It's about time for good news...

Summer isn't over in California... and I was reminded once again why I love the Golden State.

California state senate passes the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act (LA Times)

The marriage-equality bill failed in the Assembly, but Assemblyman Mark Leno used a parliamentary tactic called the gut-and-amend to revive the bill and have it pass through the Senate first. It's questionable, but hey, it worked. Leno took a marine fishery bill pending in the Senate that had already passed the Assembly (unanimously, fyi), dumped the contents and filed the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act under the same code. The support for the bill was much greater in the Senate, where the Democrats lead 25-15. The bill still has to go through the Assembly because the original contents had been "amended" (or rather, in this case, completely replaced).

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

The bill does not require any religious organization to recognize or perform marriages for same-sex couples. AB 849 make marriage as defined by law gender neutral by taking out the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman.

California state law did not place gender into the marriage code until 1977.

I'm not going to rehash all the arguments that have been made on behalf of marriage equality. Montague did that quite eloquently on Monday:

In anycase, this issue should not be handled by the federal government; this should be given to the states. This is an issue that deals with local beliefs and the ideals within a home. The federal government does not (and it is questionable if the state government) has the right to dictate the laws of marriage upon its people. Politically, it would be suicide for the federal government to pass any amendment. Either you alienate the religious right, or you alienate homosexuals and their supporters. To make everyone happy, leave it to the states!

Well-said, Count Monte.

Now, this is pretty funny:

Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Murrieta, said members should listen to a higher power when deciding how to vote.

“I don’t think there is a member in this chamber who doesn’t somewhere — either readily on the surface or somewhere deep down inside — know that this is not the right thing to do,” he said. “Where does that come from? It comes from a higher power.”

Wow... Listening to a "higher power." Let's see, where have we heard this before? Oh, right. William Seward made that speech to appeal to the "Higher Law." He ran against Lincoln for the Republican nomination in 1860, but the "Higher Law" speech (which condemned slavery) gave him a reputation for radicalism.

There is nothing wrong with using personal judgement and morals to lead people. But power in this country is derived from the people, not from religion. Why? Because the United States was, almost from its first half-century as a part of the civilized world, incredibly diverse in ethnicity and religion. Trying to impose a religious concept- like the "immorality" of homosexual marriages- would be antithetical to one of the founding principles of this nation.

Belligerent Giant

Eh, I would analyze how dumb bolton's appointment was, but I don't have enough time. But as a summary, he's waltzing around the U.N. trying to protect U.S. power while at the same time undermine the international system. He is openly opposed to the U.N. measures and doesn't seem to even be willing to negotiate a compromise. As an ambASSador, Bolton sucks. End of story. The international system has been evolving ever since the 70s and now this redneck is trying to destroy it. So sad.

[[ Addendum by Christie ]]

Also from Washington Post, the lead editorial criticizes Bolton for picking petty fights, calling him UNdiplomatic:

JUST ABOUT EVERY head of state will be in New York for a U.N. summit two weeks from now, but the preparatory diplomacy has been anything but statesmanlike. John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has demanded a long list of changes to the summit document that, though sometimes defensible in substance, has been presented in such a way as to deepen mistrust and resentment of the United States......

The millennium goals appeal to donor governments as a way to mobilize political support for aid, and they appeal to leaders in developing countries. Why pick a fight over them?

Hm, I don't know. Oh wait... Because he's a disciple of the school of diplomacy that teaches unconditional U.S. superiority. Because he's had a LONG HISTORY of being a hostile SOB. Because he's Bush's little lapdog and will do whatever he can to make sure the big industries in the U.S. can save a few bucks from environmental standards.