Dear Mr President…

Ken AshfordWiretapping & SurveillanceLeave a Comment

From Slate’s "Low Concept" feature, an excerpt of Robert Raben‘s recent missive to the chief executive:

Dear Mr. President,

I think it’s ridiculous that some of my friends on the left, and some in your party as well, are complaining about the fact that you and some of your colleagues in the executive branch have been monitoring and maintaining personal and professional records of ordinary Americans as part of your important effort to keep us safe from those who would harm us. I totally agree with you that in order to be free, we have to be safe, and I think your instincts on this point are right on.

Like you, I was horrified when the New York Times let on that you are tapping into international records of financial transactions, including records of major domestic banking institutions. I don’t think we should be giving terrorists a road map of how we monitor them; that just doesn’t make sense.

But Mr. President, here’s the thing. In return for my unconditional support of all your secret surveillance programs, I was wondering: Could you do me one small favor? For a closing deadline I’m trying to meet for work, I need my April and May statements from my Sun Trust account. I was on hold with Sun Trust forever this morning, and then they finally said they would make me a copy of my own records, but at, like, five dollars a page. Also, it’s going to take them about five to seven business days to get them to me. Look, I know it’s my fault for leaving this till the last minute. But could you just e-mail me those two months? That would be so great. Should I just ask the CIA for them? Can you give me the name of whoever it is that is tracking my accounts and I can follow up? Apparently I need both the front and back of each page; that’s a big deal I guess.

Read the whole thing.

Smart = Sexy

Ken AshfordHistoryLeave a Comment

Einsteintongue_1Albert knew:

Albert Einstein had half a dozen girlfriends and told his wife they showered him with "unwanted" affection, according to letters released on Monday that shed light on his extra-marital affairs.

The wild-haired Jewish-German scientist, renowned for his theory of relativity, spent little time at home. He lectured in Europe and in the United States, where he died in 1955 at age 76. But Einstein wrote hundreds of letters to his family.

Previous-released letters suggested his marriage in 1903 to his first wife Mileva Maric, mother of his two sons, was miserable. They divorced in 1919 and he soon married his cousin, Elsa. He cheated on her with his secretary, Betty Neumann.

In the new volume of letters released on Monday by Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Einstein described about six women with whom he spent time with and received gifts from while being married to Elsa.

In the early 1980s, Elsa’s daughter, Margot, gave almost 1,400 letters to Hebrew University, which Einstein helped found. But Margot directed that the letters not be released publicly until 20 years after her death. She died on July 8, 1986.

Some of the women identified by Einstein include Estella, Ethel, Toni, and his "Russian spy lover," Margarita. Others are referred to only by initials, like M. and L.

"It is true that M. followed me (to England) and her chasing after me is getting out of control," he wrote in a letter to Margot in 1931. "Out of all the dames, I am in fact attached only to Mrs. L., who is absolutely harmless and decent."

In another post to Margot, Einstein asked his stepdaughter to pass on "a little letter for Margarita, to avoid providing curious eyes with tidbits."

I’d mention my IQ at this point, but I’d only be bragging….

“Blame Clinton” Days At The White House

Ken AshfordForeign AffairsLeave a Comment

SnowclintonFacing increasing criticism from the right and left about Bush’s North Korea policy (or lack thereof) , White House Press Secretary Tony Snow (pictured uncomfortably here) lashed out at Clinton, accusing the Clinton Administration of going to North Korea with “flowers and chocolates.”

He said the Clinton strategy “failed” and President Bush had “learned from that mistake.”  (Watch the video)

Failed?  Mistake?  Hmmmm.  Well, the proof is in the pudding, as the say. 

So let’s check out the stats, shall we?  How much plutonium has North Korea made during each of the last three administrations?

1. George H. W. Bush: one to two bombs’ worth of plutonium

2. Bill Clinton: zero plutonium

3. George W. Bush: 4-6 nuclear weapons’ worth of plutonium

[Source (PDF)]

Looks to me that the Clinton Administration’s approach to North Korea was a lot better than the "strategy"* of Bush II.

* Ignore, except to engage in a lot of macho talk here at home….

UPDATE:  Josh Marshall has more to say:

Let’s review a few salient, uncontested facts.

