Prop 8: The Court Appeal

When I first heard that there were going to be court appeals against Prop 8, my first reaction was that was really going to be a stretch. It's perfectly appropriate for the Court to find a statute to be unconstitutional, but it's rather problematic to ask the Court to find a constitutional amendment (which is, by definition, now part of the Constitution) to be unconstitutional. However, having read the briefs that have been filed, I see there actually is a claim to be made, and I'm cautiously optimistic that the court may go for it. (Of course, I also cringe now just saying "cautiously optimistic", as I used that same phrase often in expressing my hope that Prop 8 was going to fail at the ballot box. I guess with me, cautious optimism springs eternal.) The gist is that the California Constitution has two different processes for being changed, one called an "amendment" and one called a "revision". An "amendment" (which is how Prop 8 was filed) simply requires a bare majority of the voters, while a "revision" requires a more cumbersome process, first a two-thirds majority vote in both legislative houses and then going to the voters. The notion is that items of limited scope are "amendments", while those that make more substantive changes in the constitution of the government must be "revisions". The Constitution itself provides no more clarity on exactly what makes something rise to the level of a "revision". That distinction is left up to the Court to interpret. And historically, the Court has invalidated a couple of previous ballot initiative amendments, saying that they were too fundamental to be an amendment and really needed to go through the revision process. That's what Prop 8 opponents are asking the Court to do with Prop 8.

There's a good argument to be made that a change to the Constitution that actually repeals fundamental rights is substantive enough in scope to warrant the revision process, and the three appeals that I've read (I've heard there may now be a fourth) have made that argument. This would actually vindicate the intuition of many people that it's outrageous that the revoking of a fundamental right could be put to a ballot initiative for a bare majority. For those who care about constitutional forms of government, Prop 8 sets a frightening precedent (and it is indeed unprecedented). If that precedent is allowed to stand, then any unpopular minority group could have its constitutional rights revoked by a bare majority of the voters. Conceivably, we could put up an initiative that Mormon marriages would no longer be recognized by the state, or even more egregiously, California could legalize slavery again. Is it reasonable to think that California voters could enact such changes with just 51% of the voters on a ballot initiative? Undoubtedly, such measures would be struck down on appeals to the US Constitution, but one would hope that the California Constitution's guarantee of fundamental rights would stand on its own in this regard. Our constitutional government provides for "checks and balances" in separate branches of government, and one of the important duties of the Supreme Court is to safeguard the constitutional rights of minorities against what the founding fathers termed the "tyranny of the majority". A measure like Prop 8 defies that fundamental separation of powers. That's the gist of the arguments being made, and the Court may well find them compelling. Governor Schwarzenegger has advocated as much, and 44 California Senators and Assemblymembers have signed on to an amicus brief in favor of that position.

Of course any Supreme Court decision ultimately comes down to the seven Justices making the decision. The decision last spring recognizing a fundamental right to equal recognition of same-sex marriages was made by the minimum of four Justices, with three dissenting. For the original four concurring Justices, if they really believe what they wrote last May (their language was pretty clear and strong in terms of fundamental rights and protecting a minority group), then they would stand up for their opinion, and strike down Prop 8 as an insufficiently enacted constitutional revision. Those Justices were courageous in the face of what they probably knew would be substantial popular backlash (protecting minority rights, as the Court has noted, is often an unpopular job), and we can hope their courage does not falter. Unfortunately, ominous rumblings about their re-election prospects, and calls to remember Rose Bird, are being made by the Prop 8 backers (who have proven how ruthless they can be). Then we have the three dissenting Justices. The underlying issue for them will be whether they take the earlier decision as established precedent when evaluating this claim, or whether that precedent (that they didn’t agree with) is still open in their minds. Technically, this is a new and purely procedural issue (i.e., whether the initiative was inappropriately put forth as an amendment) that doesn't invite a revisiting of the earlier decision (whether there is a fundamental right to marry the person of one's choice), but in practice it may be hard to resist the opportunity to implicitly revisit the earlier decision in deciding this one. On the other hand, if I recall correctly, when the Prop 8 proponents requested a stay of the final Marriage decision pending the election, I believe that was unanimously denied by the Court, indicating that the dissenters are swayed by at least some arguments for proper procedure and not revisiting settled matters. Judging by the opinions filed in the Marriage decision (in addition to the decision, there was one concurrence and two separate dissents), I'd say the most likely outcome is that Prop 8 is invalidated by the same 4-3 decision as the original Marriage decision, since the four concurring justices spoke strongly about the role of the Court in protecting rights of minorities, while the three dissenters spoke strongly about the Court not overturning the will of the people expressed at the ballot box, and those same issues arise here.

The filings can all be read here (update: I just heard there are now six separate filings). Of those I've read, the NCRL brief does the most technical work in discussing the various precedents on the revision vs. amendment issue, but the brief by the Cities makes the most readable and very eloquent statement of the issue. If you read only one, read that one.

There are rumblings that the Court will take some action on Wednesday, making initial decisions whether to even hear the case (I think they will, since both sides are urging that), and whether to issue an immediate stay in the meantime (I suspect they won't). Stay tuned.

The Shape of the Cocoon

This map shows how Los Angeles County voted on Prop 8, precinct by precinct (green is yes on 8, purple is no on 8, the darker the color the larger the margin). The results of this election surprised many, and even traditionally solid liberal LA County went for Prop 8 by a slim majority. (The LA Times generated this map, and you can see it interactively on their web page.) I had always figured we lived in a bit of a cocoon, surrounded by friends and neighbors who tend to be more like-minded, and giving a false impression of what "everybody" thinks. This map gives a good idea of the shape of the cocoon. Locally, "our" turf seems to be the West Side, across through Hollywood, Silver Lake, Echo Park, Eagle Rock and Mount Adams to Pasadena (but not Glendale); the South Bay beach cities but not Torrance or Palos Verdes; the south and west San Fernando Valley plus Northridge, but not the east and most of the north. We knew we didn't have a lot of support in Santa Clarita and Palmdale. Not so much in the inner city or the Inland Empire either, except for a few pockets like Whittier and Claremont. A similar statewide map by county can be viewed here.

A DOMA Change We Can Believe In

With Obama heading to the White House and Democratic majorities in Congress, it seems hopeful that we may progress on federal legislative goals for gay equality in the next four years. Obvious top priorities are getting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) enacted, overturning the ban on gays in the military, and repealing or modifying the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA, passed in 1996, has two basic provisions. Part 1 provides that no state is required to recognize the same-sex marriages of another state, meaning that Alabama is not required to recognize same-sex marriages even if a couple traveled to Massachusetts and got a legitimate marriage license there. Part 2 specifies that the federal government shall not recognize same-sex marriages for any federal purpose, which means that even legally married same-sex couples in Massachusetts aren't entitled to spousal Social Security benefits, or tax exemptions for spousal inheritance, or any of the 1,138 marriage-related rights in federal law. There has been talk of repealing DOMA: Hillary Clinton said she would have repealed Part 2, and Barack Obama said he would repeal both parts. I had thought repeal was a great idea, but I'm now thinking that modification, rather than repeal, of both parts may be the right thing to do.

In reflecting on the wake of Prop 8 and the great marriage debate it stirred up, I am impressed how significantly the line of scrimmage has shifted. Even same-sex marriage opponents generally claim that they support equal rights, just not "redefining marriage". For example, the Mormon church, in a statement this week, said "the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches." And in national polls, those who support same-sex marriage, combined with those who oppose it but support civil unions, comprise a growing majority. Politically, at the federal level, same-sex marriage opponents such as John McCain espouse a federalist ("leave it to the states") policy. A pragmatic approach to modifying DOMA would build on this consensus.

Concerning Part 2, rather than simply repeal it, it should be modified to recognize civil unions. The pragmatic compromise of civil unions currently exists in some form in at least four states (Vermont, California, New Jersey, and New Hampshire), and it would be consistent with the apparent consensus on providing equal legal treatment that these should be recognized as equivalent to marriage for the purposes of federal law. I think most Americans, regardless of their approval of gay marriage, would see the injustice of two life partners not having their earned Social Security benefits protect their partner in the event of one's death, or having a surviving partner have to pay a whopping "gift income" tax on half the value of a jointly held home. Thus Part 2 should be amended as follows:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means a valid marriage or relationship substantially equivalent to marriage (e.g., a civil union) as recognized by law of the state of residence, and the word ‘spouse’ refers to a person who is a party to such marriage or substantially equivalent relationship.

