Strollerderby : Supreme Court

Morning News - GOP Calls Sotomayor Racist

Brett Singer — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:00:00 GMT

The Republican/Conservative Hive Mind Coalition has decided how to attack Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. What is it? Drum roll, please... She's a racist! This comment from Rush Limbaugh is... well, you decide: "Limbaugh called the president 'the greatest living example of a reverse racist,' and said that he has picked another for the Supreme Court vacancy of retiring Justice David Souter. Limbaugh later equated Sotomayor to former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke." David Duke? Huh? The comment Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and Hive Mind members are clinging to is one that Sotomayor made at a Duke Law School symposium in 2001: "a wise Latina woman would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

I haven't read much about Judge Sotomayor, but I think the GOP Hive Mind is grasping at straws by clinging to one quote that she made. How difficult would it be to review cases that were before her while she served as a judge, and to talk about those? I've said plenty of things that I wouldn't want thrown back at me if I were up for an important post. (Supreme Court seems unlikely since I don't have a law degree, but maybe I could be the head of the Department of Video Games and Comic Books.) Also, as a white man who grew up in the Bronx and worked for two years at a job where there were many Latina women, I can honestly say that a great many of them reached better conclusions than I did. So there.

Speaking of the GOP, Mitt Romney seems to think he's still running for President. He's mad at President Obama for the way he's handling our foreign policy. (Grrr... Mitt is angry... Grrrr...) I love how it's OK for people to criticize the President when said President is a Democrat. Remember how we were all supposed to support President Bush because we were a nation at war? That attacking the Commander-in-Chief of the United States could be damaging to troop morale, and make us look bad in the eyes of foreign leaders? I guess that doesn't matter anymore.

One more political item -- Dick Cheney (aside: if my name were "Richard" I wouldn't use "Dick" as my nickname) admitted that there was "no link" between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. But he still thinks we did the right thing by marching into Iraq. He, too, took issue with President Obama's policies. I'm not 100% positive about this, but didn't various Bush administration officials and the Republican/Conservative Hive Mind spend a lot of time and energy telling the public that Saddam Hussein was, in fact, involved in the September 11th attacks? If so, what is Cheney saying now -- sorry, my bad?

On to less important matters. Susan Boyle checked into the hospital after losing "Britain's Got Talent." She is said to be "suffering from exhaustion," which I think officially makes her a real celebrity, since I have never heard of anyone other than a celebrity checking into a hospital because they were tired. (I know, that's reductionist, and an over-simplification, and probably other words that basically mean the same thing as those two. Bear with me, I'm exhausted.) The funny thing about Susan Boyle? She didn't "lose." She came in second. She was a complete unknown and now she's famous enough to check into a hospital for exhaustion without being laughed at. She will certainly have some sort of career in the entertainment business if she wants to. How is that "losing"? A year from now, let's see who has had a better career -- Susan Boyle or the dance troupe Diversity. My money's on Boyle.

OK, one more serious thing: a federal judge has ruled that "Guantanamo evidence must be made public." This is "the unclassified evidence that it says justifies the continued imprisonment of more than 100 Guantanamo Bay prisoners." So, you know. So there.

Here's a headline you don't like to see: "Federal Reserve puzzled by yield curve steepening." It's one thing if I'm puzzled by financial matters facing our nation. But the Federal Reserve? They shouldn't be puzzled. They should know stuff. Lots of stuff.

Finally, something silly and utterly unimportant. Kathy Griffin says that Eminem walking out of the MTV Movie Awards was "a stunt." What happened? Sasha Baron Cohen, aka Bruno, stuck his heinie in the rapper's face.

Here's what happened:

And here's what Kathy Griffin thinks of it:

See? Now you know everything you need to know to start your day. Enjoy!

