Alaska Federal Judge Finds Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional - 16 Years After Alaska Judge First Ruled For Same Sex Marriage

October 12, 2014:

"For the reasons that follow, the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Court finds that Alaska’s ban on same - sex marriage and refusal to recognize same - sex marriages lawfully entered in other states is unconstitutional as a deprivation of basic due process and equal protection principles under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

The whole decision is here.


I would remind folks that back in 1998, Alaska Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski ruled that not allowing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.  Michalski ruled:

"It is the duty of the court to do more than merely assume that marriage is only, and must only be, what most are familiar with. In some parts of our nation mere acceptance of the familiar would have left segregation in place. In light of Brause and Dugan's challenge to the constitutionality of the relevant statutes, this court cannot defer to the legislature or familiar notions when addressing this issue." He ruled that "marriage, i.e., the recognition of one's choice of a life partner, is a fundamental right. The state must therefore have a compelling interest that supports its decision to refuse to recognize the exercise of this fundamental right by those who choose same-sex partners rather than opposite-sex partners."
 

That ruling led Alaskans to pass a state constitutional amendment saying that marriage meant one man and one woman.  It's that constitutional amendment that has now been found to violate the US constitution. 

It's people like Judge Michalski and plaintiffs Jay Brause and Gene Dugan who helped clear the path for the ruling today (and the rest of the rulings in the US in the last couple of years).

Sixteen and a half years to get back to the same place.  But that is the history of change in the world.  Many people's lives would have been much easier - many people might still be alive - if people had accepted Michalski's ruling back then.  And we all could have spent time on more productive activities.  But that wasn't to be.  

The ADN reports that the state vows to appeal the judge's decision.   In anticipation of the (last) Friday court hearing, the judge's inevitable decision given the US Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court's recent rulings, and the high probability that the state would appeal the decision, I've been working on a post exploring when it makes sense to fight battles you know you're going to lose.  I hope to get it up soon.

Steps To Happiness In Marriage - 1949 Advice From LA County To Newlyweds

I found this while sorting things in my mom's garage trying to make more room and less clutter. 


I sort of expected this to be really bizarre and sexist.  It was put together by a panel of 21 clergymen, 13 of whom have Dr. before their names, a couple of Rt. Rev's, a Most Rev, and a VeryRev. Msgr, plus two Rabbis.  All the names are male.  Though there are three with just initials.  I don't think there were many (or any) women clergy back then.   Imagine living in a world where no one thinks there's anything wrong with 21 men writing advice for a partnership of a man and a woman to be distributed by Los Angeles County.  And, reflecting that the establishment seems to have seen nothing wrong in males writing this, women are presumed to be in charge of the household.

  There's a section "Making a Beautiful Home" that is aimed at the women:

"...the wise bride will look for the chance to express, for the first time perhaps, her personality in the home.  This will not be an adventure to be experienced but once.  On the contrary, daily, by her flower and furniture arrangement, by her selection of books and magazines, by the change of colors in table covers, napkins and various bits of china, by artistic draperies and lamp shades, and by her personal neatness, the wife, will express her personality."

The other parts are much more egalitarian; the basic theme is togetherness.   It tends to stay general, though here and there - as in the budget section - there's actual practical advice.

The Table of Contents includes:

• Steps to Happiness in Marriage
• Off to a Good Start
• The Honeymoon
• How Love Grows
• The Fifty-Fifty Spirit
• Making a Beautiful Home
• Making Sense Out of the Family Dollar
• Important Legal Knowledge
• Preparing for Children
• The Family
• Why We Have Been Happy in Marriage
• Maturity or Childishness in the Home
• Daily Work and Family Happiness
• How to Meet the Usual Causes of Friction
• Our In-Laws
• Living Together in God's Universe

Some other excerpts from this eleven paged pamphlet:

The Honeymoon

It is better that a honeymoon should start in the early afternoon so that the pace of the first night may be reached by dinner time.  The place should be preferably within easy driving distance.  It is not well to spend the first night on the train.  No disturbing pranks should molest the couple after their journey."

How Love Grows

. . . The marriage experience does nothing to the bride and groom which eliminates the need for all the lovely expressions of concern and appreciation which were such a joy during courtship.  If married life is made a perpetually extended honeymoon in the sense that the little an big courtesies and marks of attention are continued day by day, then the love which made the days efore the wedding such an unceasing delight will grow in beauty and strength.

Making Sense Out Of the Family Dollar

". . . A budget is a tentative family agreement upon a plan by which we try to balane expenditure with income.  Budgets never succeed 100 per cent.  Each month they may need revision in the light of new needs.  budget books may be obtained at your bank or your book store, where you may also received counsel on its use.  In the budget there should be items for Food, Clothing, Shelter, Transportation, Dental and Medical care, Education, Recreation, Gifts, Insurance, and Savings."

Nothing for cable or internet.  Most people didn't have televisions in 1949 and radio, once you bought the set, was free.  I guess telephones and other utilities were cheap enough not to get a category. 

Important Legal Knowledge

"Through ignorance of the laws relating to communal or family property, many distressing cases arise.  Be sure that you hae arranged your property affaris, both through informal agreements and through the making of wills, so that in case of sudden death difficulties may not arise.

In one case a wife deserted without a divorce.  The husband worked and saved for his three children.  When he died without a will, the undivorced widow had a legal claim to the entire estate."

 Oops.  It would be interesting to have listened in to the conversation that decided to use that example of poor planning.  I wonder how many examples of abandoned husbands raising the kids there were back then compared to abandoned wives.

