Bush Administration: The proposed cuts (in place to pay for tax cuts or rather tax shifts) are offensive -- they hit the people least likely to vote for the Republicans, including veterans (if they take a closer look at how they are being treated). Also, given all the hype over the UN and the Oil For Food Program (including the "shocked shocked" talk about things the U.S. knew about at the time), how about Halliburton's misdeeds? Also, just what was that money to Maggie Gallagher for? Oh, and the sanctions basically worked -- no WMDs.
Gay Marriage Ruling in NY: After reading the opinion, I'll add a few more remarks. The opinion begins with its strongest part: the facts. The couples are in all ways like heterosexual married couples, including having children (NY allows same