California Supreme Court Weighs Legality of Gay Marriage Ban

March 5 (Bloomberg) -- The California Supreme Court, which legalized gay marriage in 2008, will consider whether it was unconstitutional for Californians to outlaw same-sex weddings in a ballot measure that sparked protests and calls for boycotts against its supporters.

Gay and civil rights groups and cities including San Francisco and Los Angeles are seeking to overturn the measure, known as Proposition 8, which on Nov. 4 won 52 percent approval of voters to amend the state constitution to ban homosexual nuptials in the nation’s most populous state.

They say Proposition 8 is illegal because it revises the constitution to rob a protected minority of equal rights and court protection. Revisions of the constitution must be handled by state lawmakers, according to lawsuits filed on Nov. 5. Proposition 8 backers said the court can’t reverse what voters have approved. Arguments in the case are scheduled for today in San Francisco.

“The court is always reluctant to overturn a ballot initiative,” said attorney Vikram Amar, who teaches constitutional law at University of California-Davis. “Prop 8 challengers will try to distinguish this initiative from others, that equality is somehow more important than other basic rights.”

The court will also decide whether to invalidate approximately 18,000 marriages performed before Proposition 8 passed. Four out of seven Supreme Court justices voted to legalize gay marriage in May. One of the four voted against hearing lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. That has led to speculation that there may be four votes against striking down Proposition 8, said Amar. A ruling is due within 90 days.

The ballot measure captured national attention because California was only the second state after Massachusetts to allow gay weddings and because of the backlash against its supporters.

Mormon and Evangelical churches in California were targeted by protesters over their support of the measure. Proposition 8 campaign donors, some of whose names were publicized on Web sites, received critical e-mails or calls to boycott their businesses, according to court records.

California has at least 92,000 same-sex couples, more than any other state, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures. The state supreme court ruled in May that homosexual couples have a constitutional right to marry. The ruling struck down laws barring gay weddings, and was reversed by Proposition 8.

“If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would strike directly at the foundational constitutional principal of equal protection” by establishing “that an unpopular group may be selectively stripped of fundamental rights by a simple majority of voters,” Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said in court filings.

Minter, a 48-year-old transsexual who is married with a daughter, will argue on behalf of gay couples suing to overturn Proposition 8. He was one of the attorneys who successfully argued before the court in May to legalize gay weddings.

Kenneth Starr, the Pepperdine University Law School dean and former U.S. independent counsel who headed an investigation that led to former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, will represent Proposition 8 supporters before the court today. Proposition 8 doesn’t revise the constitution or allow a majority to take rights away from same-sex couples because it leaves intact California’s domestic partner laws, Starr, 62, said in court filings.

Californians “will no doubt continue to debate the issue in terms of inalienable rights, justice, tradition and social welfare,” Starr wrote. “However, the judiciary no longer has a role in determining the definition of marriage.”

Final Convention Call for Northern Virginia Conservatives!!!!

All R.C.s are needed as delegates at the Republican State Convention!! The filing deadlines are approaching fast (see below)!!!!!

On Saturday, May 30 at the Greater Richmond Convention Center, statewide Republicans will gather to select the party's nominee for Attorney General in the November election.

As fellow R.C.'s, the selection is obvious... State Senator Ken Cuccinelli. He has been a staunch leader of Conservative principles in the state senate during his tenure.

The filing deadlines are rapidly approaching and are determined by your local Republican Party rules, as shown below. You must download, printoff, fill out, and mail or hand deliver the delegate filing form as soon as possible.

You can download your filing forms from these websites:

Fairfax County: http://www.fairfaxgop.org/ -- filing deadline March 7

Prince William County: http://www.pwcgop.com/ -- filing deadline March 7

Loudoun County: http://www.loudoungop.com/ -- filing deadline March 14

Arlington County: http://www.arlingtongop.org/ -- filing deadline March 5

Or you can go to the Republican Party of Virginia website, and on theleft hand column, under "2009 State Convention" fill in yourcounty's/city's name and download the filing form.

It's time to stand up and be counted! Hope to see you in Richmond on May 30!!!

Tribute to Paul Harvey

As someone who grew up dreaming of getting on the radio and eventually did it for a short time, I grew up glued to the radio whenever Paul Harvey came on WMAL-AM 630. ABC Radio has a nice tribute site to the man behind "the rest of the story". I did read this past weekend that Mr. Harvey is credited with creating the term "ReaganEconomics"...

Click here for ABC Radio Tribute to Paul Harvey

"Why I'm Not Lining Up for Stimulus Handouts"

From the February 28 Wall St. Journal, here is a fantastic piece from one of the best young Conservatives in our country...

Why I'm Not Lining Up for Stimulus Handouts
We've been down the spending road, and the result is a state budget in terrible shape.

By Scott Walker, Milwaukee

Recently, a firestorm ignited in Wisconsin when I, as Milwaukee County executive, refused to submit a wish list to Gov. Jim Doyle for items in the federal "stimulus" package.