Concerning Part 1, while some would proclaim same-sex marriage by federal fiat on all 50 states, I don't believe that is prudential at this time. I think it's better to give the controversial issue some breathing room by supporting the federalist position, that states should be allowed to determine their own policies. However, there is an important modification that should be made here. While states should be given latitude to set their own marriage policy for their residents, federal law should provide a guarantee of "safe passage" for visitors to the state. Nobody should ever again suffer the fate of Lisa Pond, who collapsed while vacationing in Florida and ultimately died in a hospital that actively prevented her partner from seeing her, directing her care, or obtaining her death certificate. I hope few Americans would see that as good public policy. Thus I propose the "Family Safe Passage Amendment" to DOMA Part 1. The distinction should be quite workable. Consider that each state has different license plates for automobiles, and different requirements for licensing cars. When I as a California resident drive my car into Arizona, I don't immediately have to take my car to get an Arizona state vehicle check and an Arizona license plate. That would be ridiculous if I'm only visiting. On a temporary basis, Arizona accepts a California-registered vehicle. However, after an appropriate period of time, if I'm still in Arizona, then I do have to register my car there, and bring it into conformity with local requirements. It should be the same for a marriage (or equivalent). If I have a California domestic partnership (a "marriage equivalent"), and I go into the emergency room while on a business trip in Virginia, my partner should be recognized appropriately at the hospital there, despite Virginia's own draconian marriage policies. Isn't that a change we can all believe in?

Taking The Long View

As I contemplated the feeling of profound disappointment last Wednesday morning, exhausted from having fought so hard for a cause and come up short, I knew I had felt that feeling before. It came to me that it was the same feeling that I felt last February the day after "super Tuesday", when I had poured a heap of time, sweat, and money into Obama's primary campaign in California. He had been leading in the polls in California, and at least within my horizons, there had seemed to be a vast surging tide of enthusiasm for Obama then that seemed to assure victory in the California primary. On February 6, I awoke to the news and that same feeling of exhausted disbelief and crestfallenness. But the similarity of those days suggests a lesson to me. One of the things I have admired about Obama is his uncanny ability to remain calm and steadily focused on the long goal despite blows and setbacks. While first Clinton and later McCain kept reinventing themselves to fit the focus group of the moment, and kept changing their strategy like a supermodel changes shoes, Obama kept his steady eye on the prize and didn't waver in his vision or in the execution of his strategy. Prop 8 was a setback, but we need to remember that just as sure as Obama lost California on super Tuesday and still went on to win the election, the cause of equal treatment under the law for citizens regardless of their sexual orientation will win out in the end.

I haven't participated in any of the large protests going on since the election. I understand people feeling like they want to vent, and a few demontrations are probably a good thing to signify the passion behind this issue. But I don't think expressions of outrage are the most productive means of changing anyone's mind. We've made a huge amount of progress in the eight years since Prop 22, and I attribute that progress primarily to gay people from all walks of life being more open and visible. Not as angry sign-waving people or folks marching in a parade, but as co-workers, as parents of school children, as fellow churchmembers, as soldiers, and in all the ways that anybody encounters their fellow citizens in our society. Just living our lives in quiet but open and unapologetic dignity does more than anything else to open our fellow citizens' eyes to the injustices in our current government policies. Some of those policies need to be explained to people (e.g., unequal tax treatment and social security benefits), but they can be explained calmly. The observation of injustice speaks for itself far more loudly than demands for justice can be shouted.

Hope Overshadowed

It's hard to describe the mixture of feelings I felt this morning. There was a base of exhaustion, both physically, the hoarse voice and aching back and feet from standing for 13 hours near polling sites (a legal distance away) passing out "No on 8" cards to poll-bound voters, and emotionally, from having invested so much money, time, and sweat in the No on 8 campaign, only to come so close and miss. I should have been absolutely exuberant at the Obama landslide, a campaign I also devoted much energy to earlier in the year, but emotionally, the cloud of Prop 8 overshadowed what should have been a dawn of triumph. "Yes We Can" rang hollow when it turned out that here in California -- California! -- no, we couldn't quite. When I step back and try to be dispassionate about it, I appreciate it's a great day. If I were given a choice between Obama winning or Prop 8 losing, and I couldn't have both, I'd definitely take the outcome that we got. Obama's victory is huge, and I have great hope that he will live up to his promise of being the greatest president in my lifetime. And the fact of a black man winning the highest office in the land crowns a trajectory of equality traced by Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr. I should be dancing in the street and singing hallelujah. Maybe tomorrow the Yes We Can spirit will reinspire me with hope, but today I'm just feeling spent and a bit dazed, like someone who won a big lottery and lost a loved one all in the same day. (Obama himself may be feeling that way too, having lost his grandmother on the eve of his victory.) I can't help but ponder the bitter irony that the overwhelming black turnout for this historic election may well have been decisive in passing Proposition 8. And I can't help but feeling a twinge of resentment that Obama didn't come out more forcefully against Prop 8, which could well have made a big difference for black voters. Of course I understand full well why he didn't and why he shouldn't have, but emotion has its own logic. And Prop 8 was so much more personal than the presidential race. The proponents succeeded in turning it into a referendum on the unworthiness of gay marriages as a moral example for children. While individual marriages vary, I'm personally convinced that gay marriages can be as morally praiseworthy and exemplary as straight ones. I'd like to think that my godson and goddaughter, whether they turn out to be gay or straight, might find some qualities to admire and emulate in their uncles' marriage. I respect the right of Californians to disagree, but it's demoralizing to find that 52% of them do. But what's worse is to find that 52% of Californians are willing to translate their moral disapproval into constitutionalizing our unequal treatment by the law. To anyone who doesn't understand why this is so personal, I ask: how would you feel if your marriage were on the ballot, subject to the approval of voters? And how would you feel if your marriage were voted down?

Every Major Newspaper in California Opposes Prop 8

So far as I can tell, every major newspaper in California has come out against Prop 8. Not just the supposedly liberal "big city" papers, but in more Republican strongholds like Orange County, San Diego and Contra Costa County, and in the inland cities like Fresno, Stockton, Redding, Bakersfield, and Tracy. I have yet to find a newspaper anywhere in California that has come out in favor of Prop 8.

• "Fundamental rights are exactly that. They should neither wait for popular acceptance, nor be revoked because it is lacking."
  —Los Angeles Times endorses NO on Prop 8
  
• "it is only fair that it afford equal protection to all who choose to make loving lifelong commitments to one another. We recommend a "no" vote on Prop. 8."
  —Orange County Register
  
• "Should we use the state constitution to take the right to marry from a particular group of people? We believe that notion is wrong, and recommend a "no" vote on Proposition 8."
  —Fresno Bee
  
• "To approve Proposition 8 is to codify discrimination. Californians cannot let that happen."
  —Stockton Record
  
• "Californians need to move beyond the divisiveness that Prop. 8 has engendered and embrace tolerance and reconciliation. Live and let live. We recommend a NO vote on Prop. 8."
  —Bakersfield Californian
  
• "Just as an individual's sexual orientation is not a legitimate basis on which to deny housing or a job, it is not a legitimate basis on which to deny individuals the right to marry. Californians should reject the call to amend the state constitution to exclude some people from marriage. That would be a black mark on the constitution, just as past exclusionary acts remain a stain on California's history."
  —Sacramento Bee
  
• "Gay and lesbian couples deserve the same dignity and respect in marriage that heterosexual couples have long enjoyed. We urge a No vote on Proposition 8."
  —San Diego Union-Tribune
  
• "We strongly urge voters to carefully consider the harm Prop. 8 would do not just to gays, but to all Californians, and reject the initiative. "
  —Contra Costa Times
  
• "The idea of using a ballot measure to single out a certain group of Californians for denial of individual rights - based on their sexual orientation - would represent an ugly distortion of the very purpose of a constitution. ... Californians should reject Proposition 8."
  —San Francisco Chronicle
  
• "The state constitution should never be amended to limit Californians' right to their own personal and religious beliefs. It should scrupulously uphold equal rights under the law. That is what it now does, based on a state Supreme Court ruling this year affirming a right to same-sex marriage. Voters should not take the extraordinary step of amending the constitution to take a right away. They should reject Proposition 8."
  —San Jose Mercury News
  
