Not only am I a Gen-Xer stuck in the generation of high GOP-id, I believe my specific birth year coincides with one of the maxima points.  Sheesh.

And yet, though I grew up in a Republican household (certainly more along the fiscal conservative, pseudo-libertarian style), I can say that I never voted for a Republican for any major office.  Though I accepted plenty of negative comments about Carter from my Dad, I quickly become suspicious of what Reagan set about doing.  By the time I could vote in my first Presidential in '84, I was pretty far to the left, voting for Jackson in the Dem primary and throwing away my vote on Bozo the Clown rather than Mondale in the fall.  

I guess it was the people I was hanging out with, but it hasn't been until recently that I've gotten a better sense of how much Reagan-love remains in my cohort.  Still, the many of these Reaganites also seem to be having a problem regarding where the GOP is these days.

My son is a Millennial under the above definition, but he won't be voting until 2018 (2020 for Pres) so there's plenty of time for  future events to affect his perceptions.  

Hey, has anybody come up with a name yet for the post-Millenials?  Not that they are going to be surveyed anytime soon but just curious what grouping my daughter falls into.

Perhaps, though given Zeit's later arguments based on Biblical derivation as a foundation for modern law, I wonder.  

Personally, I do think it better if Prop 8 is repealed by initiative (and I think it is doable in 2010).  Then again, I am married heterosexual so any delay has no direct impact on me.
 

So at this point, it looks like there's little doubt the CSC will affirm all marriages done before Prop 8's passage while there is less than a 50/50 chance that they will take down Prop 8 itself.  But if they don't, having those marriages in place will make voter repeal easier.  We shall see.

This is clearly an unconvincing position to you but many people, backed-up by no little amount of research, believe people are born gay and lesbian as well.

Um, I think, with pretty much all protected classes, there are verifiable histories of bigotry and damage done.  That is sort of the requirement, no?  Of course, you appear to be arguing that the  matter of degree is key.  So perhaps, blacks and maybe Native Americans (you know, the genocide thing) should be afforded the super-special protections and "lesser" aggrieved groups, e.g., Jews (hmm, does stuff that happens in other countries count?), women, Hispanic/Latinos, etc. just get the typical protections.  We might have to split Asians up - which counts more: the extensive but early anti-Chinese bias or the more recent internment of Japanese Americans?  So much to consider...  

The rest of this isn't much more compelling.  First of all, I think the CSC as well as other Courts have already affirmed that marriage is a right so that point isn't in legal contention.  But even if you consider it a privilege, what is your point?  Having a driver's license is a privilege granted by the state.  Are you suggesting that it would be perfectly reasonable if the state decided that it wouldn't issue driver licenses to gays and lesbians?  Under your premise, there is no reason why that wouldn't be okay, right?  Would it matter whether it was decided by the voters, the legislature, or by executive order?  Don't you think if the matter was brought to the CSC, they would almost certainly invalidate it.

Having a driver's license is referred to as a privilege because there are certain standards of ability and lawfulness that the state feels are required (for public safety) for such a privilege to be granted.  Being gay or lesbian is irrelevant.  Likewise, unless you are arguing that gay and lesbian couples lack either the abilities required to be married or the inclination to follow marriage laws, I don't see any basis for denying them to be married even if you see marriage as a privilege.  Your support for domestic partnerships suggests that you believe gays and lesbians have the requisite relationship abilities.  I only see semantics from there.

I really don't understand your position.

Yes, Prop 8 passed.  Assuming the CSC doesn't invalidate it, how will you feel when the voters overturn it in 2010 or 2012?  It will again be the "will of the people" though probably only something like 52/48 in favor of gay marriage.  But I guess that will be acceptable to you. Hell, even if it is 50.00001 to 49.99999, you will cheer the power of democracy, right?  

Second, history is showing that, when push comes to shove, domestic partnerships create a tiered system that Courts just don't seem to like.  Ironically, conservative resistance to providing more domestic partnership benefits have led many to conclude that simply opening marriage to gay and lesbian couples is the easier process to pursue.  

But your suggestion about DOMA takes the cake.  Since we already have gay marriage happening in MA, overturning DOMA would quite possibly mean that gay marriage would effectively have to be recognized in all 50 states, bringing it right back to CA (assuming you can make the trip to MA).  How is that the will of CA voters or any voters for that matter?  But I certainly agree with the goal.

The future is pretty clear on where this is all going.  We can play stupid little games with the rights of certain minority families for the next few years or we can accept now where our younger generations will take us despite us.  I guess I prefer being nice now.

Six months ago I was a big proponent of the "all civil unions by the state and marriage left to the churches" idea.  There are two things that talked me out of this:

1) While there MIGHT be enough force of will for such a change in a place like CA, the laws all over the country and at the federal level use the term "marriage."

