Showing posts with label news analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news analysis. Show all posts

U.S. Senate Passes DADT Repeal Bill 65-31!


Although passage was a foregone conclusion after the 63-33 cloture vote earlier today, the United States Senate completed its legislative work on a standalone DADT repeal bill, passing the measure 65-31, with 8 Republicans joining 55 Democrats and 2 Independents. No Democrats voted against repeal, although Joe Manchin of West Virginia (who was just elected in a special election and is up again in 2012 for a full term) did not vote and issued a statement saying he did not favor DADT repeal at this time.

ANALYSIS
Interestingly, recently outed Mark Kirk (R-IL) who had voted against repeal in the House, and voted against invoking cloture last Friday, voted for cloture and the bill this time. Other Republican surprises were recently re-elected Richard Burr of North Carolina voting in favor as well as retiring George Voinovich of Ohio. Moderate Republic Richard Lugar of Indiana surprised many observers by voting against repeal. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas was the only woman in the United States Senate to vote against DADT repeal.

100% of Democrats voting (55 of 55) voted in favor of LGBT equality. 21% of Republicans voting (6 of 37) voted against LGBT equality. 94% (16 of 17) female Senators voted in favor of LGBT equality.

Here's the roll call vote on DADT Repeal:

YEAs ---65
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---31
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Not Voting - 4
Bunning (R-KY)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)

Thoughts On Maine: We Will Prevail (Eventually)

Yesterday's election results are in and it is becoming pretty clear that Maine voters have voted to prevent their state's marriage equality law passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor from going into effect.

With 96% of precints voting, Question 1 is passing:

Yes 296289 52.79%
No 264970 47.21%

As my fellow blogger Greta Christina says, I hope that people looking at these results will give up the fiction that Proposition 8 passed last year because of the No On 8's alleged incompetency (or Black voters' alleged homophobia). Everyone agrees that Maine's No On 1 ran an excellent campaign and most rational people understand that religiosity not race is the most significant factor in voters' position on marriage equality. And she also makes the point that people who are gunning to return to the ballot in 2010 might want to reconsider that notion:
It could well be that Prop 8 won in California because the No on 8 campaign made mistakes. But it could also be that Prop 8 won in California because same-sex marriage has never, ever won at the ballot box in the U.S. It could be that Prop 8 won because same-sex marriage is just a really hard sell right now. I do think time is on our side... but when it comes to the ballot box, it isn't on our side yet.

Two: I hope the people who want to put same-sex marriage back on the ballot in California in 2010 take a long, hard look at whether that's really a good idea, and whether the timing is right.

Same-sex marriage is just really hard to win at the ballot right now. I think we need to accept that. We stand a much better chance of winning in 2012 than we do in 2010. To be blunt about it: Support for same-sex marriage skews, more than with almost any other demographic, according to age. The younger people are, the more likely they are to support it. To be brutally blunt: As more old people die, and as more young people become old enough to vote, the odds skew more and more in our favor. Also, the economy in California truly and profoundly sucks right now, and people just won't be able to donate the kind of money to a political campaign that they did in 2008. And 2012 is a Presidential election year, when voter turnout is always higher -- and high voter turnout almost always means more young voters, and almost always favors liberal candidates and causes.
I bolded the key sentences in the excerpt above. Greta Christina is just saying what MadProfessah and others have been saying since July: 2012 is the earliest Californian's should consider returning to the ballot to restore marriage rights to same-sex couples.

There are now 32 states where voters have been faced with the question of whether to be pro-gay or anti-gay with regards to relationship recognition for same-sex couples. The anti-gay side has won 31 times and lost twice (Arizona voters defeated a ballot measure that would have banned marriage for same-sex couples AND domestic partnerships in 2006 but then approved an initiative that only banned same-sex marriage in 2008. In 2009 it looks like we are winning Referendum 71 in Washington State).

On the question of marriage equality itself without domestic partnership or civil unions in the picture LGBTs have lost 31 statewide elections.

Do we really want to make it 32 in 2010?

Sunday NYT Calculates The Cost Of Being A Gay Couple

The Sunday New York Times has an in-depth analysis of the financial implications of being a same-sex couple in America. The results are fascinating reading:
It was much more complicated than we initially imagined, and that’s probably why we’ve never seen similar efforts. We looked at benefits that routinely go to married heterosexual couples but not to gay couples, like certain Social Security payments. We plotted out the cost of health insurance for couples whose employers don’t offer it to domestic partners. Even tax preparation can cost more, since gay couples have to file two sets of returns. Still, many couples may come out ahead in one area: they owe less in income taxes because they’re not hit with the so-called marriage penalty.

Our goal was to create a hypothetical gay couple whose situation would be similar to a heterosexual couple’s.

[...]

Here is what we came up with. In our worst case, the couple’s lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.

[...]

Nearly all the extra costs that gay couples face would be erased if the federal government legalized same-sex marriage.
And that last line says it all. Repeal DOMA!

Truth About That "AIDS Vaccine Breakthrough"

The New York Times and online news outlets like WebMD and DailyKos are starting to analyze more carefully the more sensationalist claims of an "AIDS vaccine breakthrough" that you may have heard pf last week.

For example, Times reporter Donald McNeil reports that
In the data itself, the real margin of success was razor-thin: 23 Thais out of 16,395.

That is, three years after getting the vaccine or a placebo, 74 in the placebo arm of the trial became infected while only 51 in the vaccine arm did.