• "The Star urges a "no" vote on Proposition 8, which would embed discrimination in the California Constitution."
  —Ventura County Star
  
• "Same-sex vows cause no harm to our families. The reasons given for Proposition 8 just don’t stand up to scrutiny."
  —Redding Record Searchlight
  
• "The decision to marry is those couples' business, and no one else's. There is no compelling public policy reason to reverse that arrangement, and voters should say no to Prop. 8."
  —Riverside Press-Enterprise
  
• "In our view, Proposition 8 is a misguided and unconstitutional proposal. We urge voters to reject Proposition 8."
  —Napa Valley Register
  
• "Same-sex marriage does not diminish marriage between a man and a woman. It's a basic civil right that everyone - regardless of gender - should have. The time has come. Therefore, we oppose Proposition 8."
  —Palm Springs Desert Sun
  
• "The freedom to marry is fundamental in our society, just like the freedoms of religion and speech. Our laws should treat everyone equally. No on 8."
  —Tracy Press
  
• "Even people with reservations about same-sex marriage should consider the import of voting against a legal right. We support the right under California law for gays and lesbians to marry. Vote no on Proposition 8."
  —Santa Cruz Sentinel
  
• "All loving, committed couples should have the right to marry, with all the benefits and obligations that relationship incurs. That's the law now in California, and it should remain the law."
  —Merced Sun Star
  
• "The arguments against same-sex marriages seem close to arguments against mixed-race marriages you'd hear back in the '60s. Hopefully we'll get beyond all that some day. Vote no on Proposition 8."
  —Chico Enterprise-Record
  
• "The California Supreme Court has quite rationally decreed that the state has no power to take away anyone's right to marry the partner of her or his choice. We agree. Vote "no" on Proposition 8 on Nov. 4."
  —San Gabriel Valley Tribune
  
• "Advocates of Proposition 8 offer several arguments, but none of them stand up to close scrutiny."
  —Santa Rosa Press Democrat
  
• "No sea aceptable imponer estas creencias a toda la sociedad y, mucho menos, cambiar la Constitución de California. Estamos con el NO a la Proposición 8."
  —La Opinión
  
• "Vote NO on Proposition 8"
  —La Prensa San Diego
  
• "8 NO. Our California Constitution guarantees the same freedoms and rights to everyone - no one group should be singled out or treated differently."
  —Asian Week
  
• "Reject Proposition 8. California is better than that."
  —LA Daily News
  
• "Who gets to define marriage? If it is the state, then constitutionally, we all must be treated the same."
  —The Daily Breeze
  
• "It is morally deficient to codify intolerance, and wrong to deprive certain citizens of basic rights on no higher grounds than the prejudice of others. But the presence among Prop. 8 detractors of major California companies like PG&E, AT&T, Google and Levi Strauss illustrates that this issue speaks to economics as well, if somewhat more quietly than to equity and civil liberty. Prop. 8 fails this test, too, pointing California toward a less promising future."
  —San Francisco Business Times
  
• "NO, NO, NO"
  —San Francisco Bay Guardian

A Conservative, Virtue-Based Path to Same-Sex Marriage

The following was originally written as a letter in response to someone who felt that same-sex marriage was only about the selfish indulgence of base inclinations, while traditional marriage was modeled on the Christ-like virtues of self-sacrifice and selfless love of another.

I appreciated your thoughts about the purpose of marriage. I agree that marriage ought not to be about the fulfillment of selfish desires, but about the cultivation and practice of the virtues of altruism, serving others, and love (the "agape" kind as famously described in 1 Corinthians 13). Ideally, of course, we should be altruistic, loving and of service to all others, but being the fallible imperfect humans that we are, we can best only strive to come close to that in the context of one other person we devote our life to in marriage, and hope that the altruistic and loving tendencies that we practice within our own family might spill over a little bit into the rest of the people around us. Theologically, as you have expressed, a marriage of two fallible people should be a symbol and an imperfect reflection of the perfect love of God for his creation. God by his grace working through such marriages can inspire others and spread his grace.

The way I was raised, these ideas weren't spoken of much outside of the officiant's remarks at weddings, but I think I absorbed them more strongly by my parents' living example. I grew up with a picture in my head of what my life should be like, and there was no question that it should be centered around a marriage. Thus, at age 20, when I discovered that I was gay, the most difficult part was that my picture I'd always had, of what my life should be, seemed irreparably shattered, and there was nothing but an empty dark unknown in its place. Over time, blessed by the strong support of loving friends and family, I was able to integrate a new picture, one that preserved all of the essential values that I was raised with, but put together in a new way, in the kind of a life I would be able to live with integrity. That new picture also centered around a marriage, with all the same core values I was raised with, except that it involved two men rather than a man and a woman.

I realize that's a radical idea for you. It was a radical idea for me at one time too. But try to imagine my experience. You'll note I said I discovered that I was gay. It's certainly not something I chose. I was raised, like everybody else, thinking I was straight. I was shocked and resistant when I first realized that I wasn't straight. But I know now that being gay is profoundly who I am, and I know that I was created this way. Given that realization, there are four basic paths I could have taken:
(1) live a life of selfish hedonism
(2) marry a woman anyway, and force myself to live a "straight lifestyle"
(3) live a celibate life of monkish asceticism
(4) marry a man, and live in a completely traditional marriage aside from the gender of my spouse

Let's dismiss option 1. Hedonism would be completely untrue to who I am and the values I was raised with. I think we can agree it's not a good option.

Option number 2 is the naive solution, but we've seen too much wreckage from people who have tried that path. Marriage is challenging enough when our instinctive attractions are harnessed in the same direction as our higher goals. To lack that part of the "glue" in a marriage at the same time as attractions are pulling you in a different direction is an invitation for failure. Moreover, that choice is in conflict with the value of self-integrity (I would always being lying to myself and to others at some level), not to mention the value of putting my spouse before myself. How would that ever be fair to the woman involved, since there would always be some part of me I can't fully give her in the way she deserves, and she would be denied the opportunity to have a man who could love her in every dimension? That type of marriage is built on a rotten foundation.

Some would recommend option 3, celibacy, but that's a sad option for someone who finds themselves capable of loving commitment, to have every channel for expressing it with fidelity and integrity prohibited by legalistic moralists. I by no means wish to disparage those who find themselves called to a life of celibacy, which can be noble and rewarding. But it's frankly cruel and misguided to urge that life on those who are not called to it. I was created with a rare capacity to love another man, in the way that most men love women. None of us knows why. But wouldn't it be blasphemous to claim that God made a mistake in his creation, or that God were unable to work his grace through me as I am? I firmly believe that my capacity to love is something that can be used for good purposes, in ways that God would bless, and that it is a kind of blasphemy to squander God's gifts by letting them wither in us unused. Which leads me to option 4.

In thinking about marriage (and believe me, I have thought about it a great deal), I came to realize that there was nothing in the essential concept of it that two men couldn't undertake. Two men are as capable as a man and woman of exchanging vows of lifelong loving commitment, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, and faithfully living out those vows. Two men are as capable as a man and woman of striving within their marriage to put the other first, striving to copy the example of our parents' faithful marriages, striving to be a good example for the younger generation. Two men as are capable as a man and woman of being a symbol and a vessel for God's grace.

That's the kind of marriage that George and I had in mind when we exchanged our marriage vows, and that we have been endeavoring to practice in the seven years so far that we've been living out those promises. The vows we exchanged were the same in content as yours or as any married couple, and equally solemn. Our marriage is no more a selfish indulgence in physical attractions than yours is. We're striving toward the same marriage ideal that you are, as best each of us can with the particular gifts and limitations with which God created us.

Prop 8 Myths: Teaching Same-Sex Marriage in Schools

Myth: If same-sex marriage isn't overturned, public schools will be forced to teach kids about same-sex marriage


There are only a couple of places where marriage is even mentioned in the statutes regarding curriculum. Section 51890 of the Calif. Education Code outlines "comprehensive health education programs", in which "pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health." Subjects include "family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood." In Section 51933, which outlines sexual health education curriculum, the specifications include the following:

• Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.
• Instruction and materials shall be appropriate for use with pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities.
• Instruction and materials shall be age appropriate.
• All factual information presented shall be medically accurate and objective.
• Instruction and materials shall encourage a pupil to communicate with his or her parents or guardians about human sexuality.