2) The churches against gay marriage already know that they will lose control over the word "marriage" even given such a demarcation between the state and the church.  This is because quite a few denominations have already indicated an interest in performing gay marriages.  For example, the Catholic church will still feel under siege if the Presbyterians are bonding gays and lesbians in holy matrimony.  They are enough self-aware to know that as other faiths go for it, they will end up looking like backwards jerks.  As much as religions try to adhere to their core principals, there are basic promotion issues to consider.  

I agree that that ad was somewhat effective in the same way Howard Dean was marginalized by his over the top enthusiasm in the 2004 primary.  People get anxious seeing/hearing such things.  (I suspect that Newsom's voice was being intentionally distorted to maximize impact - feel free to talk me down from this).

But, really, what was devastating, was "the kids being taught about gay marriage in schools" ad.  That was the winner for them.  You can see it in the exits.  You can see it in the fact that the No on 8 rebuttal ad was followed by a Yes on 8 rebuttal rebuttal (They knew this was winning for them).  That ad swung more than enough moderates and maybe even a few liberals.  Yes, a totally spurious argument but I saw it working in liberal/moderate acquaintances who worried of the possibility of having to explain the whole gay thing to their kids earlier than they wished to.  And this is really the problem: many straight moderates and liberals are basically accepting of homosexuality but they are not yet committed to defending it - that's where you need to be when it comes to the question of children and families.  Straights have to be willing to take the buses into Modesto and Fresno and Bakersfield to support gay rights.  Having a huge rally in WeHo means little compared to a huge rally of mostly straight people in Barstow.  Straight families supporting gay families.  I am not saying that this is about calling in the straight cavalry because the gays alone can't do it; they might be able to achieve that bare margin needed.  But if we are talking about a lasting, unassailable difference, we lib/mod straights need to internalize this.  

Look at the primary Yes on 8 imagery: a man, a woman, a(n older) boy, a (younger) girl.  This is their model for a family.  We need to flood the state with shirts showing two male parents, two female parents, one female parent, one male parent, all boy children, all girl children, the girl child as older, grandparents as primary caregivers, adopted/foster parents as primary caregivers; the list goes on.  The Yes on 8 people don't represent CA, they represent a Norman Rockwell painting!

ok, my third post on this tonight - I'm overdoing it.

While the loss margin might represent a number of LGBT non-voters out there in theory, it is simply not a good idea for minorities to rely upon themselves for civil rights advances - there needs to be a far broader base of people who aren't directly affected but acknowledge that majority rule must have its limits.

Frankly I can't stop thinking about 8 passing and it has no direct or even indirect bearing on my life as a heterosexual without gay friends or relatives interested in being married (I do have both G/L friends and relatives in my life but they have no interest in getting married).  Yes, the LBGT community must be out in force but so do the rest of us that understand what is fair and just.

Listen, protests aren't only happening in CA.  When I checked in to a hotel in Vegas Monday night, the clerk, seeing my No on Prop 8 button, said that a protest was already planned at UNLV against the some LDS facility there if Prop 8 passed.  I just tried searching for it.  Didn't find it but found a different protest happening in Salt Lake City.  

To some degree I feel sorry for the Church of LDS.  Yes, they bankrolled a plurality of funds for Yes on 8 but the other churches they aligned themselves with also don't care much for them and now the Church of LDS seems to be taking the entirety of the backlash.  Maybe they will rethink being the vanguard next time.  So in this regard, the protests may be effective.

So it's clear that Obama opposes Prop 8 but that, in general, their position seems to be a support for the civil union option.  I find this somewhat contradictory and confusing and it doesn't surprise me that people think Obama supports the opposite view.  The answers in the VP debate were so mushy on both sides.  Moving forward, while the Dems have made some noise about dealing with DADT in cooperation with DOD, I haven't heard any perspectives about what should be done, if anything, about DOMA.

I suppose this speaks to the issue of ads that are both effective and unfair.  Trading upon anti-Mormon bias could very well work for a good percentage of the electorate and I am inclined, given how strongly I feel about this issue, to accept any tactic, but, in the end, I personally would not green-light this.  I thought the letter linked to here earlier this week from a Mormon arguing against Prop 8 using an insider's knowledge was far more effective, even to people of other Christian faiths (As an atheist I'm probably not the best judge but the sincerity of the letter was the key thing for me).  

I guess, for me, I'd rather that this ad not be out there but, if it does have an impact against 8, I can live with that.  It can probably be said that the the Church of LDS is more annoyingly aggressive about imposing their beliefs on others than many other faiths.  Certainly I find great irony in the Mormon Church's hamfisted stance against one pretty simple variation away from "traditional" marriage given their history of promoting other more complex models of marriage.

In response to a caller's question about this initiative, Thom Hartman today suggested that the group working on this may, in fact, be passing along disinformation about their lack of success.  Does anyone have an informed comment about that?

It was Thom's feeling that this would get on the ballot and pass and then be challenged for Constitutionality most likely after badly affecting the 2008 election.  I don't know if I buy that but it certainly is the case that, despite the problems they are apparently having now with the signature collection, they would have plenty of time to get on the November ballot.  Haven't seen the text of the initiative to know whether it could be interpreted to affect a concurrent election.  As the electoral college convenes after the election, I imagine that the initiative passing concurrently might be effective for 2008.