Bloggers with a taste for biostatistics — and one rival AIDS vaccine specialist who declined to be quoted — said it would take only a handful more infected Thais in the vaccine column to shift the results from “statistically significant” to meaningless. Even one more would have weakened the data enough to make headlines saying “One Quarter Protected” more likely, given the way journalists round off numbers.

Got that? The 1/3rd protect meme that was propagated last week came from the fact that 23 fewer Thais out of more than 16,000 participants who would have been expected to get HIV, did not.

VIDEO: First TV Ads by Protect Maine Marriage Equality

Here are the first television ads in the ongoing fight to protect marriage equality in Maine this fall.


Encouragingly, Protect Maine Equality/ No On 1 has decided to take a different tack from the failed No on 8 campaign last year. Although the second ad with Bill Whitten also uses a straight parent as a surrogate for the campaign message to vote no to protect equality, it is different in two aspects from the Thorons ad last year (which was the first ad run in the Proposition 8 fight last year). 1) This time the parent's masculine bonafides are reinforced through his military and football past and 2) his body language clearly communicates that he was uncomfortable with homosexuality and marriage equality, but now he has changed his mind to embrace full equal rights for the child he loves.

The other ad with Sam and his lesbian moms is completely different from anything that No on 8 aired. It shows the impact of denying equality on straight kids who are growing up with LGBT parents. This is an important innoculation against the inevitable attack from the heterosexual supremacists who will claim that marriage equality somehow confuses abd endangers children. Sam is clearly neither of these. This is an excellent ad.

Both ads appeal to different segments of the Maine voting public but still send the same message: to protect the Maine value that everyone should be treated equally they need to vote NO on Question 1 in November.

Trans-Inclusive ENDA Introduced in U.S. Senate

Freshman Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon introduced a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (S. 1584) on Wednesday which would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity anywhere in the United States, if enacted and signed into law.
“For me, one of the huge issues that I’ve cared a lot about is equality under the law and fairness to all Americans, and this was just a core part of the way I view the world,” he said.

Merkley said he was designated as the lead sponsor of ENDA because he championed a similar non-discrimination bill in Oregon as a lawmaker in the state House, as well as legislation enacting domestic partnerships in Oregon.

As of Wednesday, Merkley had 37 co-sponsors to the legislation, including Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), according to a statement released by Merkley’s office.

Merkley is a member of the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, which would hold hearings on the legislation and fine-tune the bill before it reaches the Senate floor. But whether the committee will hold hearings on the legislation, Merkley said, has “yet to be addressed.”

“That is certainly one of the things that I’ll be pursuing with Sen. Dodd and with Sen. Kennedy’s team,” Merkley said.

Interestingly, looking at the 38 original co-sponsors of the bill, it struck MadProfessah that almost none of the Senators come from a state that does not already prohibit sexual orientation discrimination (but not necessarily gender identity discrimination) in employment. The 38 co-sponsors are:
Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [HI] - 8/5/2009
Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] - 8/5/2009
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 8/5/2009
Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] - 8/5/2009
Sen Burris, Roland [IL] - 8/5/2009
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 8/5/2009
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 8/5/2009
Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] - 8/5/2009
Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] - 8/5/2009
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] - 8/5/2009
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 8/5/2009
Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] - 8/5/2009
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 8/5/2009
Sen Franken, Al [MN] - 8/5/2009
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 8/5/2009
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 8/5/2009
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] - 8/5/2009
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] - 8/5/2009
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 8/5/2009
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [MN] - 8/5/2009
Sen Kohl, Herb [WI] - 8/5/2009
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 8/5/2009
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] - 8/5/2009
Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 8/5/2009
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 8/5/2009
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 8/5/2009
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 8/5/2009
Sen Murray, Patty [WA] - 8/5/2009
Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 8/5/2009
Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 8/5/2009
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 8/5/2009
Sen Shaheen, Jeanne [NH] - 8/5/2009
Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME] - 8/5/2009
Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] - 8/5/2009
Sen Udall, Mark [CO] - 8/5/2009
Sen Udall, Tom [NM] - 8/5/2009
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 8/5/2009
Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] - 8/5/2009
I believe only Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Carl Levin of Michigan and Robert Casey and Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania represents states that have not (yet) passed what is commonly known as "a gay rights law." There are currently 21 states which have such a law on the books, and ENDA would provide federal legislation to strengthen protections in those states as well as states which have no gay rights laws (or openly LGBT elected officials, which is often a first step in getting a law-making body to make that step).

Note that most of the states that have legalized marriage equality (MA, CT, CA, IA, VT, ME) have both senators on board (except for Iowa's Republican Senator Chuck Grassley).

WIMBLEDON 2009: Federer's "Unbelievable" Win


Unbelievable.

That's the word that Roger Federer used over and over again in his on-court interview with Sue Barker of the BBC moments after he had won his 6th Wimbledon singles title in 7 years, and record 15th major overall to seal his place in history as the greatest tennis player of his generation, possibly of all time.

He used the word "unbelievable" to describe the play of his opponent Andy Roddick (as well as the "guy" himself) in the match he had just won minutes before, to describe the ending of the match itself, to describe this moment in his career, to describe the assembled crowd watching the match and, lastly, to describe his loss to Rafael Nadal in the 2009 Australian Open men's final after which the then 13-time major champion had dissolved into tears at the awards ceremony.

Roger Federer speaks four different languages, Swiss-German (first language), German, French and English.