That's the law as it stands now, and there's no reason that this curriculum would change regardless of whether Prop 8 passes or fails. Teaching respect for marriage and committed relationships, and teaching about the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood are good lessons for students regardless of sexual orientation. As the LA Times editorial board said, in urging a NO on 8 vote, "Assertions that it would require schools to promote gay marriage are utter nonsense."

Meghan Daum had an excellent op-ed piece in the LA Times about teaching marriage in schools. It's worth reading the whole thing, but here's the punchline:

And that's why students need marriage-ed. They need it because we're being taught to associate marriage not with permanent commitment but with social status, diamond rings, gifts, throwing a big party and, for women, wearing a dress that doesn't necessarily fit through the door. As a result, many teens of all sexual orientations (and many adults too) not only confuse sex with love, they confuse the long-term implications of marriage with the short-term gratification of wedding and honeymoon planning.

No matter what happens with Proposition 8, the way the education code is worded, it's unlikely that a lot of classroom time will ever get devoted to thinking deeply about marriage of any brand. That's a shame, because what students desperately need to be steered toward is not straight marriage or gay marriage but grown-up marriage. Now that would be radical.

FILM: Rachel Getting Married

I've been struggling with what to say about the film Rachel Getting Married. Anne Hathaway's performance was truly remarkable. And the film was very authentic, perhaps too authentic. It showed the life of a family as messy, struggling to be functional in the wake of a devastating tragedy that has left one family member an obvious wreck, and other family members with deep but less obvious scars. The film felt very real in conveying that. I'm just not sure that's what I want from a film. I like being rapt in a good story, or inspired by great characters, or transported to another place and time. This was more like watching someone else's home movies, if they were filmed by a videographer who occasionally opened up a door and walked in on a scene not meant to be seen, went unnoticed, and didn't turn away. In one part of the film, wedding guests fidget awkwardly as a sister's toast to the bride turns into disfunctional 12-step confessional. I felt that same kind of discomfort throughout the entire film, sometimes stronger, sometimes subtler, but never fully letting up. I can recall one awkward out-loud laugh (really more of a "she did not just say that, did she?" snort), but not really any comic relief. I suppose it would have been a different film if they'd gone for more traditional drama with moments of comic relief, but I think they were going for more of a cinéma vérité feel. The handheld camerawork gave it that feel, but was also a bit nauseous at times (especially those odd shots looking up from hip level). Hathaway was very convincing, and Bill Irwin and Rosemarie DeWitt give strong performances too. While I was watching it, I found Rachel's character a bit disjointed (she loves her sister, she hates her sister, she loves her again), although on reflection I suppose real life can be like that, especially in the inner lives of families. The film, in its authentic, unhurried and haphazard pace, reveals some powerful emotional history in the family. There are some great dramatic moments (in amidst the wedding "home movie"). And it feels very emotionally authentic. But I also wonder what it has to say to people who are experiencing difficult recoveries, but don't have as crucial and concise an emotional backstory to explain themselves. If you'd like to see a realistic view of a disfunctional family over an eventful weekend (a glimpse of what "reality TV" might be like if it weren't so heavily manipulated), then this is a great film. I'm just not sure it's what I want on a Saturday night.

Prop 8 Myths: Churches and Same-Sex Marriage

Myth: If legal same-sex marriage is allowed to stand, churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

This fear is unfounded. Freedom of religion is a bedrock principle of our nation, protected in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and in Article I, section 4 of the California Constitution. The California Supreme Court was explicit on this point in their decision. Here is a quote from the Supreme Court's opinion:

Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. [Ca. Sup. Ct., S147999 (2008), p. 117]

I would add that just as freedom of religion is still in effect, so too is freedom of speech. Churches continue to have full freedom to make their own decisions about whether to perform same-sex marriages, and to give voice to their own beliefs about the morality or immorality of same-sex marriage.

Myth: Churches may lose their tax-exempt status if they don't perform same-sex marriages, or if they advocate against it.

Some churches are nervous these days because the IRS has been investigating whether they have crossed a line into political advocacy, which would jeopardize their tax-exempt status. A recent organized protest called "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" had a few dozen pastors around the country endorsing presidential candidates from the pulpit. But the federal law is clear on what churches may and may not do in the political arena, while keeping their tax-exempt status. Churches and their leaders may speak freely on issues of public policy, even on specific legislation, and may encourage their members to support or oppose specific legislation, so long as they are not supporting a particular political party or candidate for office. They may spend an "insubstantial" (typically taken to mean less than 10%) amount of their funds on issue advocacy. The law strikes a reasonable balance, giving churches wide latitude to speak out on issues that they believe have moral or religious ramifications, while keeping them out of full-throated politics. (And also remember that churches are free to embrace full-throated politics if they wish, just not with a taxpayer subsidy for their donations.) Thus, no church or religious group will have their tax status penalized for advocating for or against same-sex marriage, or for supporting or opposing a particular proposition.

Given that churches are free to advocate against same-sex marriage while remaining tax-exempt, they are certainly not going to lose their tax-exempt status for refusing to perform same-sex marriages, if that is their belief.

It should also be noted that tax-exempt status is a matter of federal law, determined by the IRS. Thus, changes in California state law regarding same-sex marriage could not possibly have any relevance to the federal matter of tax-exempt status.

Myth: A legal policy of recognizing same-sex marriage is an assault on religious beliefs.

Some people feel that California's recognition of same-sex marriage imposes a redefinition of a religious principle, and thus is interfering in religion. However, it must be recognized that the term "marriage" has been used for a religious ceremony and a legal status, which may be related, but are not the same thing. It's possible to go to city hall and get married legally but not religiously. It's also possible to have a religious marriage but not get a state license (elderly couples remarrying later in life sometimes do this to avoid the legal complications). It's also possible for a marriage to end at different times in the eyes of the church and the state. For example, the Catholic church does not recognize divorce, so Catholic couples may get a legal divorce, but still be married in the view of their church. The state has its definition of marriage, and the churches have their definitions, and they're not always completely in synch. But it's a workable arrangement for a pluralistic society like ours. Thus, the state is defining marriage for the state's own purposes, while the churches are free to define marriage in their own way. The state's recognition of same-sex marriage is not imposed on churches any more than the state's provision for divorce is imposed on churches that don't believe in divorce.

It also must be said that not all churches oppose same-sex marriage. Some churches perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, and welcome and affirm same-sex couples. National denominations including United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalist Church, Reform Judaism and others bless same-sex marriages as a matter of denominational policy. Other denominations, including the Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Conservative Judaism, while lacking national consensus, have some churches and some clergy who have blessed same-sex marriages. Thus, a legal policy that would outlaw same-sex marriage is a disparagement to those religious institutions. Why should those religious marriages not merit equal recognition to all other marriages?

Further, it should be noted that even some religious leaders who oppose religious same-sex marriage also oppose unequal legal treatment for same-sex couples. California's top Episcopal bishops (who are themselves divided on whether their church should actually perform same-sex marriages) all came out in opposition to Proposition 8. And while the Adventist General Conference opposes same-sex marriage, a petition of Adventists opposing Prop 8 on the principle of religious liberty (something Adventists are quite sensitive to) has drawn endorsements from many pastors, professors, and other Adventist leaders.

---

UPDATE: There is a good discussion of the "scary" court cases being hyped out of context by Prop 8 supporters, as well as Q&A about concerns from a Christian perspective on the website for Adventists Against Prop 8.

An Open Letter to Fellow Californians: NO on Prop 8

My husband and I have written an open letter to our fellow California citizens, urging them to vote NO on Prop 8. In it, we explain what marriage means to us, what legal recognition of our marriage means to us, and what legal recognition of our marriage means to others.

If you find our letter helpful in thinking about this issue, we hope that you will talk about it with your friends and family, and send them the link to our letter.

We realize that you, our fellow Californians, are a diverse crowd with many different points of view. We've tried to explain our viewpoint in this letter, but we couldn't address every possible moral, religious, political and philosophical perspective. If you have questions, comments, or would like to discuss this further, we welcome respectful dialog with our fellow citizens. Please feel free to add your comments here on this blogpost.