Back in 1994, the US came close to war over its nuclear activities and particularly the reactor complex at Yongbyon. War was averted with the so-called ‘Agreed Framework’ in which North Korea suspended its production of plutonium (and put the facility under international inspections) in exchange for assistance building light water nuclear reactors (the kind that don’t help you make bombs) and fuel oil for energy generation.

There are all sorts of details to what was going to be in exchange for what, who exactly would be doing the giving, and lots of other details you can see here. But that is the essence of it. And it shut down the North Koreans’ plutonium reprocessing activities for close to a decade.

The agreement began to come apart in 1998 when the North Koreans did an unnannounced test firing of one of their missiles, which went over Japan and crashed into the Pacific. There was also, by the end of the Clinton administration, evidence that the North Koreans were attempting to enrich uranium, something not explicitly covered in the Agreed Framework, but certainly a violation of the spirit of the agreement.

There’s a fairly detailed explanation of the US reaction and the efforts to arrive at a new agreement during the late Clinton administration. It’s a Times , oped written by two of the policy makers at the time, Bill Perry and Ashton Carter.

The Bush administration came to office convinced that this entire process was one of appeasement and set in motion of series of events that led to a complete breakdown of the initial agreement. In response, the North Koreans started reprocessing plutonium again.

Now, most agree, the North Koreans probably have enough for several nuclear warheads.

Now, the premise of the Bush administration’s North Korea policy was that North Korea was a bad acting state that had to be dealt with through force, not negotiation. That didn’t necessarily mean going to war. The goal was to intimidate the North Koreans into better behavior if possible and resort to force if necessary.

Yet, when the North Koreans called the White House’s bluff and starting reprocessing plutonium, the White House’s response was … well, nothing.

That was three years ago.

Rather than talk softly and carry a big stick it was a policy of talk tough and do nothing.

The bomb making plutonium keeps coming of the conveyor belt. And the White House policy is to say they won’t negotiate and also ask the Chinese to get the North Koreans to behave.

The remaining conceit of the Bush administration is that the Clintonites met with the North Koreans in bilateral talks while they insist on multilateral talks.

That’s the policy, which is to say, they have no policy. The salient fact is that under Clinton plutonium reprocessing stopped and under Bush it restarted. The Bushies angle was that you don’t coddle bad actors like the North Koreans. You deal with them in the language they understand: force. But the NKs called their bluff, they weren’t prepared to use force. So they decided to forget about the whole thing.

That’s the record. That’s the policy. A total failure.

I’m Depressed

Ken AshfordRandom Musings1 Comment

Apparently:

Lawyers are 3.6 times more likely to be depressed than members of other professions, and it’s not just because their jobs are more stressful. For most people, job stress has little effect on happiness unless it is accompanied by a lack of control (lawyers, of course, have clients to listen to) or involves taking something away from somebody else (a common feature of the legal system).

Gas Prices Officially At Their Highest Of The Year

Ken AshfordEconomy & Jobs & Deficit2 Comments

But you already knew that, right?

Here’s the local forecast:

North Carolina: A variety of reasons are adding up to another spike in gas prices.

Parts of the Triangle are seeing gasoline on average for around $2.74 a gallon. The statewide average is $2.75 a gallon. However, some analysts believe gas could be as high as $3 a gallon by the weekend.

"I think it certainly could be close to $3. What we have had happen in the past couple of days, of course, is the big scare over North Korea. That apparently sent tremors through the oil market," said Mike Walden, an economist at North Carolina State University.

Kaye Grogan Sez You’re A Loser

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

Grogan0710Kaye Grogan written a column for a few weeks.  Presumably, she was on vacation, or in detox.  Apparently, whatever it was, it didn’t take.  You know that any column that ends with "And by the way . . . you’re the real losers — so get in the long line" was written by a very pissed-off columnist.

There are some people who just don’t know how to lose gracefully. Just because many think they are God’s gift to the world, does not mean everybody else is in agreement with that ridiculous self-glorifying theory. Refusing to concede when one has (obviously) lost an election reveals a bratty attitude. So what part of l-o-s-e don’t these people understand?

According to Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador the Democratic Revolution presidential candidate, he is going to the take to the streets to protest and drag his loss through the courts, because he lost his bid to be President of Mexico by 220,000 votes. Does this sound familiar?