The word "unbelievable" in French is incroyable and unglaublich in German. My first language is English but my husband is a professional opera singer who speaks English and Spanish fluently, and understands German, Italian, French (to name just a few languages) well enough to sing in them frequently. Consulting with him, I believe that when Federer is using the word "unbelievable" in English he is using the word that he thinks is closest to the word unglaublich in German. In both French and German the word is used more as an exclamation, not an actual adjective. Federer is almost definitely not using the word in its literal sense that he believes what he is describing can not be conceived of or believed to have happened.

Because it did. We all saw it happen and could not believe our eyes.

It is an odd choice of words for someone who must have believed that he would win this match and this tournament, since he walked on the court with a custom-made jacket which not only included the attractively stylized RF monogram but also the number 15, for the number of majors the bearer would own. Some people have indicated that they could not believe Federer would act so crassly, and see this as a measure of Federer's obeisance to his sponsors and an indication of the lack of regard he had for his opponent (or his opponent's feelings). To me it seems very natural for competitors who are going to pass a historic milestone if they achieve a certain victory that they have prepared for and worked years to achieve, to prepare beforehand also for how to commemorate that significant moment. It is as surprising to me that Federer would wear a piece of clothing with the number 15 on it within 5 minutes of winning his 15th major as it would be that the Los Angeles Lakers' Kobe Bryant would appear in a post-game interview wearing a NBA Champions t-shirt.

However, in tennis "belief" is what is often at the heart of what transpires on the court.

I believe, that for the first time in a Grand Slam tennis match Andy Roddick believed he could beat Roger Federer, despite losing to him 18 times out of the 20 times the two have played and the 7 consecutives losses (3 times at Wimbledon, twice in New York and twice in Melbourne) in Grand Slam tournaments.

But Roger Federer could not believe it.

In the first set, after going up break point four times in the eleventh game of the final I believed (and am sure so did Federer) that he would win one of those points. In fact, on two of those points he missed the baseline by fractions of millimeters. What was unbelievable then was in the 12th game, facing his first break point on his own serve, Federer attempted an unbelievable forehand down-the-line pass that fell inches wide to suddenly lose the first set against the American in over three years at a Grand Slam (the second set of the 2006 U.S. Open final). Even then Federer did not lose his belief, after all in the 2004 Wimbledon Final, Federer had lost the first set 4-6 to Roddick and had won the match in four very close sets.

However, what Federer had not realized yet was that this was not the Roddick of the 2004 Wimbledon final or the 2006 U.S. Open final or even the January 2009 Australian Open semifinal. This was the newlywed Roddick who (thanks to a mostly uncredited Jimmy Connors and the excellent work of current coach Larry Stefanki) had toughened his physique, flattened out his two-handed backhand and stiffened his mental resolve.

This was a Roddick who believed he could win.

Even when he shanked a backhand volley meters wide of the doubles alley up 6-5 in the second set tiebreaker to lose his 4th consecutive set point, Roddick still believed he could win.

And he played like it. Despite losing the third set in another tiebreaker Roddick continued to hold his serve selfishly, despite facing a barrage of Federer aces, which eventually reached Karlovician proportions of 50 for the match. He relentlessly attacked Federer's serve and out-hit him from the baseline on both the forehand and backhand wings, finally earning another break in the 4th game of the 4th set. Federer saved his first breakpoint but lost the second and Roddick had his second and final break of the match.

And still Roddick believed he could win the match, especially in the fifth set, which lasted longer and contained more games than the entire Women's Final played the day before.

And why shouldn't he believe that he cold win the match? He had yet to be broken after four sets and nearly 3 hours of play.

So he served like it. 38 times Roddick held serve in the match, saving six break points of the seven he faced. Federer saved only three break points of the five he faced, but two of those saves were in the crucial fifth sets (when effectively those break points were match points) in the 17th game of that (seemingly) interminable contest.

Then, in the 77th game of the match, the 39th game he was serving, the tenth consecutive "sudden death" game in which he had to hold serve in order to stay in the match, Roddick faced his 7th break point of the match, which had the misfortune of also being a championship point for Federer in the 30th(!) game of the 5th set, hit a forehand on a bad bounce in the dirt that sailed yards beyond the other baseline and the match was over. The only break point he lost in over fours hours of play was also set point and match point. Game, set and match.

Unbelievable.

Obama Administration To Announce (Some) Federal DP Benefts

What a difference a few days make! It was announced late on Tuesday that the Obama Administration will allow domestic partners of federal employees to receive some benefits, although apparently health benefits will not be included, due to the odious Defense of Marriage Act.

According to the New York Times:
Mr. Obama, in an Oval Office announcement, is expected to offer details about which benefits will be provided. It is the most significant statement he has made on gay issues, and it comes as he faces intense criticism from several gay rights leaders over what they suggest has been a failure to live up to campaign promises in the first months of his presidency.

Mr. Obama will be weighing in for the first time on one of the most delicate social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. While he will announce a list of benefits, officials said, they are not expected to include broad health insurance coverage, which could require legislation to achieve.

The initial reaction from some gay rights advocates was mixed.

“Extending benefits to partners of gay federal employees is terrific, but at this point he is under enormous pressure from the gay civil rights community for having promised the moon and done nothing so far,” Richard Socarides, an adviser to the Clinton administration on gay issues, said Tuesday evening. “So more important now is what he says tomorrow about the future for gay people during his presidency.”
Presumably, the President will announce his support for H.R. 2517/S. 1102, the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, co-authored by Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis) which would extend health benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees.

