New Unemployment Numbers Are Good News for the White House, but the Silver Cloud Has a Dark Lining

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell at http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/new-unemployment-numbers-are-good-news-for-the-white-house-but-the-silver-cloud-has-a-dark-lining/


The White House doubtlessly is happy that the unemployment rate has dropped to 8.5 percent, in part because the President is much more likely to get reelected if voters think the economy is heading in the right direction.
But the latest drop in the unemployment is not unambiguous good news for the Obama Administration.
Before explaining why, let’s take a brief detour and look at how the unemployment rate is calculated. The key thing to understand is that there are two moving parts. First, the government estimates the number of unemployed people. That’s the obvious part of the calculation.
But in order to calculate the unemployment rate, the government has to estimate the size of the labor force. But this is not a simple number to calculate because many people who could work – such as women with young children, students, people approaching retirement age – sometimes decide that their time could be better spent doing other things.
So the government has to look at all the people who don’t have jobs and guess how many of them would like to work.
With this in mind, let’s look at the unemployment rate. The simple way to think about unemployment numbers is that the joblessness rate can rise or fall for good reasons and bad reasons.
If the unemployment rate drops because hundreds of thousands of jobs are being created each month, that’s obviously good news.
But if the jobless rate falls because the government estimates that lots of people have become discouraged and dropped out of the labor force, then that’s not good news.
In other words, sometimes the unemployment rate, by itself, doesn’t tell the full story.
That’s why one of the best statistics to look at is the employment-population ratio, which measures the number of people who have jobs and compares it to the number of people who could have jobs.
And by this measure, the Obama White House can’t be very happy. As illustrated in the chart, the job numbers have barely begun to recover.

This is a woefully under-reported piece of data. A few news outlets do mention the phenomenon of “discouraged workers” dropping out of the labor market, but only policy geeks like me seem to pay attention.
But the employment-population ratio does have real-world implications. The economy’s overall level of output (i.e., national income, gross domestic product, etc) depends on how many people are working. And that is what determines whether living standards are rising, falling, or stagnating.
This is why the Obama Administration can’t rely of a falling unemployment rate. As I’ve explained elsewhere, the American economy appears to have suffered a permanent loss of output in recent years.
So what does this mean, for those of you who care about political implications of economic statistics? The honest answer is that I have no idea. But since living standards are still stagnant, a falling joblessness rate won’t necessarily translate into a victory for the incumbent party.

Hungary Threatens Religious Liberty

by Doug Bandow at www.cato.org

Religious repression typically occurs in Islamic or authoritarian regimes. Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, Cuba, Pakistan and Burma come to mind. But it appears that European democracies are not immune from the virus. Unfortunately, Hungary has adopted legislation which undermines this most basic liberty.

Hungary has a well-earned reputation for fighting for freedom. It was the locus of revolutionary ferment in 1848, which was suppressed by the Austrian empire only with the help of Tsarist Russia. In 1956 Hungarians revolted against their Soviet overlords. Although the revolution was brutally crushed, the people's spirit of resistance forced the new Hungarian communist leadership to rule with a lighter economic hand. In 1989 Budapest turned the modest freedom wave rolling through the Soviet bloc into a tsunami by tearing down the border fence with Austria. The result was a large break in the Iron Curtain which could not be closed.
Democratic Hungary joined both the European Union and NATO. With the implosion of the left-leaning government last year Fidesz, the Hungarian Civic Union, and its smaller partner, KDNP, the Christian Democratic People's Party, won more than two thirds of the National Assembly seats. (Fidesz is by far the dominant partner; the two parties run on a shared list.) Prime Minister Viktor Orban took office with an opportunity to transform his nation.