Preparing for Children

"Mutuality is the secret of happiness in marriage.  In the previous pages we have tried to picture the importance of mutual interests in work, recreation, money matters, homemaking friendship, and many of the small affairs of married life.  Mutuality in the se relationship is also most important.  This intimate aspect of married life, if always an expression of tender love, helps to keep alive and enrich the bond of afection.  With the coming of children, the character of husband and wife shold grow stronger, and the home should become more beautiful.  Marriage without children is a picture with only the two dimensions of length and width.  Children add the depth necessary for beauty, balance, and richness of experience."

While most of this is advice that they hope will lead to a happy home, they also, acknowledge marriage doesn't always (usually?) work that way.

Maturity or Childishness in the Home

The California state law sets certain requirements as to the age at which people are old enough to marry.  It is unfortunate that more attention is not paid to the fact that people must be grown up emotionally as well as chronologically, if they are to succeed in marriage.  Temper tantrums, sulking, moodiness, and other childish actions occur much more freqently between married people than they would care to admit.  Too often we go through the day building up reentment againt an employer or neighbor, and the explode emotionally at home in the evening.  this is a sure road to marital unhappiness and a path to discord and the divorce courts.  Emotions are the driving forces of life, but, if they are out of adjustment, the more we turn on the power, the greater the harm that can be done. . ."

 I can't imagine that a county today could pull together a group of major clergy in their community to write up as sober a guide to marriage.  Issues about the proper roles of the spouses would make it much more difficult.  These men, in the 1940s, saw the woman's role in the home.  This was after World War II when many women went into the workforce to support the war effort.  But when the men returned, women lost their jobs to them.  But many women didn't have a choice about working -  their incomes were critical to the family budget.  Yet, much of the advice in this book is surprisingly modern in their emphasis on mutuality, on both partners working together. 

Today's discussions of marriage seem much more influenced by the religious right's literal interpretation of the bible.  Their descriptions of marriage drip with biblical references as in this description from Focus on the Family's Divine Order of Marriage:

For what reason is man to marry a wife? Because woman was originally a constituent part of man, she must return to become one with him again, so that the full expression and design of God's image in human beings can be revealed.

 For those wondering what the last section of this pamphlet - Living Together in God's Universe - covers,  it's basically about togetherness and mutual interests.  There's a story about a couple walking hand in hand along a trickling rivulet that grows and grows until

"Presently, however, the brook because a stream that widens and deepns until the couple can no longer make each other understand."

The only mention of God, besides the heading, is in a long list of things families should do together.

"Successful marriages are those in which the husband and wife plan together, work together, play together, suffer together, sacrifice together, succeed together, raise their children together and worship God together."

Even though clergymen wrote it, it's pretty light on religion.  But I suspect that because clergyman advise people during crises, they learn a great deal more about marriage than most people.  And if they are wise, intelligent, and caring,  they can write a decent brief guide to marriage.  But it still seems, from a 2014 perspective, incredible that they could think that a panel of all men should do this.  

Which is Safer? Ten Foot Or Twelve Foot Lanes?

From CityLab:  

"When lanes are built too wide, many bad things happen. In a sentence: pedestrians are forced to walk further across streets on which cars are moving too fast and bikes don't fit."

. . . A number of studies have been completed that blame wider lanes for an epidemic of vehicular carnage. One of them, presented by Rutgers professor Robert Noland at the 80th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, determined that increased lane widths could be blamed for approximately 900 additional traffic fatalities per year."

This is a long article, that, among other things blames engineers' biases for not accepting this premise as well as state laws which mandate wider streets.  

I haven't had time to do more research on it.  I did find a few other sources that supported the basic premise including this 2007 DOT Study.

On high speed highways they argue for wider lanes which they say reduce lane departure crashes.  But . . .

In a reduced-speed urban environment, the effects of reduced lane width are different.  On such facilities, the risk of lane-departure crashes is less. The design objective is often how to best distribute limited cross-sectional width to maximize safety for a wide variety of roadway users.  Narrower lane widths may be chosen to manage or reduce speed and shorten crossing distances for pedestrians.  Lane widths may be adjusted to incorporate other cross-sectional elements, such as medians for access control, bike lanes, on-street parking, transit stops, and landscaping.  The adopted ranges for lane width in the urban, low-speed environment normally provide adequate flexibility to achieve a desirable urban cross section without a design exception."

Read it yourself.  The author is passionate about this subject and has done a lot of homework.  Then ask the next traffic engineers you meet what they think.

Thanks LL for the link.

Do The Math

All points of the political universe have issues with education in the United States today.
Unfortunately, the polarization has gotten to the point where people with different political views don't talk much.

But this poster from the California Endowment points out very starkly why we need to stuff our ideological righteousness and start talking to each other how to improve schools.

The dollar figures are annual costs for prisoners and students in California. 

Image from screenshot from The California Endowment video

There is no question that it's better to spend money on education than on incarceration.  Now let's stop bickering, stop being distracted by ideology, and start paying attention to our kids.  If we don't plant these seeds right and give them the resources they need, the future is bleak. 

What Did He Know And When Did He Know It? Still The Relevant Questions

Those were the questions the Watergate committee and the media asked about Richard Nixon's knowledge of the Watergate break in.  He claimed he knew nothing until very late and then when he learned he acted quickly.

Alexander Butterfield told the committee on July 13, 1973 that Nixon taped all his White House conversations.  I was in a closet that I'd made into a darkroom when he said that and it was clear this changed everything.   But then the stalling came.  Executive privilege prevented the White House from handing the tapes to the committee. 