The gay blogosphere is all over the story, and many of them are not impressed. Many people are pointing out that this first announcement of an LGBT initiative is occurring after a furor has blown up over an LGBT Democratic National Committee fundraising event scheduled for next week started receiving high profile defections.

In Jeff Zeleny's article in the Times it is revealed that
"the timing of the announcement was intended to help contain the growing furor among gay rights groups. Several gay donors withdrew their sponsorship of a Democratic National Committee fund-raising event next week, where Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is scheduled to speak."
Emphasis added by Pam Spaulding over at The Blend. John Aravosis at AmericaBlog is one of the main sparks fanning the flames of the furor.

Excitin times, peeps!

Gay Marriage Tipping Point Reached?

Kevin Drum and Joe.My.God both blogged about the above graph from Andrew Gelman at FiveThirtyEight.com in the last few days. The key paragraphs are:
Jeff Lax and Justin Phillips put together a dataset using national opinion polls from 1994 through 2009 and analyzed several different opinion questions on gay rights. Here I'm going to talk about their estimates of state-by-state trends in support for gay marriage.

In the past fifteen years, gay marriage has increased in popularity in all fifty states. No news there, but what was a surprise to me is where the largest changes have occurred. The popularity of gay marriage has increased fastest in the states where gay rights were already relatively popular in the 1990s.

In 1995, support for gay marriage exceeded 30% in only six states: New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, and Vermont. In these states, support for gay marriage has increased by an average of almost 20 percentage points. In contrast, support has increased by less than 10 percentage points in the six states that in 1995 were most anti-gay-marriage--Utah, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Idaho.
These are definitely important and interesting observations, but digging deeper, there is even more.

Most other commenters did not also discuss this even more interesting graph, which shows the current percentage of people who, when polled who support marriage for same-sex couples and/or civil unions.

Looking closely at the dark red dots, notice that marriage for same-sex couples is basically only legal in the states where it is above 50 percent. The three states which have marriage (within margin of error) at 50 percent but do not have marriage equality right now are Rhode Island, California and New York.

Clearly, a state to look at closely at in the future is Iowa which legalized marriage equality though a unanimous court decision in April.

Other interesting data to include here would be to indicate the states which have comprehensive non-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation (and gender identity).

Why The Federal Lawsuit Against Prop 8 is Wrong


The day after the California Supreme Court announced its shameful ruling upholding Proposition 8, former Bush Administration Solicitor General Ted Olson and David Boies Gore's attorney in the classic Bush v. Gore announced a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of Proposition 8 under the United States Constitution.

The LGBT organizations were not amused:
The groups released a new publication, "Why the ballot box and not the courts should be the next step on marriage in California." This publication discourages people from bringing premature lawsuits based on the federal Constitution because, without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage. The groups also revised "Make Change, Not Lawsuits," which was released after the California Supreme Court decision ending the ban on marriage for same-sex couples in California. This publication encourages couples who have legally married to ask friends, neighbors and institutions to honor their marriages, but discourages people from bringing lawsuits.
Pam at Pam's House Blend has posted a lengthy analysis of the implications of the federal lawsuit for the generally accepted strategy of the national LGBT civil rights organizations. She asks two Questions of the Day:

* is Boies' and Olson's rejection of the current legal strategy supported by our orgs a tactical error for the marriage equality battle? It represents a "Hail Mary" approach, polls and pols be damned, to solve the patchwork problem of uneven equality around the country all at once, taking the moral high road. But it's a chance the ball will be dropped and the setback with a loss could seriously damage the movement for marriage equality

* is pursuing equality on the path our LGBT organizations represent a sound strategy? The path of taking the state route gains rights for gay and lesbians with each success -- and it also ends at SCOTUS. However, it forces those in states with constitutional bans on marriage equality to languish without full civil rights until a favorable decision at that level at some unknown point in the future. It also relies on additional gains that can be made with the repeal of DOMA, for instance, something also promised but that we may not see any time soon.

My answer to both questions is Yes and one of the smartest legal minds in the LGBT community, University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Tobias Wolff agrees with me:
In 1972 -- 5 years after Loving v. Virginia, the anti-miscegenation case -- the Supreme Court actually did weigh in on the question of the federal constitutional argument for marriage equality. In a case called Baker v. Nelson, the Minnesota courts had denied a marriage equality claim by a gay couple. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which responded by dismissing the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." This is a type of action that the Court uses only infrequently -- even a lot of lawyers have not heard of it. What it basically means is that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without issuing any written opinion, expressing the view that there was no serious federal or constitutional issue to be decided -- in other words, it said that it could dismiss without even issuing a written opinion because the claim on appeal did not have enough merit to warrant a full explanation.

This kind of dismissal is binding on the lower federal courts. (It is not binding on state courts, though some choose to follow it anyway.) What that means is that, when the Supreme Court has spoken to a federal issue in this backhanded way, and the exact same issue comes before a lower federal court in a later case, the proper thing for the lower federal court to do is to dismiss the case because it is bound by the Supreme Court's earlier action.

[...]

What does all of this mean for the Olson / Boies lawsuit? Insofar as their lawsuit argues that marriage equality for everyone is required under the U.S. Constitution, there is a strong argument that the lower federal courts should simply dismiss and decline to hear the case because they are bound by Baker v. Nelson. If that happens, then the Supreme Court itself is the only one that could overrule its earlier precedent and actually decide the case on the merits.