A Gay Couple's Worst Nightmare

Sometimes opponents of same-sex marriage will argue that we don't need legal marriage if we can get all the same things from domestic partnership, or power-of-attorney paperwork. But it is not the same thing, as these true stories tragically illustrate:

• While on a family cruise leaving from Miami, Lisa Pond, a healthy 39 year-old, suddenly collapsed. She was rushed to Miami's Jackson Memorial Hospital with her partner Janice and three children following close behind. There, the hospital refused to accept information from Janice about her partner's medical history. Janice was informed that she was in an antigay city and state, and she could expect to receive no information or acknowledgment as family. A doctor finally spoke with Janice telling her that there was no chance of recovery. Other than one five minute visit, which was orchestrated by a Catholic priest at Janice's request to perform last rites, and despite the doctor's acknowledgement that no medical reason existed to prevent visitation, neither Janice nor her children were allowed to see Lisa until nearly eight hours after their arrival. Soon after Lisa's death, Janice tried to get her death certificate in order to get Life Insurance and Social Security benefits for their children. She was denied both by the State of Florida and the Dade County Medical Examiner.



• Just ask Bill Flanigan. Bill’s partner of five years, Robert Daniel, was admitted in critical condition to a Baltimore shock trauma center because of complications arising from AIDS. The two were on a family trip from California on their way to visit Bill’s sister in the Washington, D.C. area. Bill followed Robert’s ambulance to the hospital and rushed into the critical care unit. When he arrived, he asked to see Robert and confer with his doctors. Staff members shut him out. They said that only family could visit, and Bill didn’t count.
  
  But, Bill insisted, what about my durable power of attorney for health care decisions? What about the fact that we are registered as domestic partners? (Bill and Robert carried around with them all the legal documentation they could to make sure their relationship would be respected.) The staff paid these things no mind. They let other patients’ family members in and out of critical care throughout the night, while Bill waited. He was never permitted to make the physicians aware of Robert’s wishes not to have life-prolonging treatment, and he was kept from Robert’s side. The nightmare the couple had tried to make sure would never happen came to pass.
  
  Bill was allowed to see Robert only after Robert’s sister and mother arrived, hours later. By that time, Robert was unconscious, his eyes taped shut and a breathing tube – something Robert specifically did not want – down his throat. Robert died a few days later, without the two men ever having a chance to say goodbye.



• Mary Beth Dyer and her partner, Fran, have been together for more than fifteen years. That didn't matter to the doctor who was assigned to Mary Beth's case when she was hospitalized with unexplained blood-loss in 2000. Mary Beth's father had to come from another city to speak with the physician and relay the information to Fran. Even though Fran was clearly the person who would take over caring for Mary Beth after her release, the doctor refused to talk to her. Mary Beth's father had to relay information from the doctor to Fran throughout Mary Beth's hospital stay.



• As mothers and partners, the protections of marriage are important to Jodi and Stacey. When Stacey was hospitalized in 2001, a nurse at a hospital in Baltimore prevented Jodi from seeing her. Jodi and Stacey fear they could be kept apart again should another medical crisis arise. Those fears are not unfounded. Last year, when Jodi and Stacey’s younger son was born, nurses at a state hospital in Baltimore were confused by Stacey’s relationship to the baby. This confusion delayed and compromised Stacey’s ability to make medical decisions for her prematurely born son. This was especially unnerving for Stacey, since birthmother Jodi was unavailable immediately following the delivery.
  
  Twice, hospital staff have failed to recognize Jodi and Stacey’s relationship during a medical crisis. They do not want to endure a third time. Marriage is the only failsafe that will protect their family.

FILM: The Duchess

There's a scene early on in the film The Duchess where Georgiana first shows her repartee in a dinner party exchange with Charles Fox, the leader of the Whig party. When he remarks that he endorses freedom not for all men, but for many, "freedom in moderation," she retorts that freedom is an absolute, one either is free or isn't, one can't have moderate freedom any more than one can be moderately dead. It didn't hit me until thinking about it later, but the rest of the film is an exquisite unfolding of how wrong she was about freedom. Keira Knightley presents a masterful portrait of a woman of high spirit learning eventually to make her peace with the constraints of duty and place that encumber a prominent duchess. She shows just the right balance of spark and fire versus self-mastery, that when Georgiana is tightly composed, we appreciate the cost and the turbulence within. Her emotional journey is marked by successive encounters with rising young Whig Charles Grey (charmingly portrayed by Dominic Cooper), from flirtation, to self-realization (both of her feelings and "what she was bred to do"), to passion, renunciation, and acceptance. It was like watching a fine high-spirited racehorse get broken in, if the horse could express itself, and if the horse, realizing what it needed to give up in order to become what it was bred to be, broke itself. Her taut performance is more than matched by Ralph Fiennes as the Duke, who perfectly captures the mix of naturalness with dogs and boys, boredom and smoldering irritation with society, and occasional pathetic moments when he fumbles but mostly fails to express feelings that we can sense below the surface. The theme of freedom is subtly woven in from the beginning (when she observes that dresses and hats are the only means women have to express themselves), returned to when she compares her life to being "imprisoned in my own home", and brought full circle when the duke, observing children playing outside his window, remarks how wonderful it must be to be so free. From the trailers, I thought this was going to be an over-the-top costume extravaganza (along the lines of Sophia Coppola's Marie Antoinette), but while the costumes and stately manor homes were sumptuous, they did not upstage the powerful story. The score was very nicely done, combining appropriate classical music with some beautiful original music, including a wistful cello theme. All in all, very well done, a moving portrait of an extraordinary woman.

Hawaii Is Not Fairfax

I work on a project with a number of folks from Hawaii, including my office mate. We both like having a variety of calendars up on the walls, mostly for the rotating artwork, and there are usually a few Hawaiian calendars in the mix. I've always been amused that the Hawaiian calendars are well-intentioned enough to remember the Jewish holidays in their annotations, but not diligent enough to put them on the right days. Today I glanced up and noticed that one of the Hawaiian calendars shows Rosh Hashanah beginning on Monday, Sept 29, but then it shows Yom Kippur on the very next day. Oy! Are we to compress ten days of repentance into 24 hours? I checked a different Hawaiian calendar, and that one showed Yom Kippur on Oct 6, which is closer, but still two days off. I wonder if maybe they don't realize that the Jewish holidays fall on different days each year in the western calendar, and perhaps they've just been copying the same dates from year to year. If there are any Jewish people in Hawaii, perhaps they just take a laid back attitude about exactly when they celebrate. If you're harvesting pineapple year round, I suppose the timing of Succoth (a harvest festival) would seem rather arbitrary. Some of the Hawaiian calendars have tide tables on them, so you know when the surf is up. I haven't checked, but I'd bet that's accurate. If there are any Jewish surfers in Hawaii, they'd definitely want to know when the surf is up.

BOOKS: John Adams

I just buried John Adams yesterday after having spent the last couple of weeks immersed in the epic David McCullough biography of that amazing American patriot. What an amazing man! I learned so much that I had never known about him: his defense of the redcoats of the Boston Massacre, his extensive ambassadorial service in Europe, his push to create the U.S. Navy. I realized that my prior knowledge of the Adams presidency was limited to the Alien and Sedition Acts, and that my impression of his contributions to American independence were largely shaped by the pushy and mildly obnoxious charicature of him in the musical 1776. While Jefferson and Franklin have well-established reputations as multi-talented, learned Renaissance men, I hadn't appreciated Adams' broad and deep love of learning. As I was listening to the book on my iPod last weekend at the same time as I was wandering the national mall in Washington DC, from the Washington Monument to the Jefferson Memorial, I wondered why Adams didn't have a memorial, or even so much as picture on a coin or a bill. Perhaps McCullough's book (along with the TV miniseries made from it, which scooped up a bunch of Emmys the other night -- I'll have to watch it sometime) will create a movement to correct that. And while Jefferson will always be an amazing man too, this biography shows a duplicitous side to him I hadn't known before.

As with 1776, McCullough does a stupendous job of fleshing out the history, giving a full-bodied description of the characters and the times, always well-documented, frequently quoting the treasure trove of Adams' own letters and diaries, as well as those of contemporaries. His vivid descriptions brought to life the realities of travel by ship and coach, the state of the medical arts, European court life, and the difficulties of a time in which long-distance communication was slow and unreliable. But best of all, McCullough really brought the man himself to life, such that I feel I knew him. I really admire the man's persistent cheer, his gratitude, and his cultivation of the virtue of friendship. While it would be wrong to describe him as an optimist -- he was often very aware of future costs to be reckoned -- his positive demeanor even in the face of adversity is inspiring. And the relationship between John Adams and his wife (an amazing woman much to be admired in her own right) is a touching model of a marriage.