Yesterday, the Alaska Dispatch News and the Alaska Public Media filed suit against Governor Sean Parnell for not releasing emails and other information that would help them understand and report on what Parnell knew about the sexual harassment and general toxic environment at the Alaska National Guard and when he knew it.  The article in today's ADN  says it took the Parnell administration four months to deny the request from the Alaska Public Media and three months to deny the ADN request. 

"Under separate requests, Alaska Dispatch News reporter Lisa Demer and Alaska Public Radio Network reporter Alexendra Gutierrez sought access to guard-related emails to or from Nizich. Because chaplains within the Alaska National Guard had sent their growing concerns about the agency’s toxic climate to Nizich’s personal email account, reporters asked that guard-related correspondence from Nizich’s personal email account also be provided to the media.

In April, during an interview with APRN, Parnell said that once he learned about the communication to Nizich’s personal email account, he directed his top aide to forward any such emails to his state account, where they would then become a public record."

The article offers explanations for the denial:

"In denial letters sent Sept. 26, Ruaro explained several exemptions and laws that allowed the emails to be withheld, including deliberative process and the need to protect “the right to privacy of victims and alleged victims.”
Ruaro also stated that people accused of misconduct also have a constitutional right to privacy when disclosure of the material “could reasonably lead to embarrassment, harm, or retaliation.” Finally, he cited that confidentiality also extends to members of the clergy, in whom victims have confided." [highlight added]

You can read the whole letter denying the material from the governor's chief of staff here.


John McKay's (the attorney for the ADN and APM on this - and, to fully disclose here,  for myself  when I was threatened with legal action if I didn't take down a blog post - takes issue with the governor's reasons for withholding the requested information.  You can see the full document online here.  My numbers correspond with the numbers in McKay's filing.  I've summarized some of McKay's key points responding to the reasons the governor's office gave for denying the requests.

20.  That while state law presumes the public records are disclosable and that doubts should be resolved in favor of disclosure, the governor has taken a narrow restrictive approach, “resolving doubts in favor of secrecy, delaying responses . . .discouraging pursuit of legitimate requests, and otherwise failing to comply fully, timely, and effectively. . ."

21.  Governor is wrongfully withholding documents that would “help explain the circumstances of the NG Scandal . . . [and] would allow the public to better assess the accuracy and candor” of what the Governor says on this.

22.  Didn’t provide an index identifying documents being withheld and the reason for withholding them as required by the law. 

23.  For documents that might be subject to privilege or redaction, Governor has not released those parts that are not subject to privilege or redaction.

24. - 26.  Governor previously told press that the emails to Chief of Staff Nizich would be made publicly available.

While there is room for interpretation, I'd say points 22 and 23 don't leave much wiggle room for the governor. 

The suit asks the court to take nine actions.  Again, I've abbreviated them and you can see the full language here.)

1. That the court order the governor to turn over the documents without delay.
2. For documents not turned over immediately because of claims of privilege, that the governor turn over a log of the withheld documents and the specific privilege claimed for withholding each.
3. Unless the governor moots this request by handing everything over immediately, that the employees of the governor’s office certify to the court that:    
1. they’ve made a diligent search for the documents requested and
2. that they've turned over everything, and if not when they were asked to do so by a superior and why they had not
4. That Chief of Staff Mike Nizich certify that he
1.  has been directed by the Governor to locate and forward to his state email account emails relating to the Guard in his private email account
2. He fully complied
3. If not, why he failed to do so and whether and when he advised the governor of his failure to do so
5. Order any documents or records relating to the NG Scandal not already turned over be preserved.
6. Court issue temporary, preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief against the governor, his office, and anyone working for them, restraining them from further obstructing or delaying or denying access to the relevant documents.
7. Court enter a declaratory judgment finding the governor’s office  has failed to comply.
8. Court enter other such relief it deems just and appropriate.
9. Court award the ADN and Alaska Public Media their costs and attorney fees

I find it ironic that the governor is pleading for the privacy rights, based on the Alaska Constitution, of the accused here, people whose names in many cases have already been before the public,  though he's not shown any concern about those rights being violated for women seeking reproductive health services or for gays and lesbians seeking to get married. 

As the lawsuit says, protected confidential information can easily be redacted and the information not protected should have already been turned over. 

Nixon fought as hard as he legally could to hold on to the tapes. He even ignored suggestions that he burn them. Nixon’s lawyers argued before the Supreme Court that the tapes were protected by executive privilege. On July 24, 1974, the justices decided differently. By a vote of 8 to 0 — Justice William Rehnquist recused himself — Nixon was ordered to turn over the tapes.
Fifteen days later, the president of the United States resigned.  [The whole article is here.  The link in he quote goes to another article on Nixon's resignation.]

The Parnell case is trivial compared to the Nixon case, though for Parnell, in a competitive race for reelection, it could cost him the election if the information shows he knew more sooner than he has so far revealed.  The delays could also just indicate the lack of understanding and ineptness of his staff.  

I've been unusually harsh on this topic of the National Guard because I know that the governor could have and should have taken action much sooner.  I got emails after posting about Katkus' confirmation hearings in 2010 from National Guard folks that were long and credible about the depth of corruption in the guard.  If I got such information based on a brief comment in a longer post, the governor had equally credible reports then too.  I didn't act on it because my correspondents didn't want to give names or specific details.  And I wasn't the man ultimately responsible for the National Guard.  The governor is and was.  Many people's lives were seriously harmed because of the governor's ineffective response to this situation.  And the governor has the long report on the problems with the guard.  All the media are trying to do now, is determine the accuracy of Parnell's declarations that he did all he could with the information he had. 

Same Sex Marriage: What Happened Yesterday At The US Supreme Court?