This is an important fact to understand for a number of reasons. First, as a simple matter of predicting what will happen, it's entirely possible that the Olson / Boies lawsuit will be dismissed very quickly by the lower federal courts. Second, it reinforces the point made by the LGBT groups about the importance of laying a solid groundwork before we get our one shot at litigating this issue before the Supreme Court (and, realistically, we will likely get only one shot). Baker v. Nelson prevents the lower federal courts from engaging in the ordinary process of wrestling with a contentious issue in a series of cases before the Supreme Court finally weighs in. It is therefore all the more important to develop a solid foundation of precedent in the state courts, because we may not have the opportunity to do that in the federal courts. And, with all due respect to Olson and Boies and despite my whole-hearted agreement that we should not have to wait to enjoy the rights that we deserve, the fact is that the Civil Rights Movement was the most strategic, careful and patient litigation effort that this country had ever seen, waiting decades to bring the school desegregation and anti-miscegenation cases until they knew that they had laid a sufficient groundwork to achieve a victory before the Supreme Court. I am thrilled at the outrage that these two men feel on our behalf and I welcome their input and their efforts. But they do need to learn their history.

Two more quick points. This kind of "dismissal for want of a substantial federal question" is not a good way to decide cases, and there is a strong argument that it should always be construed narrowly. So, for example, in the challenge to the federal portions of DOMA that GLAD has brought in Massachusetts federal court, Baker v. Nelson should not pose any obstacle. GLAD is raising a very different kind of claim -- that the federal government can't discriminate against couples who have already been validly married by their home state. The lower federal courts are free to decide that issue on its merits.

By the same token, if Olson and Boies had brought a much narrower challenge to Proposition 8 -- if they had argued that the particular sequence of events in California raised a unique constitutional problem because Prop 8 took marriage away from a group of people who already enjoyed equal rights under state law -- then matters would be different. Baker v. Nelson probably would not control a more carefully drafted lawsuit like that, and the dangers associated with such a lawsuit might be somewhat more contained (though there would still be serious questions about whether it represents the right approach). There are hints of that more narrow argument in the Olson / Boies complaint, but only hints -- in the end, they do not make the more careful argument but instead just go for broke.
What do you think?

NYT Analysis on Prop 8 Ruling

Justice Carlos R. Moreno

The New York Times story on the Proposition 8 ruling contains this fabulous analogy which gets to the heart of why the California Supreme Court's ruling in Strauss was so wrong:
Karl M. Manheim, a professor at Loyola Law School Los Angeles who had filed a brief with the court opposing Proposition 8, called the decision a “safe” one from justices who can be recalled by voters. The change wrought by Proposition 8 was anything but narrow, Professor Manheim said, and claiming that the word “marriage” is essentially symbolic is like telling black people that sitting in the back of the bus is not important as long as the front and the back of the bus arrive at the same time.

[...]

The sole dissenting vote in Tuesday’s decision came from Justice Carlos R. Moreno, previously mentioned as a possible choice by President Obama for the United States Supreme Court.

Justice Moreno wrote that Proposition 8 means “requiring discrimination,” which he said “strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution” and, he added, “places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities.”
If you are as big a fan of Justice Carlos R. Moreno as I am now, please send him a letter praising his dissent in the Prop 8 case at:
Hon. Carlos R. Moreno
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, 94102
Moreno is up for re-appointment to the California Supreme Court before the voters in November 2010. Let's make sure he gets a full 12 year term.

Sheila Kuehl's Brilliant Analysis Of Prop 8 Ruling


One of the smartest people in politics gay or straight, is former California State Senator Sheila James Kuehl, who sent out this brilliant analysis of the California Supreme Court Prop 8 ruling in Strauss v. Horton yesterday.
The Opinion

Today, the California Supreme Court ruled on the validity of Proposition 8, the measure adopted by California voters last November to add a new section 7.5 to Article I of the California Constitution, as follows: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".

The measure was challenged by a coalition of organizations and individuals who favor the ability of same-sex couples to marry on three bases:
1. That the measure adopted by the voters 52% to 48% was not a simple amendment to the state Constitution, which may be adopted by a majority vote, but, rather, a revision to the Constitution, which may not. The Constitution may only be changed in one of these two ways, and, if the change is actually a revision to the Constitution, it must either be passed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the state Legislature and put to a vote of the people, or proposed through a constitutional convention and put to a vote.
2. The second challenge theorized that Prop 8 violated the separation of powers principle because it abrogated a previous Supreme Court decision which held that, under Equal Protection and Due Process principles, same sex couples had the same right to marry in California as opposite sex couples.
3. The Attorney General advanced a different theory: that the "inalienable" right articulated by the Court in the Marriage Cases could not be abrogated by a majority vote unless there was a compelling state interest in doing so.
The Court rejected all three, holding that they were required to find that the Constitution could be amended by a majority of voters in any election, even if the amendment abrogated a fundamental right previously articulated by the Court.

How Could They Say That?

The Court set out the legal principle that distinguishes an amendment from a revision: That it must change the basic governmental plan or framework of the Constitution. In deciding whether Prop 8 did, indeed, change the Constitution at such a basic level, the Court decided it did not, and, also, that it did not "entirely repeal or abrogate" the rights articulated in the Marriage Cases.

This is where the Court seriously lost its way.

Marriage is Just A Word....Not

Here's what the majority opinion said, which I think is not only seriously in error, but a cowardly about-face from their language in the Marriage Cases, which is reprinted in the next section.