Image: Latina.com

Dad Charges Daughter With Grand Theft Auto

Morning News - Mike Tyson's Daughter Injured

13 Year Old Alfie Definitely Not A Dad

Morning News - Susan Boyle Comes in Second

Brett Singer — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:00:00 GMT

So you know that Susan Boyle person? Scottish woman, has a really big singing voice, knocked people's socks off on "Britain's Got Talent", which is sort of like "American Idol" but with weirder acts, like a guy who dances like Michael Jackson while dressed as Darth Vader? (No, really. That's true.) Anyway, everyone thought Susan would win contest. (My money was on Darth Jackson. Which is why I don't gamble.) But she came in second. First place went to a dance troupe called "Diversity." Maybe in England hip-hop dancing is still hip. Or people just got bored with Susan Boyle. Or maybe it was something else. Anyway, she lost, but like Clay Aiken before her, I bet we'll hear from her at some point. Sometimes second place isn't so bad. (Ask Ruben Studdard. Although he does have a new album out, so maybe he'll stage a comeback. Wow, I think I don't care about this topic. Moving on.)

Well, I'm not moving on quite yet. Apparently Susan Boyle needed a team of psychistrists to get ready for the big TV finale. I have to admit that if her story is true -- never performed anywhere but her church, shot to worldwide fame in a matter of hours, on a TV show watched by millions -- then I can't blame her for being nervous. And maybe I'm wrong but to me, it's impressive that she got as far as she did. Not because she isn't talented. But she was completely unknown a few weeks ago. Now she's very very "known." Sounds like a victory to me.

Now on to science news. Everybody has a cell phone these days, and your plants want in on the fun. Yes. That's right. Your plants. The Discovery Channel has a story about a chip that would allow plants to "call" for water when they were, like, thirsty. "The farmer would just need their regular cell phone service, and the plant would send a text message when it needed water." Neat. Although I'm not sure why you can't just water the things on some sort of regular basis. Then again, I've never owned a plant that didn't die within a month. So maybe I'm not the right person to ask about this.

This headline form the Wall Street Journal is both completely sensational, but also accurate. Here you go: Lawmakers Bill Taxpayers For TVs, Cameras, Lexus. It's accurate. I hate reading stuff like this. Some of the item, like a digital camera, I can see as being needed for a lawmakers' job. But a Lexus? Times are tough, drive a crummier car.

Republicans, Let's Play Grown-Up
Sticking with the Journal, one of their columnists says that the GOP should "play grown-up" with regard to Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court. Political commentator Ellis Henican says that if Republicans keep attacking Sotomayer, "they might well achieve a rare double fiasco for the Once-Grand Party - pursuing a doomed campaign against a highly qualified Supreme Court nominee and guaranteeing that Latinos will vote Democratic for the next 30 years." I guess we'll have to see how this one plays out.

Cuba's gonna talk to us! Wow!

A group of scientists in Houston, Texas are working on a cancer vaccine. I will now make the understatement of the year -- hey, that'd be cool.

Finally, "Up" ruled the box office this weekend by taking in almost $70 million. "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" came in second place, and has already broken the $100 million mark. "Star Trek" broke $200 million. There were some other movies in the top ten that I don't care much about. A few words about "Up" and their box office total: the number is somewhat artificially inflated because of the $3 per ticket surcharge for 3D (or "RealD" as they call it these days). Not every theater is showing "Up" in 3D, but a lot are, and that makes the total dollar figure larger. It also means that in Manhattan it costs $55 to take two adults and two kids to see the movie. Which, for the record, I thought was really good. But I could do without the extra cost.

Image: Wikipedia

Kansas Abortion Doctor Killed at Church

California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Adopted Brother Was Living Across The Street

Morning News - Talk Show Host Waterboarded

Brett Singer — Mon, 25 May 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Sean Hannity said he would do it but hasn't made good on that pledge. So Erich “Mancow” Muller stepped up and got the job done. Here's a video, which is not safe for work or anyone who feels that watching a wildly unpopular talk show host get waterboarded is an insult to their intelligence.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. The great thing about Republicans these days is that they are so tolerant. Case in point: Colin Powell, who felt the need to go on CBS' "Face The Nation" and tell everyone that yes, he is still a Republican. This depiste the fact that Dick Cheney recent said "My take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn't know he was still a Republican." And the lovely Mr. Rush Limbaugh, who says he would like the former Secretary of State to "close the loop and become a Democrat." An article from the AFP wonders if all of this "our way or the highway" stuff is going to be a turn off to anyone who might, gawd forbid, disagree with the Cheney/Limbaugh hive mind. Gee, ya think? On a personal note (shocking, I know) I would genuinely like to have a civil discussion with a person of the Republican persuasion so I can find out what the appeal is. Seriously. I know people who lean to the right politically and yet aren't braying maniacs like Limbaugh or "Mancow". So far I haven't worked up enough nerve to discuss politics with any of them. If someone wants to leave a comment about why they are a Republican, please do so. Understand that I'm not saying that all Republicans are kooks, just that the only ones that we hear from in the media seem to be on the kooky side.