Unfortunately, however, the observation that a parliamentary system often turns into a democratic dictatorship proved to be true. Prime Minister Orban has exhibited authoritarian tendencies.
Over the last year, reports the human rights group Freedom House, Hungary moved backward in terms of civil society, independent media, national democratic governance and judicial independence. The individual setbacks were modest, but collectively represent a worrisome erosion of basic liberties. Freedom House still rates Hungary as free, but moving in a negative direction.
Explained the organization, the new government reduced various governmental checks and balances. The Orban ministry also "curtailed freedom of speech through the adoption of new media legislation; intimidated the judiciary by summoning judges to parliamentary hearings on cases related to the riots of 2006; changed election procedures to give the ruling parties an edge in the October municipal elections; and nationalized the savings in a system of compulsory private pension funds."
Much attention has focused on the government's restrictive new media law. Reported Freedom House: "Hungary received a downward trend arrow due to the government's efforts to consolidate control over the country's independent institutions, including the creation of a new media council dominated by the ruling party that has the ability to impose large fines on broadcast print, and online media outlets."
The State Department raised similar concern in its annual report on human rights. New laws "broadened the range of views whose expression was illegal" and "concentrated authority over the media in a single government body with wide-ranging authorities." A report for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe warned that the legislation introduced "stricter regulation, more pervasive controls and limitations on freedom of expression."
While the government might not abuse its new powers, the temptation to punish journalists for the content of their speech, especially when it is critical of the government, will be strong if not overwhelming. Moreover, journalists will feel pressure to self-censure. For instance, a public radio station suspended two employees who held a moment of silence to protest passage of the new law.
Less remarked upon but equally serious is the threat posed by a new law on religious liberty. Until now there had been little complaint over the government's treatment of believers. In fact, Budapest had been returning property seized during communist rule.
However, in July the parliament, with little debate, hurriedly adopted the "Law on the Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion, and on Churches, Religions, and Religious Community." The Institute on Religion and Public Policy, with which I am affiliated, warned that the legislation "is the most egregious example of a disturbing trend in Hungary to undermine human rights."
Under the law, only 14 of 362 Hungarian religious organizations registered under the earlier law (passed in 1990) will be officially recognized. As a number of Hungarian human rights activists pointed out in an open letter, "Among the churches that were discriminated against are, to mention only a few, Hungary's Methodist, Pentecostal, Adventists and reform Jewish churches; the Salvation Army and Jehovah's Witnesses; and all the Islamic, Buddhist, and Hinduist congregations."
Other than the 14, any religious association seeking official sanction will have to demonstrate its presence in Hungary for at least 20 years, obtain 1,000 signatures, gain the support of a government minister, pass review by the National Security Service, and win a two-thirds vote of parliament. At the last minute the government substituted parliamentary for judicial review. This system, explained the Institute in its detailed assessment of the legislation, is "the most burdensome registration system" in Europe. Observed one Hungarian newspaper, "Gods are now sitting in parliament" who get to decide who constitutes a church and who does not.
The law represents discrimination more characteristic of "countries such as Russia and Malaysia" rather than liberal democracies, noted Paula Schriefer of Freedom House. The Institute warned that "a tiered system offering an inferior religious status to minority faiths violates the right to religious freedom and the right to be free from religious discrimination." In a challenge to similarly discriminatory Austrian legislation, the European Court for Human Rights opined: "a distinction based essentially on a difference in religion alone is not acceptable."
Without question those faiths at greatest disadvantage will be those with smaller numbers of adherents and less popular doctrines. The 20-year requirement helps protect existing churches — institutions as much as beliefs — from challenge. In fact, Zoltan Tarr, General Secretary of the Hungarian Reformed Church, was open about his support of the measure for this reason: "We wanted a new law to make it more difficult to establish churches here — and we're happy the present government has now done something." He added that: "We're very much for freedom of worship and believe everyone should have the right to practice their religion. But this law represents a positive step, since it excludes quite a few communities which don't legitimately qualify as churches." Russia did much the same, though with a less onerous 15-year standard. It was a system designed to benefit the Orthodox Church and other established faiths.
Tossing recognition into parliament is an invitation to abuse. Observed the Institute: "Registration is reduced to a beauty contest, requiring a substantial majority vote, allowing votes to be cast on purely discriminatory grounds while making a mockery of the strict requirements of impartiality and neutrality in matters of religion. The law authorized the state to employ the lethal weapon of religious doctrine and beliefs." Indeed, the legislation was initially proposed by the sectarian KDNP. Party Chairman and Deputy Prime Minister Zsolt Semjen said he wanted to "make order" since it was "abnormal" to have so many churches.
So far, at least, unofficial churches will continue to be able to operate, though they will not be allowed to call themselves "churches." In the short-term the major effect of the legislation may be to limit which churches can receive cash from the government — subsidies actually have been increased this year, even though Budapest recently went to the International Monetary Fund for potential financial help.
Direct public funding of religion always is a bad idea, especially for churches themselves. It is no coincidence that the least vibrant, most decrepit churches in Europe are state churches dependent on the state for succor. In contrast, religious liberty, which necessarily includes separation from the state, in America has delivered a far more vibrant community of faith.
However, many of the funds went not to religious promotion but to social services "for the homeless, the elderly and the poor," noted the activist letter-writers. Whether public monies should be funneled through religious institutions even for such good works is an important question — and one debated in the U.S. However, discriminating against particular faiths is wrong, the sort of dangerous sectarianism which Americans sought to prevent through the First Amendment.
Moreover, not just money is at stake in Hungary. Having derecognized most churches, Budapest will deny accreditation to any schools managed by those churches. That represents a significant threat to educational as well as religious liberty.
Indeed, explained the Institute for Religion and Public Policy: "key activities for religious organizations such as operating religious-spiritual, educational, training, higher educational, medical, charitable, social family, child or youth protection, culture or sport institutions or carrying out these activities; producing or selling publications and religious objects necessary for the religious spiritual activities; and partial utilization of a real estate used for church purposes will no longer quality as religious activities for de-registered religious associations. Instead, they will be considered as economic activities for de-registered organizations while they continue to be considered religious activities for religions that remain registered."
The National Security Service review was added through an amendment from the extreme nationalist Jobbik party. Whether directed against Muslims or members of other faiths, the measure provides largely unreviewable grounds for restricting religious liberty. Warned Institute chairman Joseph Grieboski, "It is simply improper to play the 'national security' card to build long term restrictions and impediments into normal religious association laws."
As serious as is the law's practical application today, the measure's future implications are even more worrisome. Dividing churches and faiths through political decisions based on arbitrary criteria and political decisions threatens free religious belief and practice. Religious minorities would be a convenient scapegoat should economic and political problems grow in the future. A country which suffered so under communism should be particularly sensitive to the potential for abuse of government power.
Of course, the danger in Hungary pales compared to the problem of religious persecution elsewhere. In Egypt, for instance, violent attacks on the Coptic minority are increasing. In Afghanistan and Iraq, both supported by U.S. troops, Christians and other religious minorities suffer discrimination and worse.
However, Washington's policy inconsistencies and hypocrisies are evident to the world. It is important for the U.S. government — and, more importantly, the American people — to speak out when the violator of religious liberty is a historically Christian nation, friendly state and member of the European Union and NATO. And especially when the violator should know better, as with Hungary, which has suffered so much under tyranny and struggled so hard to gain freedom.