I also have to add that some of the accounts of the bitter, polarized elections of his time give me some heart for our own times. It's easy for one to wonder at our point in history whether our country has become so deeply divided politically as to hopelessly rupture beyond repair. It gives me some comfort to be reminded that such partisan divisions and the worries about them are as old as the republic.

FOOD: BlackSalt

I wish I had taken a moment to write down some better notes, but it was at the start of a grueling business trip that I enjoyed a most excellent seafood dinner with my friend Don. Don, who is always on top of the Washington restaurant scene, recommended BlackSalt, a restaurant on Macarthur Blvd in the Palisades neighborhood. The front of the place is a small fish market, where it was obvious from the beautifully arranged slabs of triggerfish, tilefish, and grouper that these people are very serious about fresh, local seafood. The menu, arranged with some regular items on the left and daily specials filling the right, presented so many tempting options that I finally decided to make a meal of three appetizers and a salad. (Fortunately, I had worked through lunch that day, so was hungry, as the appetizers are nicely sized.) Even the simple salad -- a mouth-awakening combination of fresh watercress, tangerine, and a cumin dressing -- heralded the creativity of the chef. The waiter came back with a request from the kitchen to stage one of my appetizers, bringing the other two with Don's main course, which I agreed to, appreciating their attention in serving things with appropriate temperature and timing. The one they brought first is the one I remember most clearly, as it was such a novel combination of flavors -- morsels of sweet, tender Maryland crabmeat combined with red quinoa, capers, and golden sultanas (currant raisins). It was an amazing and delicious combination of flavors and textures, bits of sweet, creamy, briny and earthy, an unexpectedly wonderful blend. My other treats included some plump dayboat scallops that were perfectly cooked and served with wax beans, and a perfectly cooked piece of triggerfish delicately flavored. I also had a bite of Don's tuna, equally excellent. I wish I'd written down more of the details before they partly receded into the haze of several grueling all-nighters at work. But I do remember enough to know that the freshness and quality of the ingredients, the exquisite care in the preparation, and the dazzling creativity of the combinations made this one of the finest seafood dinners I've ever enjoyed.

BOOKS: The Heart Revolution

The wordy subtitle of this book tells what it's about: "the extraordinary discovery that finally laid the cholesterol myth to rest and put good food back on the table". The book is a quick read (I did it cover-to-cover in one cross-country flight), but a very useful one. The author, Dr. Kilmer McCully, was a highly regarded research pathologist at Mass General, where he did pioneering work on the link between an amino acid called homocysteine and heart disease. He begins with this remarkable assertion:

In the past, fats and cholesterol in the diet were blamed for causing heart disease. But years of medical research have produced no convincing evidence that these components of foods actually cause hardening of the arteries. In fact, scientists have proven that pure cholesterol does not cause arteriosclerosis and that elevation of blood cholesterol is a symptom -- not a cause -- of heart disease. Discoveries about a substance in our bodies, homocysteine, are revolutionizing our understanding of the cause of the nation's number one killer. We have learned that deficiencies of B vitamins in the diet -- folic acid, vitamin B6, vitamin B12 -- trigger heart disease by raising levels of homocysteine in the blood. Now there is a way to prevent heart disease and to achieve a longer, healthier life. All you have to do is improve your diet.

That's the book in a nutshell. It expands in an interesting, convincing, and readable way on the research behind this, and it gives substantial dietary advice. One of the real eye-opening parts for me was seeing the crucial connection to fresh food. Some vitamins, especially two of the three B vitamins crucial in controlling heart disease, are very perishable. They are available in a variety of foods, but are rapidly broken down by time, heat, and processing. Thus, even vitamin-rich vegetables can lose the majority of their vitamin B content by the way they are cooked, through other processing, or even just sitting around too long. Thus, my desire in recent years to get a lot of fresh produce at the local farmer's market has even more marked health benefits than I had realized. Another factor is the distinction between pure cholesterol and oxy-cholesterol, only the latter of which is unhealthful. Pure cholesterol (the kind found in meat and eggs) is perfectly healthy, but oxy-cholesterol, which only arises when foods are excessively heated (especially deep frying) or processed (especially the powdered version of milk and eggs used in many processed foods), is to be avoided.

The front story is how this homocysteine thing works, and what sort of diet can control it. But there's a fascinating back story, and this book only tells parts of it. The back story is the interplay between food, medicine, and politics. McCully talks about the cholesterol myth (cholesterol as the explanatory factor of heart disease), how it arose, and how it has persisted despite its failure to adequately explain heart disease. Most of us have heard of the "French paradox", how the French have lower rates of heart disease despite eating eggs, cheese, butter, and pâté de foie gras -- i.e., everything "wrong" according to the cholesterol theory. The French experience is perfectly consistent with the homocysteine theory, however. Whole dairy products (not non-fat) and meats (especially organ meats) are great sources for B vitamins. Other evidence against the cholesterol theory is piled on (e.g., the incidence of heart disease has been declining in America since the late 1960s, despite cholesterol levels staying fairly consistent). McCully dissects the FDA food pyramid, explaining which parts of it are sound, and which parts of it are outright damaging to health, and he shows flashes of anger at the politics behind the workings of government that have allowed misguided and refuted recommendations to persist.

Where McCully shows impressively charitable restraint is in not discussing the affect those politics had on his own career, which was unjustly derailed for many years because his research bucked the widely-accepted cholesterol theory. We get only a sketch of that story in a foreword to the book written by Michelle Stacey, who had profiled McCully for the New York Times Magazine in 1997. There's undoubtedly an interesting story there in the politics of research funding (she notes, for instance, that the cholesterol theory leads to a multi-million dollar pharmaceutical solution, while the homocysteine theory may be addressed completely by fresh food, supplemented by over-the-counter vitamins if needed).

In any event, this is recommended reading for everyone concerned about their health. If you're not already eating more fresh food and avoiding processed food as much as possible, this book will give you a compelling reason to do so.

FILM: The Women

I was curious to see how they would update the 1939 classic The Women, and I think writer / director / producer Diane English did a nice job with her 2008 version. (Apparently, there was a long story about getting this remake done.) Updating such an old classic is tricky, but she struck a good balance between keeping to the original and making it fresh. The basic storyline is the same -- an admired housewife's discovery of her husband's infidelity, her reactions and ultimate vindication. And the concept of a star-studded all-female cast is preserved: as in the 1939 show, it's fun to see all the stars, and clever to have a complete absence of men. Details of the original storyline are preserved in homage (Jungle red nail polish) and some of the memorable scenes are faithfully recreated (the discovery at the salon, the confrontation in the dressing room, the bathtub scene), but other aspects are brought into the 21st century. There are expected contemporizing of what would be anachronisms (the Nevada divorce ranch is a yoga retreat), but other updates are more profound. Whereas Norma Shearer was only concerned with getting her man and her marriage back, Meg Ryan's modern Mary Haines has layered worries about how to balance family life with creative and professional aspirations. The most significant change is that in the 1939 film, at least as I recall it, it was every woman for herself, whereas in this version, Mary has some real girlfriends (the modern Sylvia Fowler is her best friend, rather than a catty cousin), and her foursome of friends gang up on the "other woman". The friendship among these women is a major theme of this version, where it was nowhere in evidence in 1939. Call it the Sex And The City factor. Meg Ryan and Annette Benning are terrific in the lead roles, and nicely rounded out by Debra Messing and Jada Pinkett Smith, and with Eva Mendes exuding provocative sexuality as the mistress. Nice contributions are also made by Candace Bergen as Mary's mother, Bette Midler as a Hollywood agent Mary meets at her yoga retreat, and Carrie Fisher as the gossip columnist. Some of the funniest bits came from Cloris Leachman's part as Mary's sardonic housekeeper, the Shakespearean wise fool for this fun comedy.