Staying with politics for a moment, President Barack Obama is expected to announce his pick for the Supreme Court this week. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that unless he chooses, say, Dick Cheney, most Republican politicians will not be pleased with his choice. But hey, ya never know. I've been wrong before. (Like the time I said, "Hairspray" as a musical? No one wants to see that. Or when I suggested that Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman make a little film called "Ishtar." Only one of those statements is true. Guess which one!)

Moving on to the world of entertainment, Susan Boyle moved on in the "Britain's Got Talent" contest. She sang "Memory" from "Cats." Daring choice. (Meow.) Here's a video, which is safe for work but not safe for those who find the music of Andrew Lloyd Webber to be only slightly more pleasurable than fingernails on a chalkboard:

Speaking on TV talent contests, Queen might have a job for "American Idol" runner-up Adam Lambert. They'd like him to do their laundry. Kidding! He would be the lead singer. Everyone said he (Adam) was just like Freddie Mercury, right?

In movie news, "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" beat out "Terminator Salvation" by about $10 million. When asked for a comment, Christian Bale said, "OHHH! GOOD FOR YOU!"

Last, but not least, today is Memorial Day. I couldn't find one story that I thought was "the one" to link to, so here's a bunch of them from Google News.

Women Switched at Birth Find Out 56 Years Later

More Babies Named After Sports Figure than President

13 Year Old Alfie Definitely Not A Dad

Supreme Court Says Keep Cursing Off Daytime TV

JeanneSager — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:00:00 GMT

If you can't keep your sailor mouth clean, have heart. You can continue plopping your kids in front of the TV during the day for some curse-free entertainment . . . for now anyway.

The U.S. Supreme Court voted five to four to uphold the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) hold over "foul language" on television between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The issue came up in regards to "fleeting expletives," the one-off f-bomb dropped on a live show (rather than cussing worked into a scripted program).

So is this good for parents and kids? Maybe.

ABC, CBS and Fox, who have been trying to avoid fines for cussing on their networks, are headed back to yet another federal court to fight their fines on the basis of free speech. And Justice Clarence Thomas, who voted with the majority, has written an opinion regarding what he calls “questionable viability” of two FCC regulations that relate to this topic. Voting against the FCC, Justice John Paul Stevens went so far as to call it "ironic" that the FCC goes after words relating to "sex" and "excrement" (hmmm, wonder which words he's talking about there, don'tcha?) even as “commercials broadcast during prime-time hours frequently ask viewers whether they too are battling erectile dysfunction or are having trouble going to the bathroom.”

I try to reign in my potty mouth around my daughter (I try to reign it in period, but hey, life happens). But is a one-off dirty word on TV really that bad? They're just as likely to hear it in the grocery store or the school bus. I sat in our favorite deli eating grilled cheese sandwiches just last week while a group of four twenty-something guys one table over did everything but smear us in the s--t they couldn't stop bringing up.

And Justice Stevens, I'm with you. I don't want to explain erectile dysfunction to my three-year-old just yet. Somehow, explaining what flies out of a cow's butt doesn't seem quite as bad as that.

Image: WriteForBlogs

Is It Ever Okay to Strip Search a Middle Schooler?

Kate Tuttle — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:01:00 GMT

The United States Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in the case of Savana Redding, who was strip-searched by school officials when she was a 13-year-old middle school student. The 2003 incident in question involved a vice principal who believed that Redding was holding prescription-strength ibuprofen; she wasn't, and when a nurse and aide had her disrobe, then pull her bra and panties out from her body so they could look there, Redding says, she felt she'd been stripped of her dignity.

In an interview with National Public Radio, Redding said: "When you're that age, you're going through puberty, [and] you're embarrassed of your body as it is, let alone to have to sit there and stand pretty much naked in front of professional people that you would see every day, almost. It's just pretty horrible."

