THe problem with the pensions (updated)

There's an article in the NY Times about the difficulties in San Jose, CA,  which is having to make massive cuts to keep funding the pensions.  And pensions are the problem.

Cities in California are under particular pressure because it is so difficult to raise property taxes in the state, and because in 1999, at the height of the tech bubble, the Legislature voted for a huge benefit increase allowing, for instance, police officers to retire at age 50 with 90 percent of their salaries. 

“We have this all over the state of California,” said Karol K. Denniston, a bankruptcy lawyer with the firm of Schiff Hardin in San Francisco, who is advising a number of local taxpayer groups. “There is growing recognition that there is not enough money to keep doing what they’re doing, and something’s got to change.”

It's a huge issue:  people leave at 50, with massive pensions, and then go on and get another job.  One of my brothers was annoyed when his neighbor, a retired firefighter not much older than my brother, said  "You're always at work.  Why do you work so hard?"

My brother answered, "To pay your pension."

Another brother, himself 60, interacts with the agency that fights wild fires.  He points out there's a consequence beyond just the financial effect of these early retirements.  The experienced hands, with years behind them, take the retirement and go.  This means that many of the managers are relative youngsters, who haven't seen that many fires.  The years of experience go out with the retirees.  And that can have major consequences.

Cities throughout California are in trouble because of this.  They simply can't afford to maintain infrastructure or services because the politicians and the unions colluded in an unsustainable practice. The result is, everyone is getting screwed.  And it's only going to get worse. 

Update:  I'm generally in favor of unions, but I do have big problems with this, and don't think I don't blame the Democrates.  I also have problems with how the powerful prison guard's union dominates our politics in this state, which has led to skyrocketing support for prisons and collapsing support for education.

I'm not saying people shouldn't have pensions.  I'm saying that a system where they retire at 50 is a problem.  I'm saying a system in which we can't afford to pay our current policemen because of what we pay the retired policemen, is a  problem.  Many cities in CA have unfunded pension obligations, which to fund fully requires that they cut current staff and current services.  Cities like Vallejo and Stockton have gone into bankruptcy.  Vallejo is a very grim place where neighborhood watch groups try to cover for the police, because the PD has been cut so deeply to cover pensions, and don't even think about a library.  It's a libertarian nihilist's dream and a liberal's nightmare.

Update 2:  I'm 50, and I'd love to retire.  But I can't retire before 67, and it won't be with a pension or medical insurance, but a 401k and medicare.   Because I got an advanced academic degree and additional post-doctoral training, I didn't enter the "real" work force and start contributing to a plan before my 30s, prior which time I was paid next to nothing so no savings.  Because I stupidly became an academic, I never have or will made a salary commensurate with all that training.  And because I'm a scientist, and the government no longer wants  to fund science, I've taken a 25% pay cut.  So yeah, I'm not keen on driving through potholes, living with a part-time library, and paying generous retirement benefits to someone my own age, who is not disabled and who could still be working.

A graphical history of same sex marriage in CA

There was yet another hearing today on the never ending subject of Prop8 (read more at Gay Married Californian). Since it's hard to keep track of what's gone on, I thought I'd give you a cartoon version of the saga. Click for a larger view.

Road Trip! The Golden State

Lupine in the meadow near the pass

This past weekend, we were invited to a cabin near Strawberry (north of Yosemite) so we drove up state and into the high country.  Summer is not complete without a road trip, with BP knitting while I drive, and we sing along with the CDs.

I'm a Californian, with deep roots here.  I'm 4th-generation on both sides, born  in the Bay Area. I moved to the East Coast for grad school, then a few years in  Europe, and got back to my state but in the south.  Hey, as I told my Dad, at least I was the same time zone!  When Dad died, his ashes were interred in Petaluma next to his great-grand parents -- not bad for a man of 84, with roots in the  Gold Rush. 

So, up we drove from Southern California.  We wended our way through the tangled labyrinth of freeways, leaving the LA basin in the steep drive up the Tehachipis.  The "Grapevine" is the crossing over the Tejon Pass north of LA.  Although the elevation isn't that high, it's frequently closed by snow in the winter (yes, there is snow in Southern California!) and is so steep, that there isn't room for the whole freeway on one route.   North bound and southbound lanes criss cross each other on opposite sides of the canyon, so for a time you drive on the "wrong" side--like a twining vine.