Michael Gerson Just Can’t Get Enough of Libertarianism

Posted by David Boaz at http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/michael-gerson-just-cant-get-enough-of-libertarianism/


Poor Michael Gerson. The former speechwriter for George W. Bush writes about libertarianism more than any other major columnist. And yet, after at least six years of attacks, he still can’t grasp the concept. Take today’s column defending Rick Santorum against “anti-government activists.” I pointed out his error in calling libertarians “anti-government” in 2010:

Libertarians are not against all government. We are precisely “advocates of limited government.” Perhaps to the man who wrote the speeches in which a Republican president advocated a trillion dollars of new spending, the largest expansion of entitlements in 40 years, federal takeovers of education and marriage, presidential power to arrest and incarcerate American citizens without access to a lawyer or a judge, and two endless “nation-building” enterprises, the distinction between “limited government” and “anti-government” is hard to see. But it is real and important.

This time he includes me as his example of an “anti-government activist” and purports to quote my objection to Santorum:

David Boaz of the Cato Institute cites evidence implicating him in shocking ideological crimes, such as “promotion of prison ministries” and wanting to “expand colon cancer screenings for Medicare beneficiaries.”

The first quotation there is from Jonathan Rauch’s review of Santorum’s book, It Takes a Family, and the second is from a New York Times article on Santorum’s campaign brochure listing all the pork he’d brought home to Pennsylvanians. As for Rauch’s list of Santorum’s ideas for an activist federal government, here’s what I quoted:

In his book he comments, seemingly with a shrug, “Some will reject what I have to say as a kind of ‘Big Government’ conservatism.”
They sure will. A list of the government interventions that Santorum endorses includes national service, promotion of prison ministries, “individual development accounts,” publicly financed trust funds for children, community-investment incentives, strengthened obscenity enforcement, covenant marriage, assorted tax breaks, economic literacy programs in “every school in America” (his italics), and more. Lots more.

Out of that list Gerson picks “promotion of prison ministries” as a dismissal of my concerns. Some readers might well think that government sponsorship of Christianity in prisons is problematic enough. But others might think that you don’t have to be “anti-government” to oppose the three new government transfer programs that immediately follow the reference to prison ministries.
More importantly, though, Gerson ignores my main criticism of Santorum. In 749 words rebutting the libertarian criticism of Santorum, Gerson never actually names it. Here’s the core point that Gerson didn’t deign to address:

Santorum had already dismissed limited government in theory. Promoting his book, he told NPR in 2006:

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

He declared himself against individualism, against libertarianism, against “this whole idea of personal autonomy, … this idea that people should be left alone.” And in this 2005 TV interview, you can hear these classic hits: “This is the mantra of the left: I have a right to do what I want to do” and “We have a whole culture that is focused on immediate gratification and the pursuit of happiness … and it is harming America.”

