s proposal talked about the need to keep people in treatment and housed so as to limit the amount of trouble that police and fire have to deal with.

Debra Walker, who will be running for District Six Supervisor in 2010, suggested that, instead of flat-out raises, we give financial incentives to firefighters and police who live in The City.

Among the speakers against the Mayor's budget were at least two people who spoke of having tried to commit suicide in the past - one man claimed to have tried 73 times - but their lives were saved by City resources.

Most of the speakers were perfectly normal, but here are excerpts from one actual exchange:

Speaker: I am calling for a real 911 investigation. I believe the first investigation was full of lies…the planes could not have brought down those buildings.

Chiu: If you could keep your comments related to the bill that's in hearing…public health cuts. Thank you.

Speaker: In regard to the public health cuts, wouldn't we have more money if we didn't spend a whole bunch of money on a bogus 911 investigation? … I believe the C.I.A. did it.

Chiu: Thank you.

Another speaker claimed that the Mayor just hired an accountant who is an embezzler, sexual harasser and is not accredited in California. Even the ever-polite Chiu had to cut that guy off.

These budget fights are ugly, but watching our fellow citizens never ceases to be interesting. 

June 12, 2009

Mr. and Mr. Smith Go to Washington: Gay Marriage and the U.S. Supreme Court - Part Three

14235__supremes_l Constant Readers,

Here's my last bit on gay marriage for awhile. Before I leave this subject, I want to address the issue of how this would go to the Supreme Court.

Here are parts One and Two.

But let me take a minute to say that the quality of comments left by my brilliant readers on the prior posts makes me so proud! Y'all are wicked smaht!!

Hugs and kisses!

Moving on...

Right after the news broke that a couple of fancypants lawyers were taking the case of gay marriage to the federal courts, nine high-profile pro-same-sex marriage groups got together and issued a press release asking that the lawyers to Pretty Please NOT go the federal route. "It is by no means clear that a federal challenge to Prop. 8 can win now" it says. (Press release here: Download Don't go to the Supreme Court Press Release.)

Of course, there are good reasons to go the way of federal courts. For one, it is less of an expensive mess than one election or multiple elections. It also offers a finality that ballot propositions and regular laws do not - people and legislatures can giveth and can also taketh away. Courts don't do that as regularly - and if they change their minds, it's usually in favor of expanding rights, not shrinking them. Plus some people are just frustrated at dealing with the masses and want to get it over with already.

On the other hand, there are pitfalls to taking this matter to the federal courts. 

1. The case will probably be dismissed in about 30 seconds

The case that was just filed is the Perry case and here's the Complaint: Download Federal Court Complaint

NOTE: Generally, to bring a case in federal court, you need to be complaining about federal law. In this case, the way the Perry plaintiffs are getting in the federal door is by arguing that their rights under the United States Constitution (forget the CA State Constitution) are being violated by California's different  treatment of same and opposite marriage.

Back in 1972, after a Minnesota State Supreme Court held that it was okay to prohibit gay marriage, the plaintiffs appealed the case (Baker v. Nelson) directly to the United States Supreme Court, alleging, just like in Perry, that their federal constitutional rights were being violated.

NOTE: The plaintiffs in the Baker case could appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court because they were appealing the ruling of a State Supreme Court. In the present gay marriage case, the plaintiffs aren't appealing any State Supreme Court ruling - they are NOT saying that the Prop 8 case as wrongly decided. They are challenging the LAW in California, not a final state court ruling, so Perry has to go through lower courts first.

Okay, so, plaintiffs in the Baker case went directly to the US Supreme Court which, in a single sentence, dismissed the appeal “for want of a substantial federal question.”

This is very important

Allow me to translate for the Supreme Court: Whether gay people are allowed to marry in Minnesota has nothing to do with the United States Constitution. In fact we think this case is so dumb that we're not even going to fully explain this ruling.

Of course that case is 37 years old and nowadays, the Supreme Court would probably think it's at least worth explaining why the case is being tossed out, but Baker is still the law. And it is binding on lower courts.