I started to write a post about whether the State of Alaska should continue to fight a challenge to the state's same sex marriage ban.  I'll still do that, but I realized that not everyone understands the US federal justice structure and that I needed to explain that first.  [This took much longer than I expected, but it's helped me clarify for myself what happened yesterday and I hope it will make it easier for others who aren't lawyers.]

So, first the background:

The following is edited and reformatted from the Federal Judicial Center website to make it easier to follow.  Note, this is just looking at federal courts, not state or local courts.



 

 "Congress has divided the country into ninety-four federal judicial districts. 

In each district there is a U.S. district court. The U.S. district courts are the federal trial courts -- the places where federal cases are tried, witnesses testify, and juries serve. Within each district is a U.S. bankruptcy court, a part of the district court that administers the bankruptcy laws.

Congress uses state boundaries to help define the districts. Some districts cover the entire state, like Idaho. Other districts cover just part of a state, like the Northern District of California."

 

"Congress placed each of the ninety-four districts in one of twelve regional circuits."

Image from Federal Judiciary Center Website

For a map with the districts AND state names click here.

"Each circuit has a court of appeals. If you lose a case in a district court, you can ask the court of appeals to review the case to see if the district judge applied the law correctly. There is also a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, whose jurisdiction is defined by subject matter rather than by geography. It hears appeals from certain courts and agencies, such as the U.S. Court of International Trade, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and certain types of cases from the district courts (mainly lawsuits by people claiming their patents have been infringed).
The Supreme Court of the United States, in Washington, D.C., is the highest court in the nation. If you lose a case in the court of appeals (or, sometimes, in a state supreme court), you can ask the Supreme Court to hear your appeal. However, unlike a court of appeals, the Supreme Court doesn't have to hear it. In fact, the Supreme Court hears only a very small percentage of the cases it is asked to review."

It's important to note that the Circuit Court of Appeals' decisions rule in their region.  So it's possible for Circuit Courts in different regions to rule differently.  Then the law covering some states would be different from the law covering other states.  In last year's rulings on same sex marriage, the decisions at the US Supreme Court impacted the states in the 2nd and 9th circuits where the cases came from.   When there's a conflict in rulings from different Circuit Courts of Appeal, then the Supreme Court has to weigh in.



Now, the details of what happened Monday at the US Supreme Court.

1.   What were the cases? From which states? From which circuits?
There were petitions from  seven cases (from five states).  In all cases, both the plaintiffs and the defense wanted the Supreme Court to hear the cases.  From a September article by Mother Jones, here are the cases:

1. Herbert v. Kitchen (Utah): SCOTUS briefly dealt with this case earlier this year. In December 2013, a federal district court struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage. Weddings began immediately. In January, the high court issued a temporary stay, putting a halt to marriages while the state's appeal was considered. In June, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling that the state's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional.

2. Smith v. Bishop (Oklahoma): First filed in 2004, this case originally sought both to overturn Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriages and to recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions. In January, a district court judge ruled that the state's ban is unconstitutional, but dismissed the portion of the lawsuit addressing marriages from other states, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Both sides appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court on both counts. In its appeal to SCOTUS, the state of Oklahoma is asking the court to rule exclusively on the marriage question.

3. Bogan v. Baskin (Indiana): This case began as three separate suits filed on behalf of a widow and 11 couples. Several plaintiffs have same-sex marriage licenses from other states that are unrecognized in Indiana. In June, a district court judge consolidated the suits into Baskin, and struck down the state's ban on gay marriage. He did not stay the decision, allowing marriage licenses to be issued immediately. Earlier this month, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision.

4. Walker v. Wolf (Wisconsin): In February, the American Civil Liberties Union filed this case on behalf of eight same-sex couples, three of whom had married in other places. In March, a district court judge denied the state's requests to dismiss the case. In June she ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage. Her ruling was unclear on whether marriages could begin or not: Still, clerks in some cities began marrying couples immediately. Earlier this month, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision.

5, 6, and 7. Rainey v. Bostic, Schaefer v. Bostic, and McQuigg v. Bostic (Virginia): These three cases are different iterations of a suit filed in July 2013 by plaintiffs Timothy Bostic and Tony London, who seek to get married in Virginia. Carol Schall and Mary Townley joined the case in September 2013. They were legally married in California in 2008, but their union is not recognized in the Old Dominion. This has made it impossible for Schall to formally adopt her own daughter. In February, a district court judge ruled on all three cases, concluding that the state's laws barring in-state gay marriages and prohibiting recognition of out-of-state marriage licenses is unconstitutional. In July, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling. A fourth case, Harris v. Rainey, a class action suit, has been incorporated into Rainey v. Bostic.

2.  What were the decisions?

The Supreme Court declined to hear all seven cases.

3.  What are the consequences?  Take this with a grain of salt.  Here's a pretty fast analysis from a Scotus Blog post,  but Scotus  Blog- Supreme Court Of The United States - had a lot more updates that suggest there's still some room for maneuvering in these states before the dust settles.  For example Idaho (and by extension Nevada) got a stay from Justice Kennedy on 9th Circuit's ruling to legalize same sex marriage. But I'm sure the dust will settle with same sex couples able to marry.

"First, as a direct result of Monday’s action, same-sex marriages can occur when existing lower-court rulings against state bans go into effect in

• Virginia in the Fourth Circuit, 
• Indiana and Wisconsin in the Seventh Circuit, and  
• Oklahoma and Utah in the Tenth Circuit."

"Second, such marriages can occur when the court of appeals rulings are implemented in federal district courts

• in three more states in the Fourth Circuit (North and South Carolina and West Virginia) and 
• in three more states in the Tenth Circuit (Colorado, Kansas, and Wyoming).  