An honor student with no record of misbehavior, Redding should not have been subject to a strip search, argued her lawyer, Adam Wolf. He said an ordinary search -- looking through her locker and book bag -- would have been appropriate in the situation. The Justices, who got the case this week after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the school had violated Redding's constitutional rights to protection from unreasonable searches, pressed Wolf, asking whether school officials should have the right to strip search (or undertake a "body cavity" search, in the icky question of Justice Scalia) if the drug in question were more dangerous. Wolf said no; without a logical reason to believe that the child was holding dangerous drugs, there would be other ways to prevent danger to the student body -- without violating a particular student's body.

NPR court reporter Nina Totenberg pointed out a gender difference in the way the Justices responded to the case; the Court's lone woman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, bristled with anger at the supposition voiced by many of the Court's male Justices, that nudity in middle school is no big deal (click on the "listen" button to hear the whole story). She also asked why school officials didn't seek more information before taking the step of conducting a strip search based only on the word of one student who accused Redding. One moment of levity came when Justice Stephen Breyer said that, when he was a child, “people did sometimes stick things in my underwear,” an apparent verbal gaffe.

However you feel about panties or middle-schoolers, it's clear that this event was very upsetting to Redding; it's even more clear that a ruling in her favor would impose restrictions on the ability of school officials to ferret out misdeeds -- at least misdeeds that involve hiding things in undies. Redding, now a college psychology major, says she hopes to counsel teens after she graduates. If her lawsuit prevails, she'll have helped more teens than she will ever meet.

Photo:Chris Hinkle for The New York Times

More by this author:

They Say: Bilingual Babies Learn Better

Why Are We So Shocked When Women Kill?

(Public) Breastfeeding Now Legal in Massachusetts

Another Hospital Baby Mix-Up, Now With Added Racism!

Can We Talk About the Word "Panties"?

Madeline Holler — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:28:00 GMT

Maybe I'm just lexically sensitive, but I have always hated the word "panties." It's an awful word, the way it sounds, both when enunciated ("pan-tees") and also when not ("pannies").

My sister and I would writhe on the floor when our mother used the word, which was often: "Girls, put on your panties!" "fold your panties" "let's go buy new panties" ... "panties, panties, panties!" As I got older and the context broadened to include fancy women's underthings, I still never found the word cute, sexy or the least bit dignified. Wanna get laid? Don't tell me to take off my panties.

I've met more challenges with the word since becoming the mother of two girls myself. Everyone around us uses ''panties": doctors, preschool teachers, Hanes, grandmothers (give it a rest, Mom!). Me? I stick with "undies" and "underwear," boring but comfortable.

So imagine how my muscles seized into a cramp last night when I heard Nina Totenberg, NPR's legal affairs correspondent, say panties about 6,000 times while reporting on a case involving a teen who was strip searched at her middle school. School officials suspected she had handed out prescription-strength ibuprofen, verboten at the school, and before looking in the 13-year-old's backpack or locker, officials brought in the school secretary to have a look around -- her body. She was forced to strip down to her bra and "panties" and also forced to shake out her bra and "the crotch of her panties." Lord help me, I could barely stir the pasta.

Needless to say, the girl was traumatized by the search. (By the way, no Advil was found, not even in the "crotch of her panties.") So she and the mother sued. But the school argued it did not violate any constitutional rights in ordering a student to get naked in front of the school secretary to conduct a search for, you know, pretty good headache medicine.

When making the argument that "Hey! Back in my day, we never felt traumatized during the countless times daily we took off our clothes at school," the male lawyers and male justices used terms like "undergarments," "underclothes," "underwear" and "underpants. A welcome respite for me because, really, the only thing worse than the word "panties" is an old man using the word "panties."

But Totenberg unexpectedly dropped yet another "panties" when paraphrasing Justice Ginsburg who said, among other things, (and I'm also paraphrasing), "Right, you doofuses, guys don't care but teen girls certainly do."

Now, the last thing I would want to do is go messing around with other people's constitutional rights, which the school most certainly did in strip-searching the girl. So I feel reluctant to make the case for outlawing the word panties -- public or private use. It should be up the the individual to decide whether to use it, we have the First Amendment, so on and so forth.

