Sleep Spent

I made a bet tonight with Rob, a friend I met through Aram Kudurshian. He is from Canada, and we were talking about gay marriage there. I asserted that it would be at least 20 years before gay marriage was legal in the US at a federal level. (Canada did it piecemeal as well, with some provinces recognizing it and others not, before there was a federal allowance several years ago.) Rob disagreed, and said that it would be legal in the US within 5 years.

This strikes me as incredibly unrealistic. Sure, the Neocons are on the wane, politically. But I am not expecting gay marriage to be part of a party plank or a presidential race for at least another 8-12 years. The culture warriors are very entrenched and skilled movers, by now. They’re not going to give up. And 36%, isn’t going to change overnight. To be frank, I think a lot of people are going to have to die and be replaced by young people who haven’t been brainwashed.

So here was the bet:

“On 19 April 2012, gay marriage will be legal in the United States either by (a) passage of a bill in the Congress that is subsequently signed by the president, or (b) a Supreme Court decision that may or may not have been fully implemented yet.” If this is true, I will buy Rob dinner at Chou Chou. If not, he’ll buy dinner for me.

I must say, I certainly hope he’s right and I’m proven to be an un-Pollyanna. But with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito on the Court, I don’t think he’s getting any help that way.

Only time will tell.

I’ve been taking pictures like a madman here. Some of the best from the weekend are available on my Flickr page.

The original can be found here.

A number of years ago, I wrote down my thoughts about the meaning behind the songs on Death Cab’s fantastic We Have the Facts and We’re Voting Yes. It was up here for a long time, but then I changed my site all around and it stopped being directly linked. Google seems to have forgotten about it, which is a shame.

So I’m putting it back out there. Your comments are welcome. It’s still incomplete; “Lowell, MA” is a tough nut to crack. But I think it still has some really interesting ideas about what Ben was trying to say with this masterpiece.

A lyrical analysis of We Have the Facts and We’re Voting Yes

Just a note to say that I’ve moved to San Francisco. I spent my first night in the City last night. Had a great Mexican dinner with one of my new rommates, Patrick, and his gf.

Now I need furniture!

OMG, yes.

So there’s starting to be all sorts of talk about a filibuster. Which makes sense, since Alito is a more conservative appointment than Roberts was, and has far less charisma.

Here’s my question. Suppose Alito is filibustered. Suppose the Republicans aren’t having it and employ the rule-breaking Nuclear Option. The minority party can no longer withhold cloture on judicial nominations.

Then fast forward one year. The Abramoff scandal has taken its toll, and the Democrats have gotten their act together. (I know, I know. Work with me, here.) Maybe the Alito nomination has helped some. The Dems win back the Senate. They up their seat count by 10 to swap places with the Republicans.

Should they now reinstate the judicial filibuster? In this case, would they even be able to, without breaking the rules in the same way the majority will have to now to remove the judicial filibuster? Would any Republicans join in this mission? It would be a pretty clear admission that they were wrong to remove the option now, but wouldn’t it be The Right Thing To Do?

Also, would the answer be any different if they got 60 seats?

I wonder how the crazies at Red State would react to this scenario.

I look forward to your insights. I’ll post more if I get any more information.

I can’t get enough of Flickr!

Sorry that took so long, kids. It was a path issue.

Anyway, it’s fixed now. So you can now stay on top of my infrequent random musings.

Senator Feinstein,

I was appalled to discover that you are one of just five Democrats that supports the passing of the flag burning amendment.

This amendment would be an obvious misuse of the Constitution. In addition, it’s completely unnecessary since the incidents of flag burning are so few. And of course, this is a clear free-speech right. That’s why the supporters of this bill are having to go to these lengths, because the Supreme Court held that people have the right to do this. This amendment would be taking away rights, not granting them.

You don’t have to want to burn the flag yourself to understand that it is absurd to pass a Constitutional amendment allowing states to force their citizens not to.

Please reconsider your stance on this issue.
-Nick