First: today's decision:
"In analyzing the constitutional challenges presently before us, we first explain that the provision added to the California Constitution by Proposition 8, when considered in light of the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757 (which preceded the adoption of Proposition 8), properly must be understood as having a considerably narrower scope and more limited effect than suggested by petitioners in the cases before us. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases - that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to "choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage" (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term "marriage" for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws."

In other words....what's the big deal about the word "marriage"?

As it turns out, quite a bit. Here's what the same Court said about it in the Marriage Cases:

First, it set out the principle it quotes in the new opinion:
"In responding to the Attorney General's argument, the majority opinion stated that "[w]e have no occasion in this case to determine whether the state constitutional right to marry necessarily affords all couples the constitutional right to require the state to designate their official family relationship a 'marriage,' " because "[w]hether or not the name 'marriage,' in the abstract, is considered a core element of the state constitutional right to marry, one of the core elements of this fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships.

But, then, the Court answers its own question as to the importance of the word Marriage:

"The current statutes - by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership _ pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry."

It is a distinction that makes an enormous difference and, therefore, should be seen as a revision to the state's Equal Protection and Due Process requirements.

By hanging its decision that Prop 8 was an amendment and not a revision on the slim and dishonest statement that same sex couples are not denied legal rights by denying them the "word" marriage, the Court errs.

Justice Moreno, in Dissent

Bless his heart and his mind. Here is what he says:
"The question before us is not whether the language inserted into the California Constitution by Proposition 8 discriminates against same-sex couples and denies them equal protection of the law; we already decided in the Marriage Cases that it does. The question before us today is whether such a change to one of the core values upon which our state Constitution is founded can be accomplished by amending the Constitution through an initiative measure placed upon the ballot by the signatures of 8 percent of the number of persons who voted in the last gubernatorial election and passed by a simple majority of the voters. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 8.) Or is this limitation on the scope of the equal protection clause to deny the full protection of the law to a minority group based upon a suspect classification such a fundamental change that it can only be accomplished by revising the California Constitution, either through a constitutional convention or by a measure passed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature and approved by the voters? (Cal. Const., art. XVIII.)

For reasons elaborated below, I conclude that requiring discrimination against a minority group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution and thus "represents such a drastic and far-reaching change in the nature and operation of our governmental structure that it must be considered a 'revision' of the state Constitution rather than a mere 'amendment' thereof." (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 221 (Amador Valley).) The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority. I therefore dissent."

Me, too.

Marriage Equality Opponents Acknowledge Inevitability

As the inevitability of marriage equality becomes more obvious to everyone, even the heterosexual supremacists who will say anything to attempt to  stop the practice are starting to shift their arguments from the desirability of marriage equality to the consequences of marriage equality. 

From the killer ad in the debate during the Proposition 8 which claimed that if the constitutional amendment did not pass then kindergarteners would be forced to learn about same-sex marriage to the hilarious National Organization for Marriage ad which claimed that there was a gathering storm of threats to religious liberty in the form of marriage equality, opponents to same-sex marriage are trying to shift discussion from whether same-sex couples should get marriage licences from the state to how marriage equality will affect everyone's lives. 

In Sunday's Los Angeles Times Washington and Lee University Law Professor Robin Wilson has an op-ed in this vein, entitled "The flip-side of same-sex marriage."

So what should states do to respond to these clashes between same-sex relationships and religious liberty?

What they should not do is what New Hampshire's Senate did last week: pay lip-service to religious freedom while enacting meaningless protections. New Hampshire's bill provides that "members of the clergy ... shall not be obligated ... to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion." But this is a hollow guarantee: The 1st Amendment already provides such protection.

Last month, Connecticut and Vermont became the first states to pass conscience protection for religious dissenters in their same-sex marriage laws. Both states provide that religious groups "shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if the request ... is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage." Both also bar civil suits by people denied such wedding-related services.

Connecticut went even further. In that state, a "religious organization" providing adoption services may continue to place children only with heterosexual married couples as long as it gets no government money. Thus, in Connecticut, unlike in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities will not have to close its doors or face litigation threats.

As important as these exemptions for organizations are, states still weighing same-sex marriage should do better. Wedding advisors, photographers, bakers, caterers and other service providers who prefer to step aside from same-sex ceremonies for religious reasons also need explicit protection.

Some have argued that gay-marriage laws do not need such guarantees because they don't require religious objectors to do any particular thing. But new laws are interpreted in light of existing statutes, and Vermont and Connecticut -- as well as all six states still considering same-sex marriage -- have laws on the books prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Because of those laws, many people could have to choose between conscience and livelihood. In Massachusetts, individuals violating the non-discrimination statute can be fined up to $50,000. In Connecticut, business owners can be sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Conscience protections are a thoroughly American idea. Since Colonial times, legislatures have exempted religious minorities from laws inconsistent with their faith. Such exemptions allow Americans with radically different views on moral questions to live in peace and equality in the same society.

Connecticut and Vermont have gone part of the way toward recognizing that the rights of same-sex couples should not come at the expense of the religious people who believe that marriage means a husband and a wife.

Now, New York, Illinois, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia should take the time to get same-sex marriage right.
I find it fascinating that the debate over same-sex marriage is now shifting from whether it will happen or should happen but to a debate over what the consequences will be when it does happen.

This is progress, folks!