But it's such a heinous word. And of course, outlawing it would just make it a test case for the Supreme Court, and then I'd have to suffer another episode of All Things Considered with Totenberg -- dignified, articulate, big-brained Totenberg -- chanting "panties, panties, panties."

Alec Baldwin's Love Letter to His Daughter

Mattress Ad Features Homebirth

Stay-At-Home Moms are the Best, Aren't They!

A Private Matter

Image: CafePress.com

Fired For Pumping Case Reaches Higher Court

Brett Singer — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:30:00 GMT

A woman who worked for Totes/Isotoner Corp. was fired for taking too many bathroom breaks. No, she wasn't snorting coke in there. She was pumping breast milk.

After losing in court in 2008, and again on an appeal, LaNisa Allen is appealing to a higher authority -- the Ohio Supreme Court.

The legal argument seems to be that "the company didn't discriminate because breastfeeding doesn't legally constitute an illness or medical condition." Attorneys for Totes/Isotoner also say that "there is legal precedent showing that employers don't have to give extra breaks to breastfeeding women."

That may be true. But so what? (I mean, it's not like she was driving while she pumped.) No, breast feeding isn't an "illness" but I was surprised to read that someone was fired for doing it at work, sued, and then lost. Twice. It will be interesting to see if the Ohio Supremes are more sympathetic to Allen's cause. Even if the company was legally correct, it seems like bad policy to punish a breast feeding mother like this.

Anyone have any experiences, good or bad, with pumping on the job?

Source: Dayton Daily News via Slate

Image: ymswwc.com

VIDEO-Octo Mom Publicist On GMA

Mom Accused of Feeding Meth-Tainted Breastmilk to Daughter

Salma Hayek Shines Spotlight on Breastfeeding Taboos

Fun Stuff To Do When The Kids Get Older

Breast Milk Cupcakes

North Dakota Passes Law Establishing "Personhood" at Conception

Kate Tuttle — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:01:00 GMT

In the latest salvo against abortion rights, North Dakota's house of representatives this week passed a law defining a fertilized egg as having all the rights of a human being. The bil, which passed with a 51-41 vote, will now move to the state's senate for its consideration. If it is approved, legal challenges are expected that could end up in the United States Supreme Court -- a body that is now widely seen as having a five-justice majority willing to restrict abortion rights first enumerated in the 1972 Roe v. Wade ruling.

Dan Ruby, the Republican state congressman who sponsored the bill, says it's not intended to ban abortion, simply to define when life begins -- a question that has mystified thinkers for centuries, but apparently is obvious to the North Dakota Republican Party -- and to give that life "some protections under our Constitution."

This is hardly the first or the only legislative assault on Roe, and it certainly won't be the last. It is, however, part of an interesting new political/religious movement that uses the term "personhood" to attempt to define not only fetuses, but blastocytes (what's next, follicles?) as fully-fledged human beings deserving of all the legal status of a baby, child, or adult. The so-called "personhood movement" aims to roll back abortion rights by means of state legislative action, primarily working in states that outlawed or restricted abortion in the days pre-Roe, when each state had its own laws regarding reproductive rights. In defining even a fertilized egg as human, backers are not only taking aim at abortion but also at many forms of birth control, which operate by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the woman's uterus. It could also result in pregnant women being prosecuted for behavior said to endanger their fetuses.

I'm interested in this movement, and wonder when they will turn their attention to granting "personhood" rights to children who have already been born. One group of persons whose rights need protecting is children who are US citizens but whose parents are not -- an estimated 100,000 parents were deported over the past decade whose children, having been born here, should be enjoying all the rights of other US citizens, rather than left behind by their parents or forced to return to countries with fewer opportunities for them. And how about extending "personhood" rights to gay Americans who would like to marry and raise their children together, just as their straight friends and relatives do?

The religious right's emphasis on what happens before birth and after death is mystifying to me at times. I'd like to remind them that there's life after birth, and protecting those lives seems a much better use of everyone's time, energy, and attention.