Though it seems that the Dems will go into 08 with an unusually good financial landscape, I could certainly see this being a bad diversion whereby tons of $$ will have to be dumped to defeat it.  Maybe that's the point.    

Frankly, I wish I could snap my fingers and make the CA initiative process disappear for all the "good" it has done our state.

Count me as another one who doesn't mind paying taxes (and having written some pretty big checks over the years).  I've always thought it disingenuous for the right and libertarians to primarily and generically talk of "cutting taxes" when their real conversation should be about reducing spending, eliminating government programs, and/or shifting to  taxes to fees paid by relevant users.  But like most ideas promoted on the right, using honesty and directness in their arguments is counter to their nature.  

Personally I think the government is in the best position to do quite a lot for society and rather than reducing government spending per se we need to work on priorities and efficiency.  Frankly my experience with both govt and large corporations is that they are equally likely to be inefficient but that a well-run govt program will often be more cost-effective than the equivalent private sector effort.  Obviously both the profit motive and higher pay for upper management play into a sizable part of the difference but I think there is also a level of commitment differential.  Contrary to the conservative line, there are plenty of people out there that are motivated by more than a paycheck.  

I sort of feel compelled to comment on this because I know a bit of the backstory on it due to a one degree of separation business connection to Mr. Crawford (At this point I have not met him personally but may in the future).

Nonetheless, as corruption goes, I'm not sure this is the best example.  From what I know, one of the main issues was his ownership of PepsiCo stock, which, technically is regulated on the F side of things but which hadn't had any controversial interactions with FDA during Crawford's tenure.  Further, there may have been the confounding issue of stocks within mutual fund ownership and the fact that, as a classic wealthy elite, he doesn't manage his money so directly.  So, in this case, unlike the others you mention, there was not any evidence of actual profit on his part, just failure to disclose.  And, doesn't one HAVE to admit to your crime, by definition, in pleading guilty.  

As a scientist, I have some concerns about the blurring of the line between POTENTIAL conflict of interest and actual corruption.  People at both the FDA and NIH have been targeted for COI and, while some cases are pretty cut and dry, I do question the validity of many cases.  For example, I own a relatively small amount of various mutual funds, which in an ever changing mix, purchase stocks of companies that could be affected by research I do (and publish).  But I don't keep track of what individual stocks are owned in the mutual funds - at all.  Thus while I may very well have a legal COI, I don't, in fact, have a COI in any real sense because my professional behavior can't be affected by information I don't know.  I don't think one can rely on ignorance of one's personal finances as a legal defense, though.    As someone who has had to give much thought about COI issues as Institutional Review Board member and Scientific Review Board member, we have yet to figure out rational standards.  

That's not to say I disagree with the sentence just that he should get jail time.  I suspect that these people don't feel any great pressure to be transparent in their dealings and hence blow it off even when in such a high profile position.  And now he's $90K poorer.

And I also agree that, as the head of the FDA, Crawford was ineffectual or worse.  The Plan B OTC delay was unwarranted, for example.  But it should also be remembered that the FDA does serve several groups that often have conflicting goals even internally.  For example, patients want new effective drugs as fast as possible but they also want them to be as safe as possible.  And when a drug works for 10,000 patients and kills 50 (and perhaps is a wash for another 20,000), it will always be ambigious as to how that math translates to approval or disapproval.  

In the final analysis though, the FDA worked much better under Clinton than under Bush - like every other Federal agency.

Actually, that's another issue of ethnic identity: the basic terms.  As much as it might be intellectually comforting to have logical naming conventions and demarcations, that's part of the debate.  For example, there was a shift to the use of African-American in the early 90's but it never really stuck much with the people in the category and many still prefer to be called Black (though again, this can differ wildly from person to person within the category.) Black is Beautiful after all - who wants to give that up.

""-American hyphenations aren't liked by some because they are seen as implying more recent immigrant status.  Certainly most Black and many Asian people have lineages that are more long-term American than many Europeans.   Native American is perhaps the most clear cut timingwise and placewise, but my experience has been that almost all in that category would use a tribal affiliation over the culturally useless generic designation.  And, of course, they've had the incredibly incorrect appellation "Indian" forced upon them for centuries.

I personally don't really like the use of "white" for myself but it's not like my family comes from Caucasia either (at least not as far back as anyone can determine).  And it so happens  that my direct lineage on both sides traces back to colonial America, so European-American really seems a bit of a stretch for me.  If I'm not just plain American then the use of "American" in any ethnic/racial designation is pointless.  But then this would apply to anyone who can trace back that far regardless of skin tone.  

And don't get me started on the Jewish as a religious status vs. Jewish as a culture thing.  

It would be great if all of this stuff was inconsequential and we didn't have to deal with it at all.  Unfortunately too many issues of social and economic justice are tied up into these designations at present to simply ignore them.