Why, yes it does, Kaye.  Of course, it’s hard to understand how Obrador’s "defeat" is "obvious", given that Mexico has a long history of voter fraud.  It’s so bad, in fact, that court chellenges are built into the system which is why Calderon has not been declared the victor.

But don’t let facts get in your way, Kaye.

Has it ever occurred to Mr. Obrador that the Mexican citizens are tried of being ruled by the Leftist Party?

Has it ever occurred to Kaye that we never get tried of reading her typos?

The voters of Mexico have spoken loud and clear by voting for conservative Felipe Calderon to be their president. Hopefully, under a new more relaxed regime, the Mexicans can begin to prosper without having to rely on or be dependent on other countries to employ them, so they can eke out a decent living in their own country.

Hmmmm.  I wonder if Kaye knows that Calderon wants the U.S. to legalize the millions of undocumented Mexicans now living in the United States.

Is it possible Mr. Obrador has been conversing with two-thousand presidential candidate (loser) Albert Gore? Gore can certainly offer Obrador a bit of expert advice about how to stall while checking trash cans, and hanging chads, as a last ditch attempt to conjure up 220,001 votes, to win the election by a hair.

Um, oh I get it.  That’s funny!

Have you ever wondered why a political candidate spends millions to get a job making around $165,000 annually — especially using their own money? In nine years, the recovery amount of money would only be around $1.485 million.

Hey!  Kaye discovered the "Calculator" button under "Microsoft Accessories"!

Of course, if you add up all of the pay backs by special interest groups, combined with trips, expensive gifts etc., the amount can grow considerably. But all of the monetary value can’t begin to touch the most important aspect of securing a seat in the House or Senate — POWER!

Like shooting death rays from your eyes ‘n stuff!

Just watch the house and senate members as they go through the motion of governing, and you can easily pick out the ones who think everybody should at the highest crescendo, tremble in their shoes as they build up to their usual rhetoric. Many try to sound like the intimidating voice of the Wizard of Oz, as they point their finger and thrash their arms about.

"I am the great and powerful Senator from Wyoming!  Will the Wicked Witch kindly yield five minutes?!?"

If the Republican Party continues to straddle the fence instead of getting on one side or the other on the illegal immigration issue, their power is going to melt away like an ice cube on a 160-degree sidewalk.

Kaye’s really into metaphors today.

And if they are foolish enough to give absurd credence to the bogus polls that most Americans favor an eventual pathway to citizenship for around 20 million lawbreaking immigrants — well they are just whistling "dixie."

A tune very familiar to Kaye and her ilk.

The Democrats have backed the Republicans into a corner while erroneously thinking Americans will favor their do-nothing strategy if the Republicans fail to vote on a viable illegal immigration bill. But I have news for you guys and gals: the majority of the American people have had enough of both parties and the invasion by illegals.

So don’t believe those bogus polls.  Believe Kaye.

So now most of you can pin "loser" on the lapel of your expensive suits — with the exception of very few like Representative Tom Trancredo.

Most of "you"?  Is she talking to "you", the reader?

Mr. Trancredo is gaining in popularity every day, and if you don’t know why — you’re in worse condition than I originally gave you credit for.

Kaye gives people "credit" for being in a bad condition?  Yikes.

And if you’re holding your breath hoping the issues that cause the most stress, and needs the most attention is going to just work out — well, it ain’t gonna happen!

On Larry King live Thursday night featuring President and Laura Bush, the president admitted that there has been a massive illegal immigration problem for twenty-years since 1986.

He cried.

Well, when the U.S. government hands out free programs faster than a roadrunner can run a mile to foreigners, to appease Corporate America, naturally the domino effect is going to transpire.

Roadrunners run a mile to foreigners in order to appease corporate America?  WTF?

It’s amazing how our current leaders expect the majority of the American people to accept our beloved country being aggressively invaded by millions of illegal opportunists — especially with the blessings of most of our national leadership.

Since our government has sold America out (and as Emeril Lagasse would say: "you know who you are!") it will take years to regroup and start over (if possible) with new leaders. You also attempt to cover-up the fact that we are deeply buried in a trade-deficit hole — that will be impossible to dig out of for a very long time — if ever. And you are still more concerned with the economy of other countries and whether or not their people are flourishing (at the expense of hard-working Americans).