The other states in the three circuits where bans have been struck down had already permitted same-sex marriage, under new laws or court rulings (Illinois, Maryland, and New Mexico, which have been counted among the nineteen states in that category)."

"Third, four other circuits — the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh — are currently considering the constitutionality of same-sex marriages.  Of those, the Ninth Circuit — which had earlier struck down California’s famous “Proposition 8″ ban and uses a very rigorous test of laws against gay equality — is considered most likely to strike down state bans.  If that happens, it would add five more states to the marriages-allowed column (Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada), which would bring the national total to thirty-five."

4.  What's still out there?


The court declined to hear seven cases from five states coming from three regional judicial circuits.  This means the court isn't going to make any statements for now on the legality of same sex marriage beyond what they said in the two cases last year.

Last year's cases came from the 2nd and 9th Circuits. As mentioned above, the US Supreme Court's rulings on those cases only covered those two districts.  Yesterday's ruling covered  the 4th, 7th, and 10th Circuits.

That leaves the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 9th, 11th, and 12th Districts.  I've poked around online to see what is happening in these circuits.  This isn't comprehensive, but gives a sense of what's happening.

The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Circuits cover New England and the Northeast from Maine down to Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.  In all these states same sex marriage was legal before yesterday's court ruling.

4th Circuit was covered yesterday, and as mentioned in 3) above, the other states, besides Virginia, North and South Carolina and West Virginia it's just a matter of implementation of the appeals court's rulings before same sex marriages will take place.

5th Circuit which includes Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi has yet to rule on cases on appeal.  One Texas judge ruled the ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional and a Louisiana judge upheld the Louisiana ban.  There are a couple of other related cases in both states - a lesbian couple, married out of state, were denied the right to divorce in Texas.  See more details here.   If the 5th Circuit were to rule that the bans were constitutional, there'd be a split in Circuit Court rulings and the US Supreme Court would probably have to take the case to resolve it.

6th Circuit - from Freedom to Marry

"On August 6, six different legal cases involving the freedom to marry were heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. In each state, federal judges have ruled in favor of marriage for same-sex couples. . .  A ruling is expected at the 6th Circuit this fall."

7th Circuit was covered in yesterday's decision.  See 3 above.

8th Circuit  includes North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Arkansas. It upheld a ban on same sex marriage in 2006.  However, an Arkansas federal judge has ruled against the same sex marriage ban, but the case has not been heard by the Court of Appeals.

From KELO:

"[A] South Dakota case Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard is currently before the South Dakota District Court on a motion to dismiss filed by the State."

9th Circuit  is also covered in 3 above.  This is where this post began, because I wanted to write about the ethical issues the governor and attorney general of Alaska might consider in determining whether to continue to oppose this challenge to the state's ban considering that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is very likely to overturn the ban.

10th Circuit was covered yesterday because two of the appeals came from Oklahoma and Utah.

11th Circuit  covers the Southeast - Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. In two Florida cases  - apparently state cases because they are headed for the Florida Supreme Court - judges ruled the states ban unconstitutional.  In August 2014 a US District Court ruled the Florida ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional.   There's also a case in its early stages in Alabama.  And in Georgia, according to WMAZ,

 "a lawsuit challenging Georgia's ban on gay marriage is still pending in federal court. It's called Innis v. Aderhold, and it was filed by several same-sex couples."

Finally, there's the DC Circuit.  Same sex marriage is legal in the District of Columbia already.

If the Circuit Courts of Appeal all rule against same sex marriage bans, perhaps the US Supreme Court would just leave things as they did yesterday.  If one or more Circuit Courts of Appeals allows a ban to stand, then  there would be more pressure for the US Supreme Court to take the case(s) to resolve the conflicts. 



Researching this was complicated by the fact that most of the websites that had maps of the status of same sex marriage were updated in the last two days making it harder to see where things stood before Monday's ruling.

The Pew Forum has an interactive map that where you can change the date and see the status of same sex marriage in all the states from 1995 to 2014.

And here's a Wikipedia chart on the status of same sex marriage throughout the US.

If you've seen this post a couple of times, it's because feedburner isn't working right and I'm reposting it hoping it will catch.

The Opposite Of Home Depot - B&B; Plus DTOAR Mural

You need a damper for your old . . . did he say furnace or water heater?  B&B is an old, old neighborhood hardware store in Culver City.  It's ramshackle, doesn't have everything you need, but has things others don't have.  Like these dampers. 

And the people who work there know what they're doing.  I was working on the shower knob for my mom and I also needed a new stem.  Fernando, in the plumbing department, saved me a ton of money last time I did repairs for my mom, so I went back to him again for his sage advice before tackling the project. 

There's a sense of community here that I don't get at Home Depot or Lowe's.  Having thirty types of everything isn't as good as having exactly what you need and someone who cares that you get it for a fair price along with a really deep knowledge of (in this case) plumbing. 

I didn't realize that people still use waterbeds.  And this kit looks like it's from the days when waterbeds were big.  (I did look online and you can get this from Sears for a couple dollars less (plus shipping) and from others for a couple dollars more.) 







And there was one more part they were out of so on the way to another local hardware store, I passed this mural.

And using the DTOAR that was on the lower right of the mural, I found this:

DTOAR / Mural in Venice California of the singer Lissie
Painted and Conceptualized by Gianni Arone and Angelina Christina

Doing lots of paper work and house stuff while I'm here as well as getting in some Mom time, so this will be a relative quickie.

Murkowski (The Elder) Throws Kitchen Sink Into Editorial Against Marijuana Initiative

I've been hoping to get time to tease out the arguments for and against the Marijuana Initiative and go through what each side has to say.  But Frank Murkowski's commentary in today's paper was so lame, I couldn't help jumping in.