As you drop off the Grapevine, you see the great central valley open before you:  flat and yellow.  We worked our way up Highway 99 and (thanks to having the iphone) were able to call an old school friend in Fresno for dinner.  We stayed the night and continued up towards the mountains.

The mountains are full of  history

In the central valley, we were in Ag, Inc, with massive fields of almond trees, fruit trees, hay and corn, and big equipment.  We couldn't see the mountains for the haze.  But in Merced, we turned off the 99 on  state 59. Now we entered the Sierra Foothills, rural ranching country.  We wound our way through  rolling hills of yellow grass  (which I think gave the state its Golden nickname) and live oaks.  When we reached the 108, at the southern edge of the Gold Country (the other source of the Golden nickename), the conifers started to come in. 

Sonora Pass

4000 and 5000 ft.... the Ponderosa Pines, White Fir.   The elevation ticked off and the engine whined.  6000, 7000, 8000....  The next day, we went up to see  the Sonora Pass (like most of the passes, closed in the winter)-- the Red Fir, Lodgepole, and White-bark Pines, and wild flowers for which August is still Spring. The White Bark pines are only found at highest elevation.  As global warming continues, most species will migrate up in elevation to seek cooler climates.  But the white bark pines will expire:  they have no where else to go.

I love my state, and I love the mountains. The smell of cedar and bear clover.... the color of the flowers...  the rich variety of climates.  On the way back down, once we got back to the Central Valley, we stopped to pick up fresh pistachios and stone fruits-- white necterines, two kinds of plums, all fresh picked--- in  America's fruitbasket, hot and dry in the summer.

Looking down towards Lake Beardsley

And as we went south, the Tehachipis emerged from the haze, forming the southern boundary of the great valley.  We crawled back over the Grapevine to the SoCal freeways.  And, then, finally, we emerged out of the heat of the valley to the humidity of FOG in Santa Monica, the natural air conditioning of the coast.  We tucked into the  carpool lane in the heart of urban life, and went home, restored by our short trip to the top of the Sierras, the Range of Light.

We are hopeful we'll get to go back next summer.

Faith for Equality: Prop8 update

The story so far: In a Federal court challenge to California's Prop8 (the voter initiative which took away the rights of lesbian and gay couples to marry), Judge Vaughn Walker found that this amendment is unconstitutional and motivated by animus. However, this finding was immediately stayed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, which is considering two questions: standing, and the constitutionality issue.

The question of standing asks, do the supporters of Prop8 have a right to defend this case in appeal? The Governor and Attorney General refuse to defend Prop8. Because this falls under California law, the 9th Circuit (federal) court has sent this "certified question" back to the California Court, which moves slowly and will consider it in the fall.

Several groups have filed amicus briefs in this case, and I thought you might be interested in this one, from a large coalition of faith groups, including (among others) California Faith for Equality, the California Council of Churches, and Episcopal Bishops Marc Andrus (CA) and Jon Bruno (LA). Yay, Bishops! The brief takes down the argument that the proponents are somehow protecting religious liberty. It concludes,

Proposition 8's proponents may believe that the federal constitution accords same-sex marriages celebrated in Unitarian Universalist churches and Reform Synagogues less dignity and regard than the mixed-race marriage of Catholics at issue in Perez.*

But they suffer no particularized injury when the fundamental rights of others are sustained, and same sex couples are permitted to marry.

Same-sex marriages celebrated in Unitarian Universalist or other churches, in Reform Synagogues, or indeed, in the county clerk's office before a secular employee, threaten no harm to the religious liberty of those whose churches or synagogues disallow same sex unions.

Nor do Proposition 8's Proponents possess any special Commission to act as representatives of the People, and to override the authority and discretion that California's Constitution has vested in the Governor and Attorney General to represent the people's interest in litigation.

*Perez v. Sharp was the case in California that challenged anti-miscegenation laws in 1946

It is estimated that 18,000 same sex couples married prior to the passage of Prop8 in California, including yours truly. These marriages remain legally valid. Since then, other lesbians and gays are only allowed to enter into Domestic Partnerships, which are supposed to give them all the same rights except for the name. If you want to read more about the Prop8 case, visit my other blog, Gay Married Californian.