Does Gerson think that that is a good statement of American conservatism? Is that what he thinks the Republican party should stand for? If so, I invite him to say so — as Santorum does — instead of using a column in one of the nation’s most important newspapers to attack straw men.
At least he does understand that libertarianism is not conservatism but rather “is actually a species of classical liberalism, not conservatism — more directly traceable to John Stuart Mill than Edmund Burke or Alexis de Tocqueville. ” Also traceable to the American Founders and the Declaration of Independence. And he’ll find three selections from Tocqueville in The Libertarian Reader.
Gerson writes, “Oppressive, overreaching government undermines these value-shaping institutions.” And then he goes on to endorse social engineering in the tax code, the war on drugs, bans on “obscenity,” government transfers to charities and businesses, and by implication all the programs that Rauch noted in Santorum’s book.
So maybe the most important line in Gerson’s essay is the headline:

Rick Santorum and the return of compassionate conservatism

He’s saying that if you liked the Bush administration, you’ll like Santorum. But those of us who didn’t like, as I noted above, a trillion dollars of new spending, the largest expansion of entitlements in 40 years, federal takeovers of education and marriage, presidential power to arrest and incarcerate American citizens without access to a lawyer or a judge, and two endless “nation-building” enterprises will not want to repeat the experience.
Rick Santorum has declared himself against  “this whole idea of personal autonomy, … this idea that people should be left alone,” this fundamental American idea of the pursuit of happiness. What do conservatives not get about that?

Why Are American Tax Dollars Subsidizing a Paris-Based Bureaucracy so It Can Help the AFL-CIO Push Obama’s Class-Warfare Agenda?

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell at http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/why-are-american-tax-dollars-subsidizing-a-paris-based-bureaucracy-so-it-can-help-the-afl-cio-push-obama%E2%80%99s-class-warfare-agenda/


To be blunt, I’m not a big fan of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. But my animosity isn’t because OECD bureaucrats threatened to have me arrested and thrown in a Mexican jail.
Instead, I don’t like the Paris-based bureaucracy because it pushes a statist agenda of bigger government. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity study has all the gory details, revealing that OECD bureaucrats endorsed Obamacare, supported the failed stimulus, and are big advocates of a value-added tax for America.
And I am very upset that the OECD gets a giant $100 million-plus subsidy every year from American taxpayers. For all intents and purposes, we’re paying for a bunch of left-wing bureaucrats so they can recommend that the United States adopt that policies that have caused so much misery in Europe. And to add insult to injury, these socialist pencil pushers receive tax-free salaries.
And now, just when you thought things couldn’t get worse, the OECD has opened a new front in its battle against free markets. The bureaucrats from Paris have climbed into bed with the hard left at the AFL-CIO and are pushing a class-warfare agenda. Next Wednesday, the two organizations will be at the union’s headquarters for a panel on “Divided We Stand – Tackling Growing Inequality Now.”
Co-sponsoring a panel at the AFL-CIO’s offices, it should be noted, doesn’t necessarily make an organization guilty of left-wing activism and misuse of American tax dollars. But when you look at other information on the OECD’s website, it quickly becomes apparent that the Paris-based bureaucracy has launched a new project to promote class-warfare.
For instance, the OECD’s corruption-tainted Secretary-General spoke at the release of a new report on inequality and was favorable not only to higher income tax rates, but also expressed support for punitive and destructive wealth taxes.

Over the last two decades, there was a move away from highly progressive income tax rates and net wealth taxes in many countries. As top earners now have a greater capacity to pay taxes than before, some governments are re-examining their tax systems to ensure that wealthier individuals contribute their fair share of the tax burden. This aim can be achieved in several different ways. They include not only the possibility of raising marginal tax rates on the rich but also…reassessing the role of taxes on all forms of property and wealth.

And here’s some of what the OECD stated in its press release on income differences.

The OECD underlines the need for governments to review their tax systems to ensure that wealthier individuals contribute their fair share of the tax burden. This can be achieved by raising marginal tax rates on the rich.