And yet, Kaye, so are YOU!  After all, you’re the one who wants Mexico’s economy to flourish so that the olive-skins hordes will stop collecting your trash.

So, if you haven’t bowed your head in shame yet . . . it is long overdue.

Who? Me?

And by the way . . . you’re the real losers — so get in the long line. At least you’ll have a lot of company.

Hey, fuck you, too, Kaye.

Nathan Tabor: “Brits See U.S. As Vulgar?”

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

Nathan Tabor don’t like them redcoats:

This past week we celebrated America’s independence, I was struck by this item that crossed the electronic news site of record, the Drudge Report: Britons See U.S. as Vulgar Empire Builder.

Ladies and gentleman, this is what Nathon calls the "news site of record".

If you had any doubts whether the War of Independence was a good idea, that headline would certainly put them to rest.

Yeah, I was really on the fence about that whole Revolutionary War thing.  Thanks for tipping the scales there, Nate.

The headline was based on something called the YouGov poll, which claimed that Britons have never had such a low opinion of the leadership of the U.S. Specifically, only 12 percent of Britons trust Americans to act wisely on the global stage.

Actually, they didn’t trust the Bush Administration, which is not the same thing as "Americans"

Supposedly, the majority of Britons see America as cruel and vulgar…that we are haunted by issues of class and racism…that we are obsessed with money…and that our President is incompetent and a hypocrite.

It’s funny how people who don’t live on our shores can pretend to know so much about what goes on here.

And yet, Nathan loves to talk about how things are in Iraq, and waht’s best for Iraq, etc.

According to this poll, more than two-thirds of British respondents saw the U.S. as an “imperial power seeking world domination.”

Somehow, I missed the moment when President George W. Bush declared himself dictator-at-large.

Well, dictators rarely have to make those kinds of declarations.  Bush has, however, asserted that — at least in wartime — he has powers that exceed those in the Constitution.  Which may not be a dictator declaration, but pretty close.

And I really doubt that most American wage-earners want to rule the world.

Nate, babe.  If American labor was to rule the world, then we wouldn’t be an "imperial power".  Get it?

After all, if American families are asking advice from a telegenic British
nanny about how to rule their roost, why would anyone think that they want to take control of the globe?

Right.  Instead, Americans should be seeking advice from an invisible deity written about in a 2,000 year old book.

These poll results are nothing more than British rubbish.

Kinda like Benny Hill.

And if you don’t believe me, consider the comments of a spokesman for the American embassy, who was quoted as saying that the poll’s findings were contradicted by its own surveys.

Shorter Nathan: "If you don’t believe me, then believe this guy who agrees with me"

The spokesman questioned the judgment of anyone who would say that the world would be a better place with Saddam Hussein terrorizing his own nation and threatening people outside Iraq.

The spokesman conceded that American officials might not have successfully communicated “America’s extraordinary dynamism.” But the spokesman also wryly pointed out that the British press bears part of the blame.

Ah.  I knew the BBC was behind this.

Bashing America is a favorite sport among some members of the foreign press, who never met a Republican American leader whom they liked—or even respected. I don’t blame the general populace of Great Britain for the misconceptions about America. After all, they’re simply operating upon the false information supplied to them by the denizens of the British media.

Does Nathan actually believe that our friends across the pond aren’t exposed to American media?  Has he never head of CNN?

This Independence week, America actually has quite a bit to be proud of. We emerged from the scandal-ridden Clinton Administration and managed to restore dignity to the Oval Office through the election—and re-election—of the underrated George W. Bush.

[Spit take]

We have not suffered a domestic terrorist attack since the horror of 9/11.

No, just 3,000 or so dead soldiers.

We have a military that’s second to none, filled with men and women who aren’t afraid to fight—and die—for what’s right.

The preservation of the Constitution, no, uh, freedom and liberty for Americans, oh shit.  Um, what’s right again?

Oh, yeah.  Republicans in power.

We are finally beginning to recover from the disastrous social experiments of the 1960s. A number of women are readily giving up the “glamour life” of office work for life as full-time wives and mothers.

Except for Nathan’s mom.

Conservative media have blossomed in recent years, and Americans no longer accept the nightly network news as gospel.

Drudge rulez.

Public opinion polls show that young people today are far more pro-life than students of previous decades.