Amicus brief in Prop8 case signed by two TEC Bishops

In the appeal of the Prop8 federal case, the bad guys submitted their appeal, our side rebutted it, and now the amicus (friends of the court) briefs have been filed. This one comes from CA Faith for Equality. I wish that all the TEC CA Bishops had signed it! Still, thanks to Bps Andrus (Dio California) and Bruno (Dio Los Angeles), who joined many other faith groups in signing this brief.

From the Introduction (my emphases):

Amici... wish to emphasize that principles of religious freedom lying at the heart of our system of ordered liberty also strongly support the right of gay men and lesbian women to marry.

People of faith have come to a variety of conclusions about same-sex marriage. Many churches and clergy, as a matter of doctrine, withhold formal recognition of same-sex unions within their religious liturgy. Others, including the Episcopal Church in California, may permit clergy to bless same-sex relationships without necessarily bringing them within the rite of marriage. Still others, including congregations of the United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalist Association, and Metropolitan Community Churches, readily include same-sex couples in their rites of marriage....

Before this Court Proposition 8’s Proponents have abandoned any contention that Proposition 8 advances religious-liberty interests. Yet their amici have submitted briefs insisting that same-sex couples’ right to marry somehow threatens Californians’ religious liberty, and that Proposition 8 is a reasonable response. In truth, according same-sex couples the same right to civil marriage that other Californians enjoy poses no real threat to the religious liberty of faith traditions limiting religious rites of marriage to mixed-sex unions. For even if civil marriage is recognized as a fundamental civil right of all people, religious organizations always have been free – and remain free – to frame their own rules restricting who may be joined in a religious rite of marriage.

Some churches, for example, will not permit the divorced to remarry in a religious ceremony. Some clergy decline to officiate interfaith marriages. No one can force them to. But the government ought not mandate that anyone’s civil marriage shall be void for failure to conform to theological doctrines or church rules governing religious marriage rites.

According equal marriage rights for all in our civil law threatens no one’s religious liberty. Allowing same-sex couples the legal right to marry threatens the religious liberty of Catholics, for example, no more than does allowing civilly divorced citizens to remarry in contravention of Catholic doctrine. Same-sex couples’ civil marriages threaten the religious liberty of those who oppose such unions in their churches and synagogues no more than interfaith marriages threaten the religious liberty of those who interpret their scripture and tradition to prohibit such unions.

No one can force clergy of any denomination to solemnize any wedding that conflicts with his or her faith tradition, and no church, synagogue, or other place of worship loses its tax-exempt status for refusing religious rites of marriage to citizens possessing a civil right to marry. Though Proponents’ amici suggest that Proposition 8’s demolition of same-sex couples’ right to marry was designed to protect Californians’ religious liberty, quite the opposite is true. The real threat to religious liberty comes from enforcing as law the religious doctrines of some sects, to outlaw marriages that others both recognize and sanctify. .... Amici respectfully submit that Proposition 8 unlawfully deprives many Californians of a fundamental right merely because of who they are, that it denies them equal protection of the law, and that it does so at the expense of religious freedom.

The complete brief (as well as the other amicus briefs on our side) here.

H/T Susan Russell

Making it explicit: Religious freedom and civil marriage

Despite the fact that no religious group can be required to perform a marriage of which they do not approve (think Catholics and divorce) this continues to be a canard that the equality opponents raise. Apparently fearful of bands of tasteful homos demanding that a faith community that despises them, marry them anyway? Well, whatever. In order to spike the guns on that particular argument, openly gay CA State Senator Mark Leno has introduced The Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act, SB 906.

Leno’s legislation is sponsored by the California Council of Churches, IMPACT a nd Equality California, which was the main group opposing Prop. 8.....

"We strong support religious freedom and the rights of clergy to only solemnize weddings they want to solemnize," [Geoff]Kors, [director of EQCA] says. The bill would not apply to government employees who perform weddings, who would have to treat gay and straight couples the same. It would also protect the rights of churches to reserve church facilities for their own members [as long as they don't rent them to the general public].

"As we know from the Yes on 8 Campaign and what we’re seeing in the federal trial, many people and a lot of the right-wing groups we’re up against have lied to Californians about who has to marry people and how clergy might be arrested and churches might lose their tax-exempt status," said Geoff Kors.

Equality CA urges Californians to write your state legislators in support. I agree!

This piece of legislation codifies in state law that no member of clergy is required to solemnize a civil marriage that is contrary to the tenets of his or her faith or that would infringe on his or her right to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the California Constitution and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The bill also clarifies that civil marriage is a civil contract that requires a state-issued marriage license.

Both the California and U.S. Constitution currently protect religious freedom. However, until such protections are codified under law, there is ambiguity. It is necessary to strengthen these religious protections for clergy through state law to eliminate any uncertainty. The state cannot compel clergy to solemnize any civil marriage.

The anti-equality guys have claimed this is one of their big concerns. Even though they already have the protections, let's call them on it. Take this excuse away. Call or write your state senator and urge them to sponsor this bill. Keep a bright line between civil and religious unions.

Banning Divorce in CA?

There's a movement afoot to ban divorce in the Golden State in response to the debacle of Prop8.

Interestingly, the "pro family groups" are not really in favor. Wonder why?

Marcotte, who is Catholic and voted against Proposition 8, views himself as an accidental activist. A registered Democrat, he led a "ban divorce" rally recently at the state Capitol in Sacramento to launch his effort and was pleasantly surprised at the turnout. About 50 people showed up, some holding signs that read, "You too can vote to take away civil rights from someone."

The official website of the California Marriage Protection Act brilliantly satirizes.


I've got no intention of ever leaving MY marriage, so --BRING IT ON.

Wandering and welcome in the desert

IF you fly into Southern California from Atlanta, say, or Texas, you fly over the great Colorado desert. As your plane starts its descent over the Colorado River, you may forget that, since below is the unnatural greenness of the agricultural Imperial County (one of the most staunchly conservative and antigay parts of the state) and then suddenly the landscape below looks bleak and brown as you look out on a vast expanse of desert, rippled into folds of badlands and canyons.

Most visitors don't realize they are also looking out on an expanse of North American history. Spanish explorer Juan Bautista de Anza led an expedition into California from Mexico through this region in 1774 establishing an overland route to the coast. The famed Butterfield Stage pushed a brute-force route across the southern desert during the Mexican-American War, and in the late 1850s, this was the main route into California, the great Southern Emigrant Trail, across the desert and up over the mountains before descending into the fertile farmland on the other side.

Despite its monochromatic appearance from the air, the desert floor teems with life, from the dark green creosote bush, with leaves that smell like tar if you crush them in your fingers, to the ephemeral grey-green of the smoketrees, to the branching cholla cactus, each branch topped with pale golden thorns giving it the look of a halo aglow. Animal life also survives and even thrives: insects, snakes, and at night, scorpions, doe-eyed kangaroo mice, and singing coyotes. The endangered Peninsular Mountain bighorn sheep sip water from the occasional canyon oasis shaded by the rare California desert palm. (Borrego, the Spanish for "sheep", combines with the early explorer to name Anza-Borrego Desert State Park).

Desert living is hard, and communities often are boom-or-bust. The shells of lost commuities can be see along the desert roads, sometimes with a few people still scraping out a life in the searing summer heat. Palm Springs, in the Coachella Valley, is a booming vacation community popular with rich Angelenos. Sixty years ago, developers thought that they might create another Palm Springs in the next valley down. The small community of Borrego Springs was then home to a few cattlemen and farmers raising grapefruit and dates. Surrounded by a nascent state park (soon to become the biggest in the state, and the nation), it was almost unreachable in the early days. Although roads were eventually built in to the valley the developers failed in their goal to bulldoze a superhighway up to LA, with their desired route being blocked to protect the bighorn. Thus, the drive from more coastal cities remains slow and sleepy on twisting 2-lane mountain highways. Although Borrego Springs is a vacation and retirement destination (the population quadruples in the winter as the snowbirds return, but there are fewer than 3000 year-round residents), it lacks the big glamorous and expensive resorts, and maintains a quirky, small-town feeling.

Along the edge of the valley runs a narrow and unevenly paved road called "Church Lane" where four churches sit side by side: Lutheran, Catholic, Methodist (shared with the 7th day Adventists) and Episcopal. BP and I walked to the Episcopal church, St Barnabas, on Sunday Morning. It's a pleasant building, simple and light inside. Strikingly, the wall behind the altar is a huge picture window with a spectacular view of the surrounding mountains. Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.

The parish reflects the Borrego Springs demographic, being older overall, with many retired folks. It's a small community, but they were clearly involved and collaborative with each other. We felt very welcome, although they seemed a little disappointed we were just visiting, rather than new residents (the start of high tourist season is still a few weeks away). At coffee in the tidy little hall, with excellent home-made carrot cake, we were interested to see flyers about various activities, like helping at-risk youth in the grim farming town of El Centro in Imperial County, or helping farflung poorer desert residents deal with rural challenges like disposal of old appliances. There's a labyrinth laid out with rock in the sand outside the church which I bet is spectacular at sunrise. They are searching for a new rector and relying on supply clergy, although we were quite taken with their interim, Fr Juan, a retired priest. Clearly despite their small size, they are a vibrant and engaged group. So, chalk up another welcoming visit to TEC in the wanderings of IT and BP, desert rats.

The landscapes are mine, the other photos from the web. In 15 years of regular visits, I have yet to see an actual bighorn--they are very shy and hide in the up-country.

Repeal Prop H8: it begins. Religious Exemption included.

It's begun. On Thursday, Love Honor Cherish submitted ballot language to repeal Proposition H8 in 2010. The first moves are supported by Yes on Equality , who developed the Get-to-know-us-first campaign. Courage Campaign is working on language as well. Equality CA isn't on board with the timing, but is working on the language, with the idea that we all have to be behind whatever happens.

This amendment would amend an existing section of the California Constitution. Existing language proposed to be deleted is printed in strikeout type. Language proposed to be added is printed in underlined type.

Section 1. To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.

Section 2. To provide for fairness in the government’s issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

It's begun. What are you gonna do about it?

First suggestion: HELP MAINE. Our case is strengthened if our east coast friends can preserve equality. Get there and protect equality in Maine.

Second suggestion: HELP WASHINGTON. It's not marriage, but the bad guys are attacking like it is. Approve 71.

Third suggestion: COME OUT COME OUT WHEREVER YOU ARE: as a GLBT person, or an ally. Start the conversation, and get started. Join the repeal effort.

Overturn hate.

Cross posted at Street Prophets , Daily Kos, and Gay Married Californian

What would Jesus do if he lived in California?

As you all know by now, here in California we have a completely dysfunctional political system. The legislature is hyper-partisan and unable to govern. Thanks to a law stating that all taxes and budgets must have a super majority, a small rump of radical right wing Republicans basically can dictate policy to the majority. (Of course the irony that you can eliminate the rights of a class of people with a simple majority, but not raise taxes, is not lost on me.) With an initiative process out of control, vast swaths of the budget are committed to this and that policy. Courtesy of long-ago Proposition 13, property taxes are a mess. Now, the state (which boasts, when it can, the 8th largest economy in the world) is lurching towards an agreement on a budget deficit that essentially eviscerates any social programs and raids local coffers of cities and counties, leaving them denuded.

Because, of course, we can't raise taxes. Uh-uh, not even on tobacco and alcohol. And people who get services should be the ones who pay for them, so raise those tuition fees! Never mind that the state's public education system has, over the course of my 46 years here, plummeted from one of the top in the nation, to one of the worst, right down there with Mississippi. Never mind that the state universities, once a crown jewel that drove the state's economy with innovations in biotech and Silicon valley, are contracting, reducing enrollment, and the faculty start packing to move elsewhere.

And apparently, leaving poor kids unvaccinated and the public health system unfunded isn't a problem to some ( which is funny, because last I checked, flu viruses and pathogenic bacteria don't check your wallet before they hit you). And wildfires don't care how big your tax break is. And even a Lexus can lose a tire in a pothole.

But of course we can't release anyone from prison. That's the one thing the Republicans are adamant about (the prison guards' union is big here). Since those perpetrators of victimless crime need to sit in cells costing us a fortune. And of course, you ahve to have a place to put the young people if you don't educate them and give them a future.

This obsession with NOT raising taxes is insane. BP and I are comfortably off and (thankfully) our jobs appear stable. We understand that our taxes contribute to the world in which we all live and we should pay more when needed. I don't want sick, hungry and uneducated kids prowling the streets. I want there to be reasonable public transit and the potholes to be filled. I want our universities to compete and build a better future for all of us. I want the public health system to monitor swine flu and discourage tobacco, drug and alcohol use. I want people to have decent health care and job opportunities, and a hand up when they need it.

As I get angrier and angrier at the Legislature, I realized something. I bet that most of those passionate anti-tax Republicans think of themselves as good Christians. I wonder how they resolve their faith and its call to care for the least sparrow, with calmly slashing the social safety net, and stepping carelessly over the homeless in the street.


Picture credit

It's coming: preparing for the California decision

By law, the Supreme Court of California has 90 days to release its decision on the Proposition 8 case which it heard in March. That date is fast approaching, in early June. (However, they can release the decision at any time.) They will give us 24 hours warning that the decision is coming at their website. There is a rumor that they will release it tomorrow (update, it is not listed on the docket for tomorrow, Opinions are released on M and Th at 10am and announced on the website the day before).

As we've discussed at length here, there are two questions.

First, does the vote of a majority overrule the rights of a minority? That is, was Prop8 legal on the ballot, and even eligible for popular vote? Ken Starr admitted during arguments that the Pro-H8 view was that any minority right was at the whim of the voters. He actually said no rights are inalienable. The rights of religious groups to practise their faith, or of ethnic groups to vote and fully participate, are, according to Ken Starr, completely reversible. It's useful to remember that if inter-racial marriage, allowed by the CA courts in 1948, and by the US Supreme Court in 1967, had been put to the voters, it would not have become legal until around 1994. It wasn't until then that a majority of Americans felt it was "okay" for blacks and whites to marry. But we don't put the rights of the minority to mob vote, especially when the election is funded by overt religious interests. Do we?

The second question is, are the marriages that were fully legal between May and November of 2008 still legal? Pro -Prop8 advocate Starr says those marriages (which include mine) ceased to exist legally on 5 Nov 2008, making this a retroactive decision. The court seemed less comfortable with this argument.

The general consensus following the arguments in March was the the court was against us on the first issue, and possibly for us on the second issue.

But look what's happened since then. Iowa. Vermont. New Hampshire. Maine. Washington DC. Joining Massachusetts and Connecticut, with New Jersey coming along. And unexpected voices in favor of gay rights. And a recent poll suggesting Americans favor gay marriage by a narrow margin .

Will the California court temper its decision with this groundswell? Some think so. There has been a major change in the climate. Let's also remember that the California legislature passed a pro-gay marriage bill TWICE before the initial decision, which was vetoed by the governor, on the grounds that the court should rule first. The court subsequently ruled, in May 2008, that all citizens have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Very similar to the words used in the landmark Perez v. Sharp decision of 1947, that overturned California's anti-miscegenation laws. It would really be unprecedented for fundamental rights to be eliminated by a mob vote, but of course that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Still, we have work to do. We must assume that there will be a new ballot initiaitve in 2010 regardless. You can support that, and learn more here, at EQ-CA and here, at the Courage Campaign .

We have to respond to the decision, whether pro or con. If you are in California, you can participate here. Many cities will have an event, whether to celebrate or to protest.

We have to claim our rights, and meet in the middle the weekend after the decision, in Fresno. Yes, San Joaquin friends, you are once again on the front line leading the way for justice.

I hate the fact that I still have this insistent little bird of hope. It's tiny, just a little thing. The realist in me expects the worst, and the problem with having a little bird of hope is that it is so agonizing when it is killed, yet again. It is so much worse to feel its death than not to have heard it to begin with.

But agony of waiting is almost over. Work and life have suffered enormously from living in this limbo. Let's get it over with.

Cross posted at Daily Kos and Streetprophets

Update: CA resolution passes Assembly committee

From The SF Chronicle:

After hearing conflicting and often emotional testimony about who deserves the last say on the marriage question, the Assembly Judiciary Committee voted 7-3 in favor of a resolution stating that citizens lacked the authority to put the gay marriage ban directly to voters.

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for March 5 on a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The suits say the ballot measure was improperly enacted and is itself unconstitutional because it singles out a minority group for discrimination. ... The resolution goes next to the full Assembly. The state Senate is scheduled to consider a companion measure in coming weeks.

Now, if you are inclined to pray, please pray for California for other reasons. The Republican minority is driving the state over the cliff for pure ideology and refuses to vote for a budget compromise. The one senator who is the swing vote wont' do it unless they promise a change in rules that would make his seat safer.

If you're in California, call State Senator Abel Maldonaldo (916) 651-4015 and ask him why he hates the Golden State.