Thursday, July 06, 2006

And Georgia too

AJC:

The Georgia Supreme Court’s decision Thursday upholding a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage capped a two-year battle that mobilized the gay community, brought conservative voters to the polls in 2004 and threatened to become a politically charged issue in this year’s election.

The state’s highest court unanimously affirmed the constitutional amendment - approved by 76 percent of voters in 2004 - that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Opponents of the measure argued that the ban violated the state constitution’s “single-subject rule” because it addressed not only marriage, but also civil unions. [...]

What’s unclear in Thursday’s ruling is if the amendment bans unmarried couples and same-sex couples from receiving any of the benefits given to married men and women, such as health insurance benefits or inheritance rights. Most legal experts said the state Legislature and the court may have to step in to either clarify the law or decide individual cases.

What ever happened to those activist judges? Two state courts said ‘no’ to gay marriage today. Cock-eyed optimist that I am, it doesn’t change my optimism one whit!

NY nixes gay marriage

Drat!

New York’s highest court today turned back an attempt by gay and lesbian couples to win equal treatment under New York State’s marriage law, saying that the state constitution “does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex.”

In a rare fracture, the six judges were split into a plurality of three, who signed the majority opinion; a concurring opinion by one judge; and a strong dissent by the other two.

The majority opinion agreed with lawyers for New York City and New York State that there was a rational basis - grounded in the stability of the family as a child-rearing institution - for limiting marriage to a union of one man and one woman.

The 70 page decision is here.

Coulter cribbing UPDATED: No there there

Developing.

LATER Picking up steam:

John Barrie, the man whose technology identified the instances of plagiarism in acidic right-wing writer Ann Coulter’s columns, is getting more calls to do national television.

Barrie, whose analysis of Coulter’s work was first reported by the New York Post on Sunday, has recently been contacted by the Today Show and Good Morning America, he told me. In addition, AP, the New York Times and others have called him for stories they’re working on, and the New York Post is planning a follow-up piece, he said.

FINAL UPDATE: Not much there. Josh says, “To me personally, some of the examples/accusations seem strained—simply similar statements of the same basic facts.”

Is listing a right?

Yesterday I wondered is ranking a right? I thought not. But what if your website is delisted?

If your website is delisted, Google won’t tell you, and it won’t tell you why. Also, it won’t tell you what you need to change to get back in. Google acts as its own policeman, as prosecutor, and as judge and jury. It has absolute power. In so far as there is a court of appeal, that’s also controlled by Google, and the whole operation runs in complete secrecy.

The “power of the press” has no effect, either. I took up Dowse’s case and got no response. It’s all very Orwellian for a company with the motto: “Do no evil.”

When Google was a couple of PhD students in a garage, none of this mattered. Now that it has close to life or death power over vast numbers of small companies, it does. Put it this way: Google is heading for a monopoly market share of search, and in the UK, 75% of us use it. If Google’s management doesn’t find a way to temper the company’s power, legislators will eventually do it for them.

He proposes an “office of the ombudsman” staffed by Google employees. I like it.