Woo, woo, woo, woo, woo California!

The WaPo reports... The California Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriages Thursday, potentially creating the second state in the nation to allow same-sex couples to wed.

Kewl.

Read this.

If you have a few extra minutes, read this article in the NYT: Aging and Gay, and Facing Prejudice in Twilight.

It made me angry and sad and frustrated -- and wanting to go back to my former career as an activist.

New website, new technology

and also SM's latest, funnest way to waste time online: The Redistricting Game.

Yes, he's a policy wonk. Yes, he works on the Hill for a member that was a pawn in recent redistricting games.

Doesn't sound very exciting does it? Probably only appeals to the inside-the-beltway types.

But check it out anyway, if only to watch the intro video on the site. It's well done and raises important questions for civic participation.

Yes, we're kinda geeky that way.

I heart New England

The last state in New England is headed in the right direction... not quite there yet, but this is a big step: N.H. Is Set To Approve Same-Sex Civil Unions.

This part, especially, caught my attention:

In fact, in strongly libertarian New Hampshire, a new bill that would make it the last state in the union to adopt a mandatory seat-belt law has generated far more controversy, political experts say.

"I just don't think it's a major issue anymore," said Jim Lupien, 40, a lifelong Republican and owner of the Cool Moose Creamery Candy Store on Concord's old-style Main Street. "Vermont did it, and then Massachusetts, and people around here just started thinking, 'Okay, what's the big deal?' I'm not pro-gay, but that's no reason to deny them their rights."

Finally, folks are starting to understand that denying same-sex couples their rights is only hurtful and mean -- while ensuring equal protection under the law to same-sex couples hurts no one. And is the right thing to do.

And I'm waiting to see this bumper-sticker...

We stand on the shoulders of those who came before us

I am such a sucker for this kind of news article/story.

Sad news

Father Robert Drinan, Jesuit priest, former member of Congress, GULC law professor and human rights hero, passed away yesterday.

I never took a class with him, but I had met him on several occasions -- because of my work and through school -- and I respected and admired him greatly. I first became aware of his name because he was appointed to The Commission on the Wartime Relocation of Civilians. Beyond this, Father Drinan's achievements were epic, an inspiration. At the same time, however, he was a very down to earth and approachable man -- and always willing to talk or lend himself to a worthy cause.

Drinan recently told the Legal Times that he had given no thought to retirement, saying there was too much left to do: “Jesuits don’t ordinarily retire. You just do what you do.”

In October, the Law Center honored him with the establishment of the Robert F. Drinan, S.J., Chair in Human Rights for his half century of involvement in the cause. Drinan was a founder of the Lawyers’ Alliance for Nuclear Arms Control and the National Interreligious Task Force on Soviet Jewry. He was also the vice chair of the National Advisory Council of the ACLU and a member of the Helsinki Watch Committee.

He served on numerous committees devoted to the furtherance of human rights and was on the board of directors of the International League for Human Rights, Human Rights First, Bread for the World, the Council for a Livable World Educational Fund, Americans for Democratic Action, People for the American Way and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.

And the list goes on. And on. And on.

We have lost a great man, and even though I barely knew him, I am very saddened that he is gone.

P.S. The Washington Post has a nice piece about Father Drinan too.

Office politics...

So today is the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, in recognition of which, many bloggers are blogging for choice, but it is also being commemorated with the "Right to Life" march on the Mall.

Another attorney in my office just mentioned the march to me -- since it's going on now -- and that led to a quick office discussion about the march. A few folks put on coats and went out. But I don't know if they were just getting their lunches or joining the crowd to march. I found myself quite perturbed that I couldn't tell which side of the debate they are on. Eeek. I guess I'm just too used to hanging with like-minded folks (coming from a civil rights career).

Don't get me wrong, I fully believe that everyone is free to their own views and opinions. Perhaps it's best that I don't know which side of the debate they support? This is, after all, a work environment, and I think that discussion would be inappropriate here.

But, if anyone reading this hasn't figured it out, I am most definitely a pro-choice kinda gal. I believe that all people have a right to self-determination, autonomy, privacy and control over their bodies. If a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, then I trust that she has made the right decision for herself. Ditto if she decides to have the baby or give it up for adoption. I would not want her to impose her personal decision on another woman, and I do not trust the government to make that decision for her.

As an aside, I'd like to ask some of the hardliners -- how can you be "pro-life" and also support the death penalty? Why are you against big government when it comes to taxes and regulatory measures but you'll have the government interfere with such a personal choice as this? Why is it that the states with the most stringent controls over access to abortions provide so little welfare support for single mothers?

So, there you have it.

BTW, I once saw a sign being carried by a man at a DC rally (back when I was in college) which read:

Men who don't support a woman's right to choose should f*ck themselves!

Uh-huh.