I'm actully reasonably favorably inclined to agree to strong religious exemptions from non-discrimination provisions as a result of governmental recognition of same-sex marriage if 1) such exemptions are public record and only apply to organizations which receive no federal or state funds (i.e. I want to know who are the caterers, florists, etc who want to say "we don't serve your kind!") and 2) they agree to work to repeal the current federal and state bans on state recognition of same-sex relationships (i.e. DOMA and the 30 states which have banned same-sex marriage by voter intiative) and 3) they do not oppose future legislation to legalize same-sex marriage if it contains these agreed upon religious exemptions.

Additionally, I don't quite see why someone's religious beliefs allow them to discriminate on the basis of any characteristic. Were there religious exemptions for discrimination on the basis of race in the 1960s?

It's not clear to me why current public accomodations jurisprudence can't be used to settle this question. Generally, if you offer services to the public, you don't get to choose a protected class to discriminate against in the provision of this public service. However, I am willing to offer the exemption under the agreement of the three conditions I stated earlier.

Analysis Of Recent Marriage Polling Data

Poll maven Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com put together a list of the public polls released since election day in 2008 and shows that support for state recognition of same-sex couples has shifted dramatically since Proposition 8 passed in November 2008.

R.I.P. North East G.O.P.


kos continues his analysis of the demise of the GOP by looking more closely at the Republican representation in the state legislatures, Governors mansions and 2008 electoral votes in the North Eastern United States (CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NY, NH, NJ, PA, RI, VT, and WV).

Presidential: 5 of 119 electoral votes

West Virginia was the only state to give its electoral votes to John McCain. The closest any of the other states came was New Hampshire, where Obama won by an easy nine points.

Senate: 3 of 24 seats

Two in Maine, one in New Hampshire. That NH seat will flip (D) in 2010. The two Maine senators, now alone in a hostile GOP, are candidates for future party switches. Especially Sen. Olympia Snowe.

House: 18 of 95 seats

Seven of those are in grossly gerrymandered Pennsylvania, and five in grossly gerrymandered New Jersey.

Governors: 3 of 12 states

Voters in liberal Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont have elected Republican governors in large part as a check on the hugely Democratic state legislatures.

State Legislatures: 1 of 24 chambers, 815 out of 2,347 total seats

CT:
House 114D-37R
Senate 24D-12R

DE:
House 114D-37R
Senate 25D-16R

ME:
House 96D-54R-1I
Senate 20D-15R

MD:
House 104D-36R-1I
Senate 33D-14R

MA:
House 143D-16R
Senate 35D-5R

NY:
Assembly 107D-41R-2I
Senate 32D-30R
NH:
House 224D-174R
Senate 14D-10R

NJ:
Assembly 48D-32R
Senate 23D-17R

PA:
House 104D-98R
Senate 30R-20D

RI:
House 69D-6R
Senate 33D-4R-1I

VT:
House 95D-48R-7I
Senate 23D-7R

WV:
House 71D-29R
Senate 28D-8R

So of 24 chambers in the region, Republicans only hold the grossly gerrymandered Pennsylvania Senate. In fact, count all the seats in the region, and Democrats hold 1,532 total seats compared to just 815 for the GOP.


Vermont Now Has Marriage Equality!!

The Vermont House voted 100-49 to override the veto of the Governor, following the State Senate voting 23-5.

The bill is adopted.

There are now four states in which marriage is gender neutral: Vermont (April 7, 2009 September 1, 2009), Iowa (April 24, 2009), Connecticut (2008) and Massachusetts (2004).

California Supreme Court Justice Ron George--which side of history do you want to be on?

Best Analysis of IOWA Marriage Decision

Art Leonard over at Leonard Link and for New York City's Gay City News analyzes the Iowa Marriage case in a brilliant (if not concise!) fashion:

This is the first time that a state supreme court has unanimously concluded that same-sex couples have an equal right with different-sex couples to marry as a matter of state constitutional law. Prior same-sex marriage victories have all come from closely divided courts, as have the defeats.

Since the Polk County Recorder was the defendant in this case, it was that county's attorney, not the Iowa attorney general, who argued the state's position.

The beautifully and clearly written opinion by Justice Mark Cady stands as a strong rebuke to the bizarre plurality opinion produced by Judge Robert Smith of the New York Court of Appeals in the 2006 ruling in Hernandez v. Robles, which rejected the right of same-sex couples to marry here.

Cady's opinion also built on the important 2008 opinions from California Chief Justice Ronald George and Connecticut Justice Richard N. Palmer. Cady cited and quoted from George and Palmer, but made many important contributions in helping to explain why the court reached its decision.

The court decided to treat this as an equal protection case concerning a statute that discriminates based on sexual orientation. The plaintiffs had challenged on both gender and sexual orientation discrimination grounds, and the trial judge had seen this as a gender discrimination case, but the court decided to cut through the semantics and get to the heart of the matter: the challenged law, enacted as part of the surge in state so-called Defense of Marriage Acts during the 1990s, was intended to exclude gay people from marrying.

Cady opened his opinion with a brief civics lesson on the three branches of government fundamental to American constitutional law and the role of the courts in dealing with claims that statutes are unconstitutional. He reviewed highlights of Iowa equal protection precedents, including rulings recognizing the equality rights of black people more than two decades before the Civil War, an 1873 decision questioning the constitutionality of racial segregation -- more than 80 years before the US Supreme Court came to that point in Brown v. Board of Education -- and Iowa's distinction as the first state in the nation to strike down the exclusion of women from the legal profession, in 1869.