I'll just go through it as I would with a student's paper - line by line to test what it says.  I'm fairly critical, but that doesn't mean I support or oppose the proposal.  Here I'm just evaluating the argument, which seems like a kitchen sink approach.  That is, throwing in everything he can think off why people should vote no.   I'm putting Murkowski's words in blue so it's clear what he's written and what I or others I quote have written.

Alaskans should just say no to ‘Big Marijuana’
By FRANK MURKOWSKI
   Everyone has something to say on the marijuana issue, it’s just that not everyone has said it yet.

What exactly is that supposed to mean?  The opening sentence should tell us what the argument is about.  This sentence could be said about anything.  Just cross out marijuana and put in any word you want.  It would work just as well opening an essay for the marijuana initiative.  It doesn't affect the argument one way or the other.

For the life of me I can’t understand the rush to legalize marijuana in our state, as Ballot Measure 2 would do.

"For the life of me I can't understand" - Yes, that was always a problem for Murkowski - understanding people whose view of the world was different from his.  This may sound snarky, but I mean it seriously.  As governor, he didn't engage with those who opposed his agenda.  He had a majority in both houses.  What's to discuss?  We're right, you're wrong.  He alienated enough people in his own party that Sarah Palin beat him in the primary. 

"the rush to legalize" - I don't know what rush he's talking about.  Marijuana was legal in Alaska when I arrived in 1977.  It's been almost 40 years for us to go from individuals being able to grow a few plants and smoke them at home to making it so someone besides gardeners can legally get marijuana.  That doesn't seem like a rush to legalize.

It reminds me of the herd mentality of the lemmings stampeding off the cliff with little thought to the consequences.

About the lemmings.  The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has a whole webpage on how the story of lemmings committing suicide is a myth.  Murkowski should know better.  Lemmings are arctic animals after all.   And Murkowski was governor of Alaska, so the Alaska Department of Fish and Game reported to him.  If he's so uninformed on this one, how many other myths does this editorial have?  Here's part of the ADFG debunking:

"It's a complete urban legend," said state wildlife biologist Thomas McDonough. "I think it blew out of proportion based on a Disney documentary in the '50s, and that brought it to the mainstream."

. . .   According to a 1983 investigation by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation producer Brian Vallee, the lemming scenes were faked. The lemmings supposedly committing mass suicide by leaping into the ocean were actually thrown off a cliff by the Disney filmmakers. The epic "lemming migration" was staged using careful editing, tight camera angles and a few dozen lemmings running on snow covered lazy-Susan style turntable.

Oh dear.  Debunking the lemming myth and the Disney myth in one paragraph.   I'm sure that Governor Parnell will have them remove this page because the science doesn't support his policy.  [Coincidentally, while I watched a bit of Jeopardy with my mom tonight after I wrote this, but before posting, one of the questions was about the faking of the Disney movie about what arctic animal committing suicide.]

   The fact that Colorado and Washington state have recently legalized marijuana should give us pause to consider the impacts. We should wait and see how those efforts unfold. There is no incentive to be among the first.

It's not unreasonable to wait and see how their models work.  But the sky hasn't fallen in those states.  How long should we let them test it before we jump in?  Five years?  Ten?  Twenty?   I suspect there may actually be some incentives to getting there first.  We get the experience and a head start, and we get extra tourists probably.  We'd be ahead of the pack.

But he's right that if we wait, we might be able to avoid their problems.  But then, Alaskans don't usually care how they do it Outside anyway.  We Alaskans don't let the ugliness and traffic of Los Angeles, for example, keep us from repeating the strip malls, environmental degradation, and general paving of paradise.

   Should the proposal become law, would it be beneficial to our citizenry, our youths and the quality of life? What will be the impact on rural Alaskans? These are just a few of the many unanswered questions before Alaskans as we prepare to vote.

He's throwing out the questions with the implication that the outcomes will be bad, but not with any factual answers.  Rural Alaskans have the right to make their villages dry and they'll be able to do the same with marijuana.  But even though bringing in marijuana is illegal now, my understanding is that you can get it in most every village.  How will legalizing and regulating it make it worse? 

Why is the effort being initiated in Alaska? It is simply because Alaska is a cheap place to run an initiative campaign. It also has a very young population. Children and teens are especially vulnerable to potential harm from long-term pot use, and this experiment is not worth risking their futures. 

I'm sure the cost of doing an initiative in Alaska is one of the reasons.  And the young population is also a good reason - young folks are more likely to vote for it than older folks.  As are our many libertarians. And Alaska has a long tradition of marijuana being legal, so it seems like there are a lot of reasons.  If it were just the small population they could have done it in Wyoming which is closer to Washington and Colorado and not as expensive as Alaska. By the way, did you notice he said 'pot' this time?  It looks like he was being careful to say marijuana throughout, but pot slipped in here.  He says marijuana eight times.

The part about children and teens does follow from the sentence about Alaska being a young state.  But it doesn't follow the logic of it being cheaper to do an initiative here.

He raises the theme of Reefer Madness and the impact on the kids.  Will it be different from the impact of alcohol on kids?    The National Institute on Drug abuse says (as of January 2014) that kids in the lower middle/high school grades use marijuana more than they get drunk, but in 12th grade that changes.  Specifically:

Marijuana use by adolescents declined from the late 1990s until the mid-to-late 2000s, but has been on the increase since then. In 2013, 7.0 percent of 8th graders, 18.0 percent of 10th graders, and 22.7 percent of 12th graders used marijuana in the past month, up from 5.8 percent, 13.8 percent, and 19.4 percent in 2008. Daily use has also increased; 6.5 percent of 12th graders now use marijuana every day, compared to 5 percent in the mid-2000s. .  .

