The New York Court of Appeals (New York’s highest court) ruled 4 to 2 against more than 40 same-sex couples seeking the right to marry in a July 6 ruling. Judge Robert S. Smith wrote the majority opinion, which stated that the court found no basic constitutional right to same-sex marriage. He did open up the possibility that a change in the state’s marital law could be initiated by the legislative branch, but then proceeded to give numerous reasons why that would be ill-advised. Among other points, Smith argued that that limiting of marriage to heterosexuals was not solely based on prejudice, since childbirth is a natural consequence only of heterosexual marriage.
The majority opinion offered these summary remarks:

The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.
See Dr. Albert Mohler’s blog post for further analysis and other exceptional quotes from the majority opinion.
For a comparison to a similar recent ruling by Georgia’s Supreme Court, see here.

In a conversation with Larry Arnn, renowned economist Milton Friedman makes some powerful arguments in support of educational vouchers. I found the following quote to be a particularly creative, insightful, and gripping way of stating the matter:
“Think of it this way: If you want to subsidize the production of a product, there are two ways you can do it. You can subsidize the producer or you can subsidize the consumer. In education, we subsidize the producer—the school. If you subsidize the student instead—the consumer—you will have competition. The student could choose the school he attends and that would force schools to improve and to meet the demands of their students.”
A few follow-up questions were asked:
LA: Although you discuss many policy issues in Free to Choose [a book Friedman wrote in 1980], you have turned much of your attention to education, and to vouchers as a method of education reform. Why is that your focus?
MF: I don’t see how we can maintain a decent society if we have a world split into haves and have-nots, with the haves subsidizing the have-nots. In our current educational system, close to 30 percent of the youngsters who start high school never finish. They are condemned to low-income jobs. They are condemned to a situation in which they are going to be at the bottom. That leads in turn to a divisive society; it leads to a stratified society rather than one of general cooperation and general understanding. The effective literacy rate in the United States today is almost surely less than it was 100 years ago. Before government had any involvement in education, the majority of youngsters were schooled, literate, and able to learn. It is a disgrace that in a country like the United States, 30 percent of youngsters never graduate from high school. And I haven’t even mentioned those who drop out in elementary school. It’s a disgrace that there are so many people who can’t read and write. It’s hard for me to see how we can continue to maintain a decent and free society if a large subsection of that society is condemned to poverty and to handouts.
LA: Do you think the voucher campaign is going well?
MF: No. I think it’s going much too slowly. What success we have had is almost entirely in the area of income-limited vouchers. There are two kinds of vouchers: One is a charity voucher that is limited to people below a certain income level. The other is an education voucher, which, if you think of vouchers as a way of transforming the educational industry, is available to everybody. How can we make vouchers available to everybody? First, education ought to be a state and local matter, not a federal matter. The 1994 Contract with America called for the elimination of the Department of Education. Since then, the budget for the Department of Education has tripled. This trend must be reversed. Next, education ought to be a parental matter. The responsibility for educating children is with parents. But in order to make it a parental matter, we must have a situation in which parents are Free to Choose the schools their children attend. They aren’t free to do that now. Today the schools pick the children. Children are assigned to schools by geography—by where they live. By contrast, I would argue that if the government is going to spend money on education, the money ought to travel with the children. The objective of such an expenditure ought to be educated children, not beautiful buildings. The way to accomplish this is to have a universal voucher. As I said in 1955, we should take the amount of money that we’re now spending on education, divide it by the number of children, and give that amount of money to each parent. After all, that’s what we’re spending now, so we might as well let parents spend it in the form of vouchers.
Read the whole thing.

Justin Taylor reported the news earlier today, from a Publishers Weekly article. Some of this was confirmed to me via personal correspondence from a former Multnomah employee. On a personal level, this is sad, as the future of many good editors and managers is uncertain. On another level, I’m concerned that the future owner will likely be a secular publishing house, and hence more likely to make publication decisions based on economic driving forces rather than theological or pastoral convictions. (That is arguably already an issue in the industry.)
An announcement is due Friday that will clarify the rumors, says CT weblog.

James Taranto delineates the significance of the 5-3 Supreme Court ruling regarding the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay (Hamden v. Rumself). Not surprisingly, it is not as “significant a blow to the President” as the media has purported.
Media coverage:
* “The Supreme Court on Thursday repudiated the Bush administration’s plan to put Guantanamo detainees on trial before military commissions, ruling broadly that the commissions were unauthorized by federal statute and violated international law. . . . The decision was . . . a sweeping and categorical defeat for the administration.”–New York Times
* “The Supreme Court yesterday struck down the military commissions President Bush established to try suspected members of al-Qaeda, emphatically rejecting a signature Bush anti-terrorism measure and the broad assertion of executive power upon which the president had based it.”–Washington Post
* “In a sharp rebuke of President George W. Bush’s tactics in the war on terrorism, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down as unlawful the military tribunal system set up to try Guantanamo prisoners.”–Reuters
* “The Supreme Court rebuked President Bush and his anti-terror policies Thursday, ruling that his plan to try Guantanamo Bay detainees in military tribunals violates U.S. and international law.”–Associated Press
* “The Supreme Court on Thursday sharply rejected the Bush administration’s use of military commissions to try suspected terrorists, eliminating a central pillar of the president’s anti-terrorism strategy. In a blunt dismissal of President Bush’s claim that he had unfettered authority to try enemy combatants captured in the war on terror, the court ruled 5-3 that military trials of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba violated domestic and international laws.”–Chicago Tribune
See Taranto’s piece for more details, but here is the bottom line:
“The court did not decide that unlawful combatants at Guantanamo are entitled to Geneva Convention protections as either civilians or prisoners of war, only that Common Article 3, which governs “conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the [signatories],” applies–though because of Kennedy’s demurral, precisely how it applies is an open question.”
“For now at least, the court has not mandated that terrorist detainees be granted the rights of either ordinary criminal defendants (who cannot be held indefinitely unless charged and convicted) or prisoners of war (who, among other things, cannot be interrogated)……The chief result of this ruling will be to delay the trials of Guantanamo detainees until Congress or the Pentagon establishes a regime of military commissions that meets the court’s approval. For those concerned with the duration of terrorists’ captivity–a perverse thing to worry about anyway–there’s little to cheer here.”
From: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/ (James Taranto, July 3, 2006)
Also see Charles Krauthammer’s rebuttal to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Thomas Sowell writes a good essay on how the media coverage of Iraq fails to grant soldiers the presumption of innocence with regard to unproven charges. The irony, of course, is that even citizens who do not sacrifice for the good of America enjoy the presumption of innocence. How much more ought courageous soldiers (seeking to secure the freedom of others) receive this fundamental privilege of democracy? Key quotes:
“A recent study by the Media Research Center found that the three big broadcast news networks — CBS, ABC, and NBC — ran 99 stories in 3 and 1/2 hours about the investigation of charges against Marines in the death of Iraqi civilians in Haditha last November. These remain unproven charges in a country where people on the side of the terrorists include civilian women and children who set off bombs to kill American troops and who can set off lies to discredit those that they do not kill.”
“But the same networks….gave less than one hour of coverage of all the American troops who have won medals for bravery under fire.”