Getting to the nub of the marriage equality question, he wrote, "This issue comes to us with the same importance as our landmark cases of the past. The same-sex-marriage debate waged in this case is part of a strong national dialogue centered on a fundamental, deep-seated, traditional institution that has excluded, by state action, a particular class of Iowans. This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage?"

[...]

This reasoning is a direct rejection of the methodology used by state courts that have embraced the "channeling procreation" theory as a justification for providing marriage only to different-sex couples -- especially the absurd contention by New York Court of Appeals Judge Robert Smith that because same-sex couples can only have children through "intentional actions" (such as donor insemination, surrogacy, or adoption), there is no need to dangle the benefits of marriage in front of them in order to "channel" their procreative activities. Different-sex couples, in contrast, according to Smith's argument, often bear children with no planning, and so need to be steered toward a stable family structure.

Given the Iowa court's framing of the issue, Polk County's case collapsed like a house of cards, since none of the justifications it offered could possibly meet the test of substantially advancing a legitimate governmental objective. Cady quickly demolished the county's argument that maintaining or preserving traditional marriage could qualify as the necessary justification.

"A specific tradition sought to be maintained cannot be an important governmental objective for equal protection purposes," he wrote, "when the tradition is nothing more than the historical classification currently expressed in the statute being challenged. When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification."

[...]

Iowa's court was not ready to embrace the halfway measures suggested by the New Jersey and Vermont Supreme Courts, which led to the enactment of civil union laws in those states.

"A new distinction based on sexual orientation," Cody wrote, "would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution."

Accordingly, the portion of the Iowa Code "limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage."

This is just an excerpt. You should really do yourself a favor and read the whole thing yourself.

Prop 8 Polling Analysis Estimates 55% Failure Chance

Polling whiz Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com analyzes the latest data on Proposition 8 and finds the race very very close, with a 55% probability of Proposition 8 failing. Polling data on propositions is apparently notoriously less reliable, but as shown in the graphic, the trend lines for the NO ON PROP 8 position (the red curve) are not encouraging.

55%-45% is barely better than flipping a coin. Do you want to flip a coin on whether a fundamental right for a minority group of people will be (for the first time ever in California!) eliminated by a majority vote?

However, there is encouraging news that the opposition has closed the gap on fundraising with the proponents. Although 70% of the heterosexual supremacists' money raised since July 1 comes from Mormons, their total has now reached $26.7 million dollars, with the opponents having raised $26.1 million. This is now the most expensive gay ballot measure in history, with more money being spent and raised than all 33 previous state anti-gay ballot measures from 1998 through 2006 combined.

I would remind you that you can donate to defeat Proposition 8 through the MadProfessah.com match. We are currently at 31% of our goal of raising $1000 before November 1, which will be matched by me. Please click on the thermometer on the right side of the page and donate now. Any amount, $10, $25 or $100 will help to put ads on the air and Get Out The Vote, in the largest field operation the LGBT community has ever put together. Thanks!

The Government Asks For $700 Billion--Here Are The Conditions

There's a great post on DailyKos from U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) on some principles which should be followed in the rush to give a 700 billion dollar blank check to the Bush administration to "bailout" the troubles United States financial services industry and save the economy.

In my view, we need to go forward in addressing this financial crisis by insisting on four basic principles:
(1) The people who can best afford to pay and the people who have benefited most from Bush’s economic policies are the people who should provide the funds for the bailout. It would be immoral to ask the middle class, the people whose standard of living has declined under Bush, to pay for this bailout while the rich, once again, avoid their responsibilities. Further, if the government is going to save companies from bankruptcy, the taxpayers of this country should be rewarded for assuming the risk by sharing in the gains that result from this government bailout.
Specifically, to pay for the bailout, which is estimated to cost up to $1 trillion, the government should: a) Impose a five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers. That would raise more than $300 billion in revenue;
b) Ensure that assets purchased from banks are realistically discounted so companies are not rewarded for their risky behavior and taxpayers can recover the amount they paid for them; and
c) Require that taxpayers receive equity stakes in the bailed-out companies so that the assumption of risk is rewarded when companies’ stock goes up.
(2) There must be a major economic recovery package which puts Americans to work at decent wages. Among many other areas, we can create millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and moving our country from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. Further, we must protect working families from the difficult times they are experiencing. We must ensure that every child has health insurance and that every American has access to quality health and dental care, that families can send their children to college, that seniors are not allowed to go without heat in the winter, and that no American goes to bed hungry.
(3) Legislation must be passed which undoes the damage caused by excessive de-regulation. That means reinstalling the regulatory firewalls that were ripped down in 1999. That means re-regulating the energy markets so that we never again see the rampant speculation in oil that helped drive up prices. That means regulating or abolishing various financial instruments that have created the enormous shadow banking system that is at the heart of the collapse of AIG and the financial services meltdown.
(4) We must end the danger posed by companies that are "too big too fail," that is, companies whose failure would cause systemic harm to the U.S. economy. If a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. We need to determine which companies fall in this category and then break them up. Right now, for example, the Bank of America, the nation’s largest depository institution, has absorbed Countrywide, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, and Merrill Lynch, the nation’s largest brokerage house. We should not be trying to solve the current financial crisis by creating even larger, more powerful institutions. Their failure could cause even more harm to the entire economy.
The full text of Sanders' statement can be read here. I'm glad to see some people are standing up and saying "Whoa, nelly!" before they accede to a Bush administration request to spend another $700 billion (the same amount spent on the Iraq War to date.)