In 2013, 3.5 percent of 8th graders, 12.8 percent of 10th graders, and 26 percent of 12th graders reported getting drunk in the past month, continuing a downward trend from previous years.

It seems the standard for alcohol (getting drunk) was higher than the standard for marijuana (used marijuana) so maybe a higher number used alcohol, but didn't get drunk.  What's interesting is that they say use of the illegal drug was increasing while use of the legal drug was decreasing.   Murkowski only raises the specter of something terrible without supporting it with facts.

    Where is the Outside money coming from in support of this ballot initiative? The Marijuana Policy Project of Washington, D.C., and the Drug Policy Alliance of New York have supplied the bulk of the funding. Don’t be fooled this is big business.

Evil Outside money.  It's good to see Murkowski and Begich agreeing on an issue.   Outside money shouldn't buy Alaska elections.  Unless, of course, the Outside money is supporting my candidates and my issues.

When did Murkowski become opposed to big business?  Before Parnell, he was the oil companies' best friend.  This is a real turn around in his values.  By the way, illegal marijuana distribution is also big business.  He seems to prefer illegal big business to legal big business.

 I believe the ballot process is flawed. If enough money can be raised outside the state to hire people to gather signatures, any issue can get on the ballot. The process circumvents the responsibility of legislators. Had the issue originated in our state Legislature, it would have failed overwhelmingly because every legislator would have to vote on the issue. The ballot initiative process allows any elected official to simply take a walk and avoid being held accountable. This is simply wrong. Alaskans need to know from each of their elected representatives, from the Legislature to the governor and the federal delegation, whether they support or oppose this important ballot measure. They need to respond with a simple yes or no answer.

Now he's arguing against referendums and initiatives.  "This is simply wrong."  Well, I recently pointed out that initiatives and referendums are part of the state constitution.  So now he's saying the Alaska constitution is wrong.  

Now he switches to the dual system argument, that if we pass this, we'll be out of sync with the feds:

If Ballot Measure 2 passes, it would establish a dual system. It would be unlawful to buy or sell marijuana under federal law but permissible under state law. Such an inconsistency has the federal government telling us one thing and the state government telling us another. Further, the enforcement of contradictory marijuana regulations would be very difficult for those in law enforcement. I would urge all Alaskans to read the statement from the Alaska Peace Officers Association, which details the difficulties associated with maintaining law and order.

Wow, is Murkowski still a Republican?  After all, "federal overreach" is the most common phrase among Alaska Republicans these days.  Sort of like "uh" among most people.  I thought Parnell's policy was to just ignore or sue the feds if their rules were different from ours.  But Murkowski thinks the state should not contradict the feds.  Interesting.

   It would also make hiring Alaskans for jobs that require drug screening more difficult, and may complicate insurance payouts if an accident happens. Jim Jansen of Lynden Transport and Alaska Marine Lines indicated to me that his businesses require zero tolerance, and he sees legalization as a major headache.

Most businesses also don't allow people to come to work drunk and we manage to make that work.  Testing might be more complicated than testing for alcohol though.  Healthblogger lists time marijuana can be detected in the blood, hair, urine, and saliva.  They also discuss the accuracy of current tests.  I also found a National Drug Court Institute report that says their numbers (ie 30 days detectable in the urine) are commonly accepted, but not necessarily accurate and that there are different factors that would make the length of time to get a negative reading vary from person to person.  I didn't find a publication date, but the most recent date cited in the footnotes was 2004.

So yes, Murkowski is probably correct in saying it will make some things a little more difficult for some businesses.  Every bit of legislation has that impact.  So does alcohol,  driving,  concealed carry, and sex.  For those individual choice items, we've decided the benefits outweigh the risks.  Murkowski doesn't explain how this is different from those issues. 

   Our opponents believe that with access to Outside funds they can buy our votes on Ballot Meaure 2. Let’s tell them that Alaska’s quality of life is not for sale. We have defeated this issue once and we can do it again. Big Marijuana, Big Mistake for Alaska.

Again, Outside money and buying the election.  I'm waiting for his piece on why we shouldn't vote for Dan Sullivan.  Quality of life means many things to many people.  A key aspect of quality of life for many, I think, would be the freedom to make personal choices.  For those who don't like alcohol or can't use it for health reasons, the option to become high on marijuana might give them a better quality of life.  For others, just having the state tell them what they can and can't ingest, lowers their quality of life.  For others, elimination of trees and natural spaces to accommodate the profits of developers lowers the quality of life.  Murkowski hasn't explained what specifically he means by quality of life and how legalizing marijuana lowers it. 


Assuming that Murkowski wrote this himself, I'd say it reflects his statement near the beginning - "For the life of me I can’t understand."  I suspect the reasons for opposing legalizing marijuana are so obvious to Murkowski, that he can't understand why anyone would be for it.  And so he can't articulate arguments that might be meaningful to people who are planning to vote yes.  He can't fill in the details that would support his opinion, because it seems so obvious.  When you only know that you believe, but can't articulate why with convincing arguments, you're in trouble.  It's faith, not science  You don't need facts.    The only factual statement I see in this essay is that someone gave his opinion -

"Jim Jansen of Lynden Transport and Alaska Marine Lines indicated to me that his businesses require zero tolerance, and he sees legalization as a major headache."   

It may be a fact that Jansen said this, but what he said was opinion.  