More By This Author:

Kittens Have Their Say (Aided by Nutty Six-Year-Old)

Twenty-Year-Old Kidnapping Solved

Little Girl with Bowel Disease Kept Alive on Donated Breastmilk

They Say: More Abuse, Neglect Among Bottle-Feeding Moms

Breaking News: CA Supreme Court Will Hear Prop. 8 Challenges

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:40:00 GMT

In case your post-election elation is starting to wear off, here's some good news in the fight for constitutional protections. The California Supreme Court agreed today to hear the case against Proposition 8 brought by the ACLU, the City of San Francisco, and gay rights organizations. This is the same court that unwittingly brought about the Prop. 8 firestorm after they ruled that banning gay marriage violates both the fundamental right to marry and the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

The lawsuits against Prop. 8 hinge on two main arguments, namely (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) that "the measure exceeds the legal scope of a ballot initiative by allowing a majority to restrict a minority group's rights, and that it violates the constitutional separation of powers by limiting judicial authority."

The court's decision to review challenges to Prop. 8 is great news, but the fight is far from over. The court also ruled that same-sex marriages will remain illegal until it has considered the constitutionality of Prop. 8. And if it does find the measure to be constitutionally sound, the court will have to decide whether to apply Prop. 8 retroactively, nullifying the 18,000 marriages that took place between the court's legalization of same-sex marriage and the passage of Prop. 8. We'll keep you posted.

Photo: Los Angeles Times

Prop. 8 Protests Spawn Hope and Great Photos

Mom Kicked out of PTA for Prop. 8 Stance

Prop. 8 Protests Spawn Hope and Great Photos

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:22:00 GMT

Yesterday, thousands gathered in 300 cities across the United States to protest the passage of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California. The protests were a poignant and powerful reminder that no civil right is easily won.

Equality for gay families will be an uphill battle--all of the 30 states that have voted on gay marriage have banned it--but the impressive organization and high turnout of yesterday's peaceful protests demonstrate that the gay rights movement has the momentum to fight for as long as it takes.

Jezebel has posted a slideshow of photos of the protests submitted by readers across the country. I'm unable to post individual selections from the slideshow (aptly titled "Love Not Hate"), but, as you can tell from this one highlight on the right, it's worth browsing the whole thing, especially if you're feeling discouraged about the election's decidedly anti-gay rights outcome.

One of the photos shows a young woman carrying a sign that says, "Jesus Says Relax." I'd like to add to that my favorite Jon Stewart quote. Speaking of gay marriage a few years back, he said, "I really don't see what the big deal is--unless, of course, they're going to make it mandatory."

Photo: Jezebel

Immigrant Gay Folks Face New Challenges

Kelly Mills — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:33:00 GMT

Following the recent Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage, it's clear that some things are gonna change around here. (For starters, you may want to book that popular wedding venue extra early.) But Sandip Roy points out that for some immigrant gay people, a whole new situation has opened up.

In some cultures, being single is worse than being gay. So families who previously gave up on dreams of a married son or daughter may now have a whole new reason to pressure the kids to find a mate and get hitched. Roy even speculates gay arranged marriages might someday be a possibility. And I guess it goes without saying that families may now start aggressively nudging gay couples to have kids ASAP. It's an excellent article, and it will be interesting to see how this turns out for all of us.

Gay marriage legalized

Californians support gay marriage

One More Reason To Be Jealous of California

Kelly Mills — Fri, 30 May 2008 20:02:00 GMT

I love my state. And really, aside from a few righteous a-holes in Orange County and the fact that both Madeline and Mike live here, what's not to love? We Californians enjoy awesome weather almost year-round; we are pretty dang diverse in many ways; the food in our urban centers rocks the party; and we have some of the most gorgeous scenery ever. Sometimes people from other places talk about us like we are the biggest fruit loops on the planet, and that's just fine by us, because it's just too pretty and laid-back here for us to really care. Oh, and now we have yet another thing going for us.

See, I don't know if you heard, but our state has had some kerfuffles over gay marriage lately, and the latest news, following the Supreme Court ruling, is that a majority of Californians now support gay marriage. Ha ha. We rock! Okay, so that's just the finding of one poll, and the margin is slim, but still, it's a start. Hey, I don't even believe rights and benefits should be tied to marriage and I'm excited, just because it says something about equality and discrimination. And really, what more perfect place for queer couples to tie the knot than a state where you can have a gorgeous outdoor wedding in November?