Weapon of Moose Distraction

Tonight, like most Friday nights, my husband and I had dinner in our favorite neighborhood restaurant, a little Mexican restaurant in a strip mall with about a dozen tables. It's usually buzzing on Friday nights, and if you don't get there by 7pm, you'll often end up waiting outside. So as we were enjoying their fabulously fresh guacamole and talking about friends and work and weekend plans, I was catching random bits of conversation from the din of other tables around the room, and I remarked on a sudden realization. "George," I said, "I think we are the only two people in this whole place not talking about Sarah Palin." At which point, we too started talking about Sarah Palin. Granted, she finally gave her first interview last night, in which she performed as pretty much everybody expected. Since she's a partisan Rorschach test, those who were predisposed to find her utterly incompetent found much support for their view, as did those who were predisposed to think she's the savior of the GOP. Perhaps the only accurate read is from the few Republicans without scales on their eyes. To me, the only surprise was that Charlie Gibson stepped up. But, darn it, we shouldn't even be talking about her. We ought to be talking about McCain and Obama. This weapon of moose distraction is working. Must. Stop. Talking. About. Sarah. Palin...

The Change We Wish We Could Believe In

I guess I have to eat some of my words about McCain's choice of Sarah Palin. I thought that she was just worth stealing a quick news cycle, and that he'd be regretting his pick by now. Alas, she seems to have greatly energized "the base", by plugging in to some wellspring of populist zeitgeist. I can understand where the appeal comes from. She comes across as a no-nonsense super soccer Mom that doesn't look anything like the politicos in Washington, and just might knock some sense into the Beltway crowd in between hunting moose and making sandwiches for her kids to take to school. She's personifying a compelling combination of icons: all-American Mom, female action hero (think Lara Croft), and Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington. Jim Manzi characterized her populist appeal as Wilma Jennings Bryan. But I worry that Publius is also onto something when he compares her to Chauncey Gardner. I think there's a whole lot of projection going on (easy to do with somebody nobody ever heard of before two weeks ago), and what we're seeing now in Sarah Palin is the change we wish we could believe in. It's a great narrative, but Frank Capra notwithstanding, I'm not so sure whether it's a good idea to send Sarah Palin to Washington.

What's dismaying is how much energy is expended on arguing about the narrative on both sides. She's being swiftboated by the left and canonized by the right, and it's often hard to see the truth amidst the shrapnel. On the plus side, she seems to have done some things on solid principle, which is refreshing. There's her Down's syndrome baby, for one thing, which must be acknowledged for truly walking the walk on her beliefs. And she vetoed a legislative attempt to deny same-sex domestic partner benefits to Alaska state employees, because she said it was unconstitutional to do so, even while saying she would support a constitutional amendment to effect the same thing. While it's obviously a minus in my book that she'd like to amend the state constitution to deny domestic partner benefits, I have to acknowledge it's a big plus that she gets what a constitution means and how it limits the legislature and the executive. (You folks in Washington DC paying attention?) It's also a plus that she doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about partisan loyalty, and she seems intolerant of corruption. On the downside, she seems to have a strong propensity for personal vindictiveness coloring her hiring (or rather, firing) decisions. She's done a lot of sacking, and while some of it was getting "corrupt old bastards" sacked who deserved it, others are hard to rationalize as other than personal (e.g., Troopergate and most of the firings she did or attempted as mayor). Her fiscal record as mayor -- sloppy execution of the construction of an excessive sports complex leaving the town with a huge new bond debt while raising the local sales tax -- is hardly balm to a fiscal conservative's soul. And while she seems to have some strong principles, a devotion to plain-spoken truth-telling doesn't appear to be one of them. But the biggest downside is that, folksy charm and gun-toting hockey Mom mystique notwithstanding, she's just not a credible choice. Who wasn't gobsmacked that McCain picked her? She was surprised herself. If she has the first clue about foreign policy or economic policy or anything else that a President is expected to know about, I'm eager to hear it. A Harriet Miers-style "oh, I guess I'd better bone up on that" just won't cut it.

What's more dismaying is that the way they are playing this, it's as if neither truth nor expertise matter to the public in choosing a candidate. Palin is running around repeating exposed lies in her scripted stump speech, showing that narratives are even more stubborn things than facts. And as she travels around the country, she's not saying anything other than repeating her acceptance speech, and taking no questions from anyone. Finally they've agreed to let her be interviewed by Charles Gibson of ABC News, no doubt hand-picked based on his dismal charade of journalism at the Philadelphia Obama-Clinton debate, so he can ask Palin about lapel pins. This isn't a serious campaign, it's political performance art. A couple of recent observations are really sticking with me. Hilzoy worries whether politics has degraded to where candidates not only bend the truth, they blatantly disregard it, and it doesn't seem to matter. Andrew ponders the "end of expertise", quoting a sociology professor who worries about an increasingly popular notion that anyone's opinion about any topic is equally valuable. It would seem to offend some similar egalitarian sentiments to suggest that Palin is less qualified. I'm hoping that America is generally smarter than that. Do truth and expertise still mean something? I guess we'll find out.

What's most dismaying is the way that this whole thing is ingeniously succeeding, because we're all (including me) talking about her non-stop. It's so fascinating (or hathetic, depending on your viewpoint), we can't help ourselves. She should be the side-show, but she's become the show-stealer. And the insidious thing is that attacking her just plays into the narrative, and strengthens her appeal in the eyes of those who are dazzled by her iconic appeal. (But then again, I'm an arugula-eating, latte-sipping, left coast Ivy League elite type, so I'm understandably out of touch.) What we really should be talking about is John McCain. What the heck was he thinking? Even if she turns out to have been a brilliant political choice, there's no denying it was a huge desperate spontaneous gamble, like going "all in" and drawing four cards. Do we really want someone in the White House who makes decisions like that?

FILM: Hamlet 2

At one point, watching the high school drama "Hamlet 2" (the eponymous play-within-the-play of this irreverent comedy film), a parent remarks "I'm simultaneously appalled and fascinated." At another point, a teenage drama critic opines that "sometimes things are so horrible they become good again. It could work." This thinly veiled self-commentary aptly describes this completely off-the-wall story of something like "Dead Poets Society" or "Mr. Holland's Opus" (both of which are explicitly alluded to), but as they might have been written by Monty Python and cast by the students of Fast Times at Ridgemont High. The film plumbs the depths of silliness and good-natured irreverence (taking swipes at both fundamentalist Christians and ACLU attorneys). Parts of it are eye-rollingly corny, but I laughed a lot and I enjoyed numerous hearty out-loud laughs. Steve Coogan reminded me of Eric Idle, delivering physical comedy that was near the top and often over it. Catherine Keener (whom I remembered from playing Harper Lee in Capote) was quite funny in her part as his sarcastic wife. The kids were all well-cast in their cartoon characters, as was the charicature school principal. Elisabeth Shue had an amusingly off-the-wall role as herself, and the bit of the feared and respected drama critic for the school paper had me in stitches. Unabashedly piling together plot devices from every "inspirational teacher" film, our anti-hero surmounts an apathetic class, a hostile principal, parents who don't approve of his new play, a cynical wife, financial troubles, a drinking problem, and racial tension -- all in the most irreverently amusing ways -- building to the crescendo of staging Hamlet 2. Yes, the sequel to that Hamlet, the one where everyone dies in the end. This is no high art, nor does it strive to be, but it's extraordinarily silly and clever good fun.

In Fairness

In fairness, I should note that while I was listening to Sarah Palin's speech and doing a running mental rebuttal soundtrack in my head, I had the same experience when listening to Hillary Clinton's speech at the DNC last week. Clinton's speech was really good in the beginning and in the end, but there was definitely a chunk in the middle where my cognitive dissonance was ringing. Here are some excerpts of Clinton's speech and my inner soundtrack:

We need to elect Barack Obama because we need a President who understands that America can't compete in a global economy by padding the pockets of energy speculators, while ignoring the workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas. We need a President who understands that we can't solve the problems of global warming by giving windfall profits to the oil companies while ignoring opportunities to invest in new technologies that will build a green economy.

Er, no. I was hoping we would elect Barack Obama because we need a President who will tell us what we need to hear and not what we want to hear. Energy speculation isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it helps buffer against worse shortages in the future. Outsourcing is a part of economic efficiency, it's called comparative advantage, and it's not a bad thing when new jobs are created abroad at the same time as better jobs are created at home. (Anyone who needs Economic Literacy 101 can try John Stossel's recent book.) Trying to tax so-called windfall profits isn't going to accomplish anything except to encourage large multinational energy companies to shift more of their tax base to more favorable nations and to discourage them from developing future energy sources. We need a President who will not pander to misguided populist economic illiteracy.

And I can't wait to watch Barack Obama sign a health care plan into law that covers every single American.

Sorry, Senator, but Obama's plan does not cover every single American, and that was one of the substantive differences that makes his plan better than yours.