I realize that this post might make folks think that I'm for legalizing marijuana, but what I've tried to do here is simply look at how Murkowski made his argument.  On those grounds alone, I see no real facts, just lots of opinion.  Now I do realize that facts take up words and the ADN gives writers a limited number of words.  In that case, instead of throwing in every argument, including the kitchen sink, he should have focused on a couple and given us some facts to support his position.   

Here's a pretty good outline for how to write a persuasive essay from  Waterford Union High School.  It might be helpful to folks who need to convince others of something. 

"A scene out of Dante" - Washington Post Ebola Must Read Story

Ebola news comes in bits and pieces and until it got to Dallas seemed far away.  The Washington Post has a good overview of what has happened and is happening.  This is a major issue of concern to everyone.  This is a good way to get up to speed. 

Out of control: How the world’s health organizations failed to stop the Ebola disaster 

The LA Times also has a long story, but I think the Washington Post did a better job. [Note:  These stories, like all stories, need to be taken with a grain of salt, but for now, they both try to pull together what's been going on and who the key players are.  We can judge how good these reports were in a year or two, maybe.]

Image from Dore's illustrations of Dante's Inferno from Sexual Fables*

While people tend to think of this as a health story, I think of it as an international public administration story.  It involves, directly, the governments of Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea, Nigeria, the United States, and other countries around Africa and the world.  It involves the United Nations, the World Health Organization, Doctors Without Borders, Samaritans' Purse, the Centers for Disease Control, the US military.

It involves religion and science. Courage and fear.

It involves cultural beliefs about how to bury the dead.  The lack of trust in the aftermath of civil war and the arms trade.  The lack of infrastructure - roads, health care systems, sanitation systems, water systems.  It involves human emotions.

And most important, it involves human beings facing death from an invisible killer.

It requires people to have the understanding of all these complicated factors and the power to implement action that will curb this disease with the least loss of life, using the fewest possible resources, so that other problems can also be addressed.  

Trying to understand how we could send men to the moon, but couldn't keep people on earth healthy was a key reason I got into the field of public administration.  I learned there are no set answers, but a lot of processes and information, that allow us to adapt to the changing challenges public administrators face daily. 


*I have a copy of The Inferno with Dore's illustrations, but it's at home in Anchorage and I'm in LA, so I have to borrow this picture, at least for now.    

Dante's Inferno, widely hailed as one of the great classics of Western literature, details Dante's journey through the nine circles of Hell. The voyage begins during Easter week in the year 1300, the descent through Hell starting on Good Friday

"Governor says he responded to every allegation but was misled by leaders."

The title is from a headline in the ADN. [The paper and online editions have different headlines and different dates.]

“Every time I heard an allegation, every time I got an allegation or my office did, we investigated that with guard leadership,” Parnell said even as he acknowledged the same leadership turned out to be the cause of some of the guard's biggest problems."

We asked the fox how the hens were doing. 

Sort of like how he investigated the claims of the oil companies that they needed a tax break so they could increase production and create more jobs.

Good intentions are important, but our Governor was simply unable to get to the heart of matters for four years.  You need more than intentions.  You need to be able to figure out what's going on and then correct it. 

For four years the governor has heard about problems at the National Guard.  Often such complaints come from people whose credibility may be questionable to people in authority, which, of course, doesn't invalidate their claims.  It just makes it harder for them to get people to listen.

But in this case the people who complained to the governor were people with credibility.  Chaplains.  Officers in the guard.  A senior politician from the governor's party.

What is revealed in this case is that the governor is, like Don Young said, Captain Zero.  He's an empty shell.  He simply doesn't have the ability to judge people - he listened to Katkus and not to Katkus' critics.  He doesn't know how to investigate and find the facts.  He got bamboozled for four years by the likes of Katkus.  (If you were to actually meet Katkus, you'd find this even more amazing.)

The National Guard scandal is all the more outrageous because Parnell made ending domestic violence one of his top priorities - but when it was waved in front of his face for four years, he didn't see it.  Or know what to do about it.  [OK, he'll say I did everything I could but there wasn't evidence.  That answer gives Parnell a fail on this question.  A more alert and serious governor would have done something much sooner.  The head of the National Guard is an appointed position and serves at the pleasure of the governor.]

And this is the governor who told us we needed to pass SB 21  giving the oil companies a $2 billion a year tax cut because the tax was hindering oil production and costing the state jobs.  (If he had done the math, he would have known that for $2 billion a year he could have given every unemployed Alaskan a decent paying job.)  And he fought against the referendum to repeal SB 21 saying it would cost the state oil revenue and jobs.

Yet the oil companies Parnell supported said themselves production would decline and after it passed one oil company said there wouldn't be increased oil production and another laid off  a significant number of employees.  We all know that if Prop 1 had passed, they would have blamed it for the layoffs.

We don't have a governor, we have a puppet.  He only knows what to do when one of his puppeteers tells him what to do.  His "Choose Respect" campaign to end domestic violence was a poor marketing campaign.  The scary thing is that I believe Parnell thought it had substance. (There were some substantive actions, but only because a non-profit that  working with state agencies had already developed a statewide plan and the governor's task force was able to adopt some of that.)

But it seems the governor is a good representative of the voters of Alaska who continue to believe Parnell's promises and continue to elect Republican majorities in the house and senate.  And continue to buy the Republican brand for our US Representative. The majority of voters seem to be swayed by symbols and not by substance.  Perhaps the so-called Unity Party with Walker an Mallot will change things.  I think just the change itself will allow for a little different direction, but how long will it last? And if he wins, how will Walker's socially conservative values play out after the election?   Stay tuned.

I realize this is not my normal style.  But this situation is so outrageous, even I have to call it out harshly.  This is a clear fail on the part of the governor.  There are no shades of gray here.