Gay marriage suddenly legal in California

Breaking up is hard(er) to do

Gay means happy when it comes to fatherhood

12-Year-Old Killer Won't Get His Day In (Supreme) Court

Amy S.F. Lutz — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:32:00 GMT

At what age can we be expected to take full responsibility for our own actions? I mean, 12-year-olds aren't allowed to drink, to drive, to vote, to drop out of school or to sign a contract, and I think those age restrictions are wise, given the fundamental immaturity of the adolescent brain. So I'm having trouble understanding how a 12-year-old can be sentenced to 30 years in jail - what amounts to an adult sentence - even if he did blow his grandparents away with a shotgun.

Lawyers for Christopher Pittman wanted to take their appeal of his harsh sentence all the way to the Supreme Court, but yesterday the Court declined to even hear the case. That means Pittman has little choice but to settle down and prepare to serve the remaining 23 years of his sentence.

I understand that killers are getting younger and younger, and we can't afford to send the message that child murderers will walk away with a slap on the wrist. But there are so many mitigating factors in this case: Pittman's extreme youth (no other inmate in the country is serving such a long sentence for a crime committed at such a young age), the fact that he was abandoned by his mother not once, but twice, and the fact that he was on anti-depressants at the time of the attack that have since been directed to carry warnings about the increased risk of suicide in children who take them.

What would be a just sentence in this case? I'm not sure. Does it matter that Pittman earned his GED and is taking classes in anticipation of the life he may someday have outside of prison? Does it matter that his sister and his maternal grandmother believe that Pittman was clearly altered by the antidepressants and in his right mind would never have been capable of committing such a gruesome act?

Does it matter that if Pittman had killed his grandparents in any other state but South Carolina he almost certainly wouldn't be serving so long a sentence?

I don't know if any of those things matter. But I do know that if we are even to pretend that prison is even partly about rehabilitation, then we need to start with the kids. I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I suspect adolescents have a much greater potential for rehabilitation than hardened criminals. As Pittman's grandmother claims, "There are no 12-year-old monsters."

AP photo

Do Child Rapists Deserve The Death Penalty?

Amy S.F. Lutz — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:29:00 GMT

I thought only convicted murderers could be sentenced to death in the United States. But right now two men sit on death row, both in Louisiana, neither of whom has been accused of killing anyone. What they are both guilty of is raping children, and the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear arguments as to whether or not the death penalty in these cases is constitutional.

Although the Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that rapists of adults couldn't be put to death, Louisiana isn't the only state that has legalized this punishment for child rapists: Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas will also be awaiting the Court's decision in the case of Patrick Kennedy, who was sentenced to death after being convicted of violently raping his five-year-old stepdaughter. But Kennedy has some surprising allies - including victims' rights groups, who fear that attackers will have no reason not to kill their young victims if the penalty for both crimes is the same.

At first I balked at the idea of extending the death penalty (towards which I already hold a great deal of ambivalence) to crimes not involving murder, but the more I thought about it, the more sense it made. Although I'm sympathetic to the concerns of the victims' rights groups, I believe the death penalty should be reserved exclusively for criminals who would pose the greatest risk to the public should they ever be released. And pedophiles are notoriously difficult to rehabilitate. Virtually every famous example of a fatal, sexual attack on a child (such as John Couey's murder of Jessica Lunsford and Alejandro Avila's murder of Samantha Runnion) involved a pedophile who had previously been accused (often multiple times) of committing more minor sexual acts against children. I would be much more afraid of a convicted child rapist moving into the neighborhood than I would a parolee who had been convicted of shooting a convenience store clerk during a robbery twenty years ago while high on crack. And I'm not the only one. While many states have a version of "Megan's Law," which requires released sex offenders to register with local governments, I haven't heard of one state that requires this of paroled murderers.

Because let's face it, children are the most cherished, most vulnerable members of our society. And if putting child rapists to death gives any additional protection to the group that needs it most, maybe that's what we should do.

Sperm Donor Doesn't Have To Pay Child Support

Kelly Mills — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:38:00 GMT

This one is maybe a bigger deal than it seems like at first: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Joel L. McKiernan will not have to pay child support. Up until now he has been giving ex-girlfriend Ivonne V. Ferguson $1,500 a month to support twin boys, at the ruling of lower courts. Now, his paternity is not in question, but the issue is that McKiernan donated his sperm to Ferguson after they broke up with the agreement that he would not have to pay child support and would not have visitation rights. (Moral number one: Do not donate sperm to an ex-girlfriend.)