Public opinion polls sponsored by the National Right-to-Life Coalition, you mean?

And, despite the many challenges we face as a nation, America remains the world’s greatest hope—a land where anyone, of any race, of any family, of any income level, can rise to achieve the greatest professional success.

An odd thing for Nathan to say . . . having put six figures of family money into a losing bid for political office.

Twice.

We remain a country of both dreamers and doers, a place where the impossible becomes reality day in and day out—from the cornfield to the Capitol building.

I’d take that over Windsor Castle any day.

So take that, you limeys

Siskel He Ain’t

Ken AshfordPopular Culture1 Comment

Brad Morgan of St. Catharines, Ontario, has some — er — issues, which manifest themselves in his reviews of books and movies at Amazon.com. 

Here, for example, is his take on "The Wizard Of Oz" two-DVD set:

Frank Morgan as the wizard has a Christian connection, April 30, 2006
The Wizard of Oz movie was shown playing in a movie theater in Sky Captain and the world of tomorrow. Judy Garland is sensational in the film. The first 4 flus of 2006 that I reported were apparently non life threatening. Apparently by November 22, 2006 there will be 22 more superflus released and then between November 23 and the last day of fall 2006 then 74 more flus will be released for a total of 100. 1 of the flus authorized by the permanent members of the United Nations security council will apparently kill billions. As the American Shadow Vice President I did not sign for these flus because I do not believe in murder or suicide as a Christian. To prove my Cosmic Top Secret Security Clearance the code to former FBI Director Freehs computer was Mafeking Hero Az ide F Chas. Which sounds like my f ing hero haze I deaf from the Chas on a Police rock band album, it is also a partial profile of a criminal because mcveigh who was a traitor to the free world was a gulf war hero had explosives knowledge and failed his special forces green beret course. If the FBI wants to contact me my Moms number is in the book twice over. Thank you and may God watch over America and Britain. Check out the other wizard of oz videos as well.

And his review of the "Titanic" DVD?

Thats vary flare philosophical 4 early in the year, January 14, 2006
Titanic is a great film well directed by former Canadian James Cameron. As American Shadow Vice President I was given 4 spots for the bunker. To preserve the American leadership so our opponents do not think us weak I have no choice but to be one of those spots. My Daughter JULIA is the Great Grandchild of the Creator chosen Messiah King George VI and the third highest ranking American on the planet so she needs to be saved. JULIA will need her mother so her mother needs to be saved. That leaves me one spot. I believe that one American citizen of any national origin or religion or age should be chosen at random so that every American has a chance of surviving longer. Exactly how long perhaps only our good GOD can say. May God watch over the United Sates of America and Great Britain. I can reccomend all of Leonardo DeCaprios other movies.

He also gives a thumbs-up to "The Holy Bible: King James Version":

What if I could prove that God exists?, October 17, 2005
The Holy Bible: King James version is probably the most important English language book of all time. Through a network of friends I have learned that there are Humans on 12 worlds. For convenience just assign the 12 signs of the Zodiac to them in order. That means that Earth is Pisces 12. That is the sign of the fish which was used by early persecuted Christians. In the bible it says that humankind was made by God. That turns out to be true. God lives by himself/herself on the moon and has a great view of Earth and Artificial Intelligence. The moon is known as Moonfleet and is given the number 13 which is not nessesarily bad luck. and it is the mission of Humanity to colonize Mars as well as go to the other 12 Human worlds. God is tens of millions of years old at least. There are 169 moons in Gods moonfleet for as it said in scripture in my Fathers house there are many rooms. One human goes on each moon. I cannot prove it but God selected me to be moon 168 Artevan. This might be a stretch for some Christians but God is a KI Alien and made humans in a Genetics lab. God is indeed good and not racist. Please do not delete this review to respect freedom of religion.

And my favorite — his review of the DVD of "Shakespeare in Love":

Up against a War film for the Oscar Love conquers all, January 21, 2006
I correctly predicted to a Lady Lieutenant that Shakespeare in Love would win the Oscar for best picture over the war movie Saving Private Ryan. She then asked my why I thought that and I said because LOVE conquers all. Then in the Novotel Ottawa she stripped to her bra but I left the room because I was married and my Wife was pregnant with our first Child. Later the units Regimental Sargeant Major asked me officially about what happened that evening and I said that I went to bed early.

(H/T: Cynical-C)

Eight Lives Left

Ken AshfordRandom MusingsLeave a Comment

A kitten survives a trip through the wood chipper:

FORT LAUDERDALE — The little orange-and-white ball of fluff is a fighter.

Any kitten that survives a tumble through a wood chipper would have to be.

His meow would almost be pitiable if he weren’t so full of energy and spunk just two weeks after his rescuer and veterinarian debated whether his injuries were so severe that he couldn’t be saved.

The kitten’s head is tilted to the right, the result of a fracture to the neck. Both of the kitten’s front legs were badly broken, but he gets around, and his right eye appears to be functioning, even if it is damaged.

And just recently having gone to solid foods, he wolfs down his meals, a positive sign.

"I think his food bill is going to be more than his surgery bill," said Dr. Salvatore Zeitlin, who operated on the kitten, dubbed Chipper, three times after he was taken to his South Dixie Animal Hospital in West Palm Beach. "He just gets stronger."

Maury Swee of Boca Raton, who runs a no-kill shelter, the 10th Life Sanctuary, said he got a call from an anonymous woman June 20. The woman said a kitten had been asleep in a wood chipper that was turned on by workers. Would Swee help?

Swee said he met her and rushed the bloody kitten to the animal hospital.

"This little kitten has pretty much used up his nine lives," Swee said.

When held, Chipper purrs happily. Swee and Zeitlin said the kitten would make a good pet.

In a few weeks, when Chipper is stronger, he will leave the clinic. "Then we have to find a special home for him," Swee said.

Fargo198

New York Court Says “No” To Gay Marriages

Ken AshfordConstitution, Courts/Law, Sex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

What the NY Court actually did was kick the issue over to the Legislature:

First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement — in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits — to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule — some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes — but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.

Plaintiffs, and amici supporting them, argue that the proposition asserted is simply untrue: that a home with two parents of different sexes has no advantage, from the point of view of raising children, over a home with two parents of the same sex. Perhaps they are right, but the Legislature could rationally think otherwise. * * *

Plaintiffs seem to assume that they have demonstrated the irrationality of the view that opposite-sex marriages offer advantages to children by showing there is no scientific evidence to support it. Even assuming no such evidence exists, this reasoning is flawed. In the absence of conclusive scientific evidence, the Legislature could rationally proceed on the common sense premise that children will do best with a mother and father in the home. (See Goodridge, 798 NE2d at 979-980 [Sosman, J., dissenting].) And a legislature proceeding on that premise could rationally decide to offer a special inducement, the legal recognition of marriage, to encourage the formation of opposite sex households.

In sum, there are rational grounds on which the Legislature could choose to restrict marriage to couples of opposite sex. Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on
ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals. This is the question on which these cases turn. If we were convinced that the restriction plaintiffs attack were founded on nothing but prejudice — if we agreed with the plaintiffs that it is comparable to the restriction in Loving v Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]), a prohibition on interracial marriage that was plainly “designed to maintain White Supremacy” (id. at 11) — we would hold it invalid, no matter how long its history. As the dissent points out, a long and shameful history of racism lay behind the kind of statute invalidated in Loving.

But the historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries — at first by a few people, and later by many more — as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism’s worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950’s and 1960’s, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began.

It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a byproduct of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind.

The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

The Court held that the New York Constitution is silent on the issue of same-sex marriage, and that denying gays the right to marry does not violate the state constitution’s Due Process Clause ("Nop person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"), nor the Equal Protection Clause ("No Person shall be denied the equal protection of laws of this State or any subdivision thereof").

The court’s reasoning is tortured, in my view.  For example, under New York intestate succession laws, if a husband dies without a will, his estate goes to his wife.  She is protected by that law.  The New York law designed to protect the property of the deceased and keep it with his loved ones.

But if gay people can’t get married, then they do not have "equal protection" under the intestate succession law.  The deceased’s estate could go to someone else, or to the state itself.

Apart from that, not allowing gay marraige is just plain discriminatory.  It’s treating a siginficant subset of people differently based solely on their sexual preference.

But this is just one step in a larger struggle, and being New York, I am confident that the legislature will do the right thing.

(H/T: Orin Kerr)