Hedgehogs on hiatus...

well, its been quite some time since checking in!

the hedgehogs have been married!!!

hence, the lack of blogging.

but we're back!

interesting news developments that are worth noting:

the gay marriage debate: so much going on here. most notably the SF mayor's issuing of licenses "under the authority vested in him by the California Constitution," and New Mexico chiming in.

the difference between SF and NM is that NM does not have an equivalent to Prop 22 saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, it appears that NM can do whatever it wants.

but CA has such an amendment, and it is claimed to be unconstitutional -- denying equal protection as provided for in the CA constitution.

From what we have been learning in Con Law, it is necessary for the SF mayor to issue the licenses, and for gay couples to marry, in order that there be "standing" before the court. I'm not entirely sure if the same rules apply in state court when challenging the state constitutionality of a state law, but it certainly improves the standing of the city and the married couples when confronted by "generalized grievances" of the anti-gay groups.

Interesting to note is the governator's stance: he is toeing the republican line, but this is going to be a dangerous political position in a state like California. Yea, sure, the "voters" passed the proposition, but that doesn't ensure that the proposition is constitutional. Most propositions are so poorly drafted and not well thought out, the only way they get on the ballot is by proposition, rather than through the legislature. The worst kinds of laws are passed by this process -- which opens up another debate: whether the proposition system is a good thing for California. I'm generally fine with it, but for the fact that so many of the propositions are so poorly written that they don't pass constitutional muster.

perhaps we should amend our proposition laws to require constitutional review before posting them to the ballot? This would hold things up in the courts, but would ensure that only constitutional laws are put to the people for consideration. "The people" are not adequately trained to analyze the constitutionality of a particular proposal, and they barely understand the proposition process itself. This is a recipe for legal disaster.

the ICJ and the Israeli protective barrier: The Hague began its hearings this morning.

hedgehog's position: the security barrier is necessary, as long as it follows the green line as close as possible.

near as I can tell from the news, the international concern is not that Israel is constructing the security barrier, but that it veers off the green line to enclose some settlements, and cuts off access of palistinians to other parts of the west bank.

it is a good point. I think some veering off the green line is to be expected because of the reality of the situation on the ground, but some of the veering is weird and will only serve to outrage already outraged people.

but, in light of yesterday's suicide bombing, it is clear that the barrier is a necessity. If it had been constructed, it is very likely the bombing would not have happened and children would not have been murdered on their way to school.

sure, I recognize this position as pretty right-wing, and typically I am middle of the road to left, but when it comes to protecting against the murder of civilians, the right wing is right.

the reason I support the barrier is that it is a temporary measure that will ensure that the bombings cease so that peace can go forward. The US position has always been that we do not negotiate under fire...and Israel cannot and should not be made to negotiate when there are terrorists running around trying to thwart the peace process at every turn.

once the bombings are stopped, with the barrier in place, then the two sides can come to the table and begin to discuss a settlement to the conflict. In the end, when the official line is drawn, the barrier can be removed. But it is important to keep in mind that the barrier is not the line -- it is simply a security measure designed to make it easier for both sides to get back to the table without all of the unnecessary b.s. (suicide bombings and military invasions) that keeps getting in the way. With a barrier, it won't be necessary for the IDF to invade as often as it does, and it will be less likely that suicide bombers will be able to murder children and succeed in thwarting the peace process.

Doubtful the ICJ will see the matter in this light, but there is a sliver of hope.