What do we weigh here, the best interests of the children or the rights of a sperm donor? Originally, courts ruled that McKiernan and Ferguson had an agreement, and that he wasn't liable for support, but Ferguson changed her mind and sued. A county judge basically said that he had to pay because it was best for the kids, and ordered him to come up with $66,000 in back payments as well as making the monthly payments. This ruling reverses that, and it is significant because it protects the system of sperm donation, which could be constrained if McKiernan were found liable. Courts in the past have sided for kid support, and even in this case, the dissenting opinion says, "'The children point and say, ’That is our father. He should support us. What are we to reply? ’No! He made a contract to conceive you through a clinic, so your father need not support you.’ I find this unreasonable at best."

Now, while I generally think when you sow the seed you should pay the price, I'm way happy about this one. Because if we are gonna have a system where people can donate eggs and sperm, we need protection for them in order to make it safe for them to be donors. And in a larger way, it goes towards the idea that just providing the raw materials for a life do not make you a parent, especially when you were promised that you were handing over some sperm.

Unleash Your Inner Activist: Fight Unequal Pay for Moms

Karen Murphy — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 12:35:00 GMT

I had been working at my last job for about three years when the company hired someone in a peer position. I found out months later that he was making a good $10K more than me. At the time I was ticked off but ended up shrugging and saying to myself, "What can I do about it?"

It turns out there is something you can do about it: MomsRising says "The Supreme Court's ruling in Ledbetter vs. Goodyear that discrimination claims must be made within 180 days after the pay is set is a major setback in women's rights. How many of us know what our co-workers make? In fact, many employers forbid employees from discussing their pay, making it all the more difficult to discover pay discrimination within the short time frame now required by the Supreme Court."

A bill has been introduced in Congress that would reverse Ledbetter: H.R. 2831. It won't completely erase the pervasive discrimination that exists in the workplace, but it certainly will help. And moms need all the help they can get: mothers are 79% LESS likely to be hired than non-mothers with identical resumes! Not only that, but mothers make 73 cents to a man's dollar (as opposed to 90 cents for non-moms)!

It's easy to do your part to fight this discrimination: send a letter to your congressperson by clicking here and tell them to vote YES on H.R. 2831.

Are you experiencing discrimination in the workplace, or do you know someone who is? You can contact the Center for WorkLife Law Hotline at 1-800-981-9495 or send an email.

Supreme Court Ruling Bans Partial Birth Abortion

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:32:00 GMT

There are no two ways about it. If you are a pro-choice person, you'll find yesterday's Supreme Court ruling worthy of black arm bands and quickening despair. In the most stunning defeat of abortion rights in 30 years, the Supreme Court (In a 5-4 ruling) banned partial birth abortion, making it easier to enact further restrictions and erode the constitutionally protected rights of women to choose, rights until now protected by Roe v. Wade.

Dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg decried the decision, stating that the court was essentially sanctioning an all-out attack on a woman's right to choose. Partial birth abortion has been challenged many times before by pro-life advocates, most recently in 2000. This is the first time the Court has ruled against a specific procedure.

Not surprisingly, President Bush is calling this another successful effort by his administration to protect the sanctity of life. Nevermind the war and the poverty and the millions of children without insurance. Bah.

Pro-choice groups are rallying to protect the rights ensured by Roe v. Wade and will continue to do so despite today's defeat.

Supreme Justice? Scalia's Daughter Charged with DUI

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:46:00 GMT

I'll admit to a certain aversion to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He's been the thorn in the side of the Warren Court since he began serving over 20 years ago.

So it was with less than total sorrow and concern that I first read that his 45-year old daughter, Ann S. Banaszewski, was charged with driving under the influence and child endangerment this past Monday in Wheaton, Illinois. According to CNN, Ms. Banaszewski was arrested after a caller reported an intoxicated driver leaving a fast food restaurant.

But then I thought about her and her children. If she was driving drunk with her three kids in tow, leaving a fast food restaurant, then she is someone I can identify with (not the driving drunk part). She's probably a harried mother trying to feed her kids and kill the pain. And that's no laughing matter.