John McCain says the economy is fundamentally sound. John McCain doesn't think that 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis. John McCain wants to privatize Social Security. And in 2008, he still thinks it's okay when women don't earn equal pay for equal work.

Our economy is fundamentally sound. The gas price speculation bubble seems to have burst, housing prices are in the process of correcting themselves, and by all economic measures I know of (e.g., GNP growth, unemployment rate, inflation rate), it's not the best of times, but it's hardly the worst of times. People who don't recognize fundamentally sound economies when they're living in one need to take a closer look at Zimbabwe or Venezuela or Burma to recalibrate.

Our health insurance system needs improvement, but citing scare numbers (how many of those 47 million intentionally choose not to have health insurance?) and calling it a crisis doesn't help. Social Security, on the other hand, well that is a crisis. I don't think privatization is the answer, but sticking your head in the sand and saying "everything's fine, everything's fine" isn't either. And if we essentially expand Medicare, that will be a bigger crisis. And the equal pay for equal work canard -- if you could truly get equally competent women for 75 cents on the dollar for men doing the same job, why aren't there entrepeneurs out there exploiting that huge opportunity?

Keeping Things in Perspective

Sarah Palin did a great job delivering her acceptance speech last night to the GOP Convention, but it was clearly a sermon for the choir, long on juvenile jabs that rallied the credulous crowd but that fall apart under scrutiny. One example:

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.

So let's think about this. She was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, managing a small paid staff and a part-time volunteer city council, serving about 7000 constituents. Barack Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review, managing a small paid staff and a part-time volunteer editorial board, serving about 8000 subscribers. Sounds fairly comparable to me in terms of executive experience and responsibility.

Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings has thorough fact-check on Palin's speech, responding to it line by line, so I'll just point you to that fine work.

FILM: Bottle Shock

Last night we enjoyed the story recounted in Bottle Shock of how it came to pass in 1976 that the then-unregarded wines of Napa Valley beat the best of French wines in a blind tasting in Paris, shocking the world, and instantly putting Napa Valley on the map. The film does a nice job of creating the feeling of the 1970s, with bell-bottoms, Doobie Brothers, and long hair. The Napa Valley as shown here looks much like it probably looked in Steinbeck's time, with folks driving beat-up old trucks, only with the addition of a few idealistic hobbyists trying their hand at running a winery. In the midst of this is Chateau Montelena, run by Jim Barrett, who gave up a job as a law partner to pursue his passion to make the perfect chardonnay, and Jim's aimless and lackadaisical hippie son Bo. Bo runs around with Gustavo, who has grown up working on grape farms, and Sam, a spunky young female intern at the winery. Jim has mortgaged his vineyard to the hilt and is having trouble making it, and is frustrated with his son who seems to have no direction or motivation. Cut to Paris, where we meet British ex-pat Steven Spurrier, who has devoted himself to professing the fine appreciation of French wines while running a wine shop long on fine wines and short on customers. The only visitor to the shop seems to be his friend Maurice, an American ex-pat who runs a travel agency next door. Maurice convinces Spurrier that he needs some publicity, and plants the seed for doing a France vs. California wine blind taste test. Spurrier makes a visit to Napa Valley to look for wines worthy of the competition, with some very amusing sequences of he and the valley folk reacting to each other. We all know how the story ends, but the script still manages a few twists of the cork before pulling it out of the bottle. The film is well-cast all around, with Bill Pullman playing Jim Barrett, and Alan Rickman doing a great comedic turn as the Francophile Brit. ("I know," Spurrier tells Pullman, "you think I'm an asshole. But it's just that I'm British, and, well, you're not.") Chris Pine, Rachael Taylor, and Freddy Rodriguez all do fine jobs in their roles as Bo, Sam, and Gustavo. And Dennis Farina has a nice bit as Spurrier's friend Maurice. While Bottle Shock doesn't have quite the cinematography of Sideways, it has some nice Napa visuals, and does a great job of showing what Napa was like before it got overrun by wine tourists. But in comparison to the cynicism and neurotic characters of Sideways, this wine story is full of heart and much more palatable.

BOOKS: Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity

This last week I listened to John Stossel read his new(ish) book Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity -- Why Everything You Know Is Wrong. It was a quick read, as the book is written in soundbyte-size articles on "myths" organized by broad topic. I expected the sort of consumer-oriented debunking I found in some parts, such as that New York City tap water beat out Evian and Perrier in blind taste tests, and that shopping at big box stores doesn't save most people money. However, I hadn't realized the extent of Stossel's libertarian political leanings, which showed in many more of his segments, like those on school vouchers and product liability lawsuits. While I agree with most of what he said, his sensational style and size-limited segments necessarily oversimplify some of his arguments. It's certainly overly glib to dispatch global warming in a three-minute segment, but he does do some debunking of some common misconceptions in a way that should bring it home to many and make them think. For example, he discusses the myth of the ocean levels being raised significantly by melting polar ice caps, noting that most of the ice caps are floating, and already displace the amount of water they'd fill by melting. (Think of it, Stossel analogizes, does a glass of ice water overflow when the ice melts?) He also has a nice discussion about the myth of "price gouging", an essential contribution to economic literacy 101. Overall, a nice bit of candy for libertarians and skeptics, and an eye-opening useful easy read for any consumer and citizen.

Shooting From The Hip

In the last months, when pundits were analyzing the "veep-stakes", they would generally wonder whether a candidate was weighing a potential VP pick in terms of governing or electability. Ideally, those two would be perfectly aligned, but here in the real world, it's painfully clear that the qualities it takes to succeed in getting elected are not necessarily the same qualities it takes to do a great job once in elected office. So the presidential candidates must ponder their VP picks in these two dimensions - what characteristics would a VP pick bring to an administration, versus how would a VP help to deliver a key state or constituency in the election. For Obama, Biden would seem to be a good pick on both counts. His depth of experience in the Senate and foreign policy expertise would make him a great contributor to the administration, and his working class family man appeal may help pick up some key voters in the rust belt. For McCain, as the pundits all pondered how he would weigh electability against capability, the "maverick" surprised everyone by inventing a whole new category. Disregarding both electability and capability, he went for stealing a news cycle, with the timing of his stunning pick calculated to dampen the bounce after the stirring Democratic pep rally in Denver. He certainly succeeded in getting the nation to talk, as jaws dropped on Friday morning with his news. Of course he managed to surprise everyone (including Palin herself) by going way down on his "long list", and picking someone he'd only barely met twice, and nobody (probably including McCain himself) really knew much about. But while instinctively chasing an attractive woman on first sight may have played out well for McCain with Cindy, I suspect Palin will be more like the girl who looked good at 2am when he took her home from the bar, but less good by the light of the next morning. The holiday weekend's not even over and already we're learning more about Palin, like her brother-in-law whom she abused her power to try to get fired, and her unmarried but pregnant 17-year-old daughter. Apparently, that information was volunteered by Palin in defense against accusations by people who noted the age of Palin's children -- 24, 17, 14, 7, and now a 4-month-old baby -- looked suspicious and wondered whether Palin wasn't covering for a baby really born to her daughter (a story out of the last season of Desperate Housewives). Nope, Palin said, my baby couldn't have been my daughter's because my daughter is 5 months pregnant now. I'm sure James Dobson was reassured to hear that.

Speaking of Dobson and stolen news cycles, it appears God had the last word to Focus on the Family's prayers for a downpour on Obama's acceptance speech. The weather seems perfectly timed to squash McCain's news cycle, and to steal the coverage from the Republican pep rally in St. Paul. Meanwhile, true Christians are praying for the safety and welfare of those in New Orleans and the gulf area, rather than the petty self-serving prayers advocated by the so-called Christian leadership.

Meanwhile, as people continue to talk about McCain's stunning veep pick, it doesn't seem it will be good for McCain. This choice will make McCain look silly to rail too much against Obama for inexperience. And as we all contemplate the prospect of Sarah Palin being a heartbeat away from the Presidency, it just calls more attention to wondering just how steady McCain's heartbeat is -- not exactly what he wants folks focusing on.

This choice seems to have been a gutsy "shoot from the hip" choice that will turn out to be incredibly short-sighted, just for the sake of grabbing some media attention for a few days. Given that two important characteristics of a President are his ability to make sound sober judgments not made impetuously on gut feeling, and his ability to choose very capable people to lead his administration, what this stunt tells me about McCain gives me two strong reasons not to vote for him.