So, the District Court will probably throw out the Perry case because current legal precedent says: whether gay people are allowed to marry in California has nothing to do with the United States Constitution. (Remember: without a U.S. Constitutional claim, there's no right to be in federal court.)

If that happens: the plaintiffs will probably appeal that dismissal to the Ninth Circuit. If the Ninth Circuit throws it out, plaintiffs can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and try to get them to reverse the Baker ruling. (There's no guarantee that would actually happen, by the way.) A reversal by the Supreme Court would just reverse the rule that federal courts can't hear gay marriage claims. Nothing more.

If all that happens: Perry plaintiffs would have to go back to the District Court to litigate the heart of the case: whether, in marriage, separate but equal is constitutional. 

2. Even if the federal courts can hear the case, there's no guarantee that the Supreme Court will

Let's assume the federal courts are ready to listen to the merits of the Perry case. The plaintiffs have a right to have the case heard in a District Court, and then a right to appeal that case to the Ninth Circuit. But that's where it stops. At that point the Supreme Court could choose to hear the case or not.

When it comes to federal court cases, the Supreme Court is more likely to take a case if two circuits disagree on the application of constitutional law. So, if the Ninth Circuit (where the Perry case would go - because the Ninth Circuit covers California) ruled one way on the right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution and, oh...lets say the Second Circuit (New York State) ruled a different way - like a parent with two squabbling kids, the Supreme Court can step in and settle the dispute.

Without that "split in the circuits" it is less likely that the Supreme Court would take the case. 

If the Supreme Court chooses not to take the case: the Ninth Circuit ruling (last in time, highest court) would be the law in California - for better or worse.

A quick recap: While federal courts would initially have to toss out the case because of the Baker v. Nelson precedent, assuming the Supreme Court reverses itself, the law in California would be decided by the last, highest court to rule on the issue. Which would be the Ninth Circuit if the Supreme Court won't take the case.

3. If the Supreme Court does take the case...

Alright, lets assume that the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the Baker decision and decides to take the case (by the way, the year is like 2014) what would those guys say?

First, remember that this is years away. It is likely that Justice Stevens (he's 89) and Ginsburg (cancer scare) will retire here soon, so the leanings of their replacements would be important.

If the Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage: States would have to change their laws, constitutions and commandments to afford same-sex couples the right to marry. 

If the Supreme Court Rules that Laws Treating Same and Opposite-Sex Couples Differently Are Constitutional: States would not then have to treat gay and straight couples differently.

U.S. Constitutional rights are a floor, not a ceiling, so states are free to afford MORE rights than the U.S. Constitution - just not fewer rights.

HOWEVER because the "rights" section of most state constitutions are lifted from the U.S. Constitution, state courts often look to the Supreme Court's interpretation of those clauses -  the "equal protection" clause, for example - as instructive on state equal protection issues. So, while a negative ruling at the Supreme Court would not mandate discriminatory state laws, with state courts looking to the Supreme Court for advice, it would probably limit the extent to which gay marriage advocates can rely on state courts for protection. 

Plus, states could roll back rights like adoption for gay couples without fear of a serious legal challenge.

Phew!

There you have it. 

A number of things could happen here, but they won't happen soon.

ON A PERSONAL NOTE: When I was little, my parents were engaged in a bitter struggle to get custody of my siblings. (I won't get into the gory details here, but it was pretty bad.) The laws of the states of Georgia and Alabama caused so much confusion in my little brain that I decided I wanted to be a lawyer at the age of 8. (They were the only people who seemed to be able to understand the system.) What I'm trying to say is this: I write so much about this subject because I know how hard it is to feel like a family and have the state say it ain't so. Or that your family is second-class. And I know it's nothing compared with the frustration so many gay couples feel today. I only hope I've done this issue justice for now. 

If you have questions, please feel free to email me.

-Melissa

My Photo

only search Melissa's site

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner