The Prop. 8 ruling

One pillar of Judge Walker's ruling overturning the ban on gay marriage, according to Atlantic columnist Marc Ambinder:

California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.

That is the crux of the matter. I know he is using a technical legal term ("interest") there, but I think it is true in the the plain sense of words as well.

This was not always the case, even ten years ago. But it probably is now. I think Walker got it right: most Californians no longer want to erase LGBT people from their state. They may not want us next door, but they can imagine co-existing. Yeah for that!

Throughout the political scene, this is what many controversies boil down to. Arizona asserts an interest in reducing the number of brown people in its population. The Feds say no you don't; we are charged with making an immigration policy.

Some politicians, mostly from elsewhere, say we don't want Muslims in New York (or really anywhere in the country). New Yorkers say, get over yourselves; Muslims are here, New Yorkers as much as we are.

Birthers carry the desire to reduce the numbers of some people to fantastical lengths. They don't want the dark child of an African visitor and a citizen mother, born in oh-so-foreign Hawaii no less, as President, so they believe he can't be a citizen, born here and so with every right they have. They don't want such Americans. Too bad. Their country has changed.

The picture is of two Argentinian gentlemen who got married in their country last October. Governator Arnold responded to Walker's decision by reminding Californians of "our history of leading the way to the future." Yes, but a whole lot of places are ahead of the Golden State on this one.