Like Obama, the folks at the OECD like to talk about “fair share.” These passages sounds like they could have been taken from one of Obama’s hate-and-envy speeches on class warfare.
But the fact that a bunch of Europeans support Obama’s efforts to Europeanize America is not a surprise. The point of this post is that the OECD shouldn’t be using American tax dollars to promote Obama’s class-warfare agenda.
Here’s a video showing some of the other assaults against free markets by the OECD. This is why I’ve written that the $100 million-plus that American taxpayers send to Paris may be – on a per dollar basis – the most destructively wasteful part of the entire federal budget.
One last point is that the video was produced more than one year ago, which was not only before this new class-warfare campaign, but also before the OECD began promoting a global tax organization designed to undermine national sovereignty and promote higher taxes and bigger government.
In other words, the OECD is far more destructive and pernicious than you think.
And remember, all this is happening thanks to your tax dollars being sent to Paris to subsidize these anti-capitalism statists.

Energy and Fracking Misinformation from Our Friends at NASA

by Patrick J. Michaels

This article appeared on Forbes.com on December 16, 2011. 

What's driving President Obama to hold the Keystone XL pipeline hostage? After all, it's hard to see very much political gain from irritating labor into sitting out next November's election, and the environmentalists he is pandering to are going to vote for him anyway.

Not only is there very little political gain, he's also getting some pretty bad advice.
The principal government spokesperson on the scientific merit of the Keystone Pipeline appears to be NASA's James E. Hansen, the man who lit the bonfire of the global warming vanities way back in 1988. Googling "Hansen Keystone Pipeline" yields about 5.1 million hits. "Holdren Keystone Pipeline," the president's (and, in the past, Mitt Romney's) science advisor (John Holdren), is good for about 74,000.
As a result of his disproportionate influence, it's high time to have an in-depth look at what Hansen advocates.
According to Jim, if the pipeline is built, it would be "game over" on climate change. If the Alberta tar sands oil that passes through the pipeline is combusted, Hansen says that we won't be able to "to preserve a planet for our children and grandchildren".
Really? For most of the last 100 million years, the atmosphere's carbon dioxide concentration has been higher than it is now. Estimates vary on what maximum surface temperatures were reached, but there's little debate that the angiosperms — the flowering plants that we ultimately depend upon for food — evolved during this time. It shouldn't surprise anyone, including Hansen, that a warmer world with more carbon dioxide is a greener one. Indeed, NASA's own satellites have detected this change already.
What about the dreaded rise of sea level? In the last interglacial, which lasted thousands of years, Greenland did not shed all of its ice. But Hansen has testified that it can do that in 100 years, raising sea levels 23 feet. Antarctica began accumulating ice maybe 20 million years ago, and the ice grew in an era of integrated higher temperatures far warmer than anything mere humans could produce.
Hansen's "game over" is based upon the following interview, with SolveClimateNews last August.

SCN: Can you explain why you have said it's "game over" on the climate front if the Keystone XL pipeline is built?

JH: President George W. Bush said that the U.S. was addicted to oil…That is the question facing President Obama…

If the United States is buying [Alberta tar sands oil], it surely will be going after oil in the deepest ocean, the Arctic, and shale deposits; and harvesting coal via mountaintop removal and long-wall mining. Obama will have decided he is a hopeless addict.

So, according to Dr. Hansen, if we drill for oil around the world, fracture ("frack") shale deposits (which largely produces natural gas), and mine for coal, the planet is toast. Oh, and the President in an addict.
Just to be fair, let's see what Hansen says we must and must not do. Here's the current mix of energy sources for U.S. transportation, manufacturing, and electrical generation, according to the Energy Information Administration:
Over 80% of our energy comes from fossil fuels, which Hansen has said have to be eliminated. What's to replace them? Nuclear power seems logical, but according to a landmark 2002 article in Science by New York University's Martin Hoffert, there simply isn't enough U-235 available to meet our future; in addition, nuclear is not politically popular.
Guess that would leave the "renewables", but not hydropower, which is also not politically correct. Wood is a nonstarter, as a shift to more of that cuts down forests and increases atmospheric carbon dioxide. The most popular biofuel, ethanol, results in more carbon dioxide emissions than are produced per unit energy by fossil fuels. Solar and wind suffer from nights and inconstancy.
Couple that to the fact that wind power is not very aesthetic. Just ask the hard greenies on Martha's Vineyard, who rejected it. Add in that solar is the most expensive form of power production (about four times more costly than natural gas) and that it will never power Chicago or any other big northern city in the winter, and you have a dark, cold nation with very few cars.
Wind and solar also require equivalent backup generation to make up for inconstancy. Given that Hansen says that only addicts like the President would frack shale for gas, what is going to supply the backup?
The answer is that there currently is no source, in anything close to sufficient volume
Perhaps Hansen is simply lacking in common sense. Saying that the President is an addict if he does not follow his dictates, shows very little. But, then again, it's President Obama. Ronald Reagan would have sacked him on the spot.

Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Posted by Tim Lynch at http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/mandatory-minimum-sentences/


Federal Appellate Judge Andre Davis has penned an op-ed about mandatory minimum sentences.  Here’s an excerpt:

As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, I learn of many personal narratives. Tony Gregg’s bears retelling.
Mr. Gregg was a user, a seller, a “snitch” for the FBI. His early life was marked by abuse and instability, suicide attempts, jails and prison stays. As a drug user, Mr. Gregg resorted to selling crack cocaine — not kilos, but several grams at a time out of a hotel room in a run-down section of Richmond, Va.
Not unexpectedly, he was arrested and convicted. A district judge sentenced Mr. Gregg to the mandatory term of life imprisonment, required by statute, at the discretion of the prosecutor, for a third conviction of a felony drug offense.
When Mr. Gregg’s case came before me and my colleagues on appeal, there was nothing we could do but uphold the sentence of life in prison. The appellate court, like the disapproving trial court, found its hands were tied.
I do not believe Mr. Gregg deserves life in prison — the kind of sentence often imposed on convicted murderers — but I am handicapped by mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, set by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.
And Mr. Gregg’s is far from the only story that underscores the kind of handcuffing by mandatory minimums that U.S. judges habitually face.
After 25 years of watching countless Tony Greggs serve out impossibly long sentences for transgressions that would be better served by drug treatment and social safety nets, I say with certainty that mandatory minimums are unfair and unjust. They cost taxpayers too much money and make very little sense.

For more information, vist the FAMM web site.

Appeals Court Upholds Gay Marriage, Sort Of

Posted by Ilya Shapiro at http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/appeals-court-upholds-gay-marriage-sort-of/


Today’s victory for equal liberty was narrow, but important nonetheless.
All that Prop 8 did was to deny gay couples the right to have their relationships labeled “marriage,” without any effect on the rights, privileges, and responsibilities attending that marital designation (which legal incidents California had already granted to gays who entered into civil unions).  As the court noted, there is no purpose in denying the use of the word “marriage” other than “to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”
Unfortunately, this technically good result might create perverse incentives for states who wish to give gay people substantive but not symbolic equality: the court did not say whether government can still give limited or no rights to gay unions, as long as it doesn’t give everything except the word “marriage.”
But that just goes to highlight the messiness inherent in government involvement in a given policy area: were government out of the marriage business altogether, courts wouldn’t have to split hairs and legislatures wouldn’t have to gnash teeth. 
Let people decide for themselves how they want to live and whose recognition they value.  In the meantime, this case may be complete — the already hesitant Supreme Court may refrain from reviewing such a narrow ruling (which the Ninth Circuit could still take up en banc) – but the controversy will not soon end.

The Circuit Court Ruling on Proposition 8

Posted by David Boaz at http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-circuit-court-ruling-on-proposition-8/


A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that California’s ban on same-sex marriage — enacted in 2008 in a popular vote on Proposition 8 — violates the constitutional right to equal protection. The court’s decision upheld a 2010 decision by former Judge R. Vaughn Walker, a Reagan-Bush appointee, that found marriage to be a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, and that the proposition “fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.” Proponents of Proposition 8 will likely appeal the decision either to the full Ninth Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court.
The American Foundation for Equal Rights is the sponsor of the case, Perry v. Brown (originally Perry v. Schwarzenegger). Cato Institute chairman Robert A. Levy is co-chairman of AFER’s Advisory Board. He and co-chair John Podesta wrote in the Washington Post in 2010:

Nearly a century after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that “marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man.’ ” That 1967 case, Loving v. Virginia, ended bans on interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had such laws.
Now, 43 years after Loving, the courts are once again grappling with denial of equal marriage rights — this time to gay couples. We believe that a society respectful of individual liberty must end this unequal treatment under the law…. The principle of equality before the law transcends the left-right divide and cuts to the core of our nation’s character. This is not about politics; it’s about an indispensable right vested in all Americans.

Levy and Podesta, along with AFER’s lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies, spoke at this Cato Institute forum. And Levy also wrote about the case in this New York Daily News column.