Gov. Doyle -- like other politicians -- had lined up at the federal trough begging for billions in "free money" to cover budget deficits and to fuel new spending. He and others simply couldn't understand and were outraged that I didn't join them, and that I didn't relent even after the president signed the stimulus bill into law.

My explanation is simple. First, this money isn't free. Second, under Gov. Doyle our state has borrowed vast sums of money and avoided making tough budget decisions while expanding government programs. In three biannual budgets since he took office in 2003, new state bonding exceeded new tax revenue collections by $2.1 billion. During good times, the governor had been borrowing money to underwrite expansions of health care, education and environmental programs. If he is bailed out now, the federal stimulus funds will only enable the governor and others to go on spending and even taking on new obligations that will lead to larger deficits down the road. Third, if we grow government rather than private-sector jobs, we will not help the economy. Strong leadership, honest budgeting and tax cuts would do a lot more.

This burst housing bubble that led to the recession was created when millions of people were allowed (or encouraged) to spend borrowed money on homes they couldn't afford and were later forced into foreclosure.

Apparently Washington politicians learned nothing from this process. They rushed to spend $787 billion of borrowed money on new government programs in the name of economic stimulus. But even this loan of taxpayer money -- essentially the largest mortgage in history -- will come due. When it does, our children and grandchildren will pay for this imprudence.

As popular as the federal "stimulus" package is with Washington politicians, it is more popular among state and local politicians who view federal money as a cure for their fiscal woes.

Wisconsin is afflicted with fiscal woes. In every budget he has signed, Gov. Doyle postponed difficult decisions using accounting gimmicks and excessive bonding to pay for ongoing operational costs. The most egregious example is the damage done to the transportation fund over the past six years, which uses state gas taxes and vehicle registration fees to fund road projects. The governor has raided the segregated fund for a total of $1.2 billion to cover ongoing operational costs for government programs. He's partially replaced the raided funds with $865.5 million in bonds.

As a result of borrowing against tomorrow to live for today, the governor left Wisconsin's budget vulnerable. So in the fall of 2008 when recession caused a sharp decline in tax revenue, the state was forced into the red.

Wisconsin now faces an unprecedented $5.75 billion budget deficit, fourth-largest in the nation. Many municipalities also face deficits. My county, however, finished fiscal year 2007 with a $7.9 million surplus and will break even for fiscal year 2008 when the books are closed next month. Why? Because we made tough budget decisions demanded by the taxpayers.

State and local officials who failed to do so are looking to the federal government for a bailout. But what happens when the stimulus money is gone? Is the federal government committed to funding the projects it will now underwrite forever? I'm not willing to bet on it.

The stimulus is a classic bait-and-switch. Once the highways are built and social-service case loads have increased, Wisconsin will be left with the bill to maintain the new roads and services. This will force Wisconsin to raise new taxes. Gov. Doyle and legislative Democrats are already discussing higher taxes on hospitals, retailers, employers and even Internet downloads to feed their spending addiction.

The stimulus is also a bait-and-switch on employment. While the stimulus package might create a few construction jobs, the federal money will run out and those workers will lose their jobs. Even worse, most of the money is actually spent on new government programs and on bailing out failed state and local governments.

For the vast majority of residents of my state, the stimulus funds will not help them pay the mortgage or replenish their depleted retirement savings as they worry about being laid off.

True economic stimulus creates sustainable private-sector jobs. The fastest, most effective way to create them is to reduce taxes and implement regulatory and fiscal policies that encourage job growth and economic investment. History has shown repeatedly from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan that as taxes are cut, consumers spend more and investors put more money in the economy. This, in turn, creates jobs, and grows the economy.

Too many politicians confuse more government spending with economic recovery. I believe that's the wrong approach, and I will not submit a wish list for new government spending. Excessive spending will only lead to higher taxes, and that will drive jobs away when we need them the most.

We need to use these challenging times as an opportunity to streamline government and reduce the tax burden on working families. In 2002, during my first campaign for county executive, I promised to spend taxpayer money as if it were my own. If government -- at all levels -- were to do just that, we could reduce taxes and stimulate the economy. That would put people back to work again. And that is something on my wish list.

Mr. Walker, a Republican, is Milwaukee County executive.

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

This editorial piece comes from the January 9 Wall St. Journal and was forwarded to me by Andy L. for use on the R.C. Blog....

Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.

Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?

These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."

When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated -- always in the public interest -- into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to "Atlas," a Wall Street Journal headline blared: "Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices."

In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."

Ultimately, "Atlas Shrugged" is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand's political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear -- leaving everyone the poorer.

One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

Galt: "You want me to be Economic Dictator?"

Mr. Thompson: "Yes!"

"And you'll obey any order I give?"

"Implicitly!"

"Then start by abolishing all income taxes."

"Oh no!" screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. "We couldn't do that . . . How would we pay government employees?"

"Fire your government employees."

"Oh, no!"

Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as Barack Obama puts it.

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."

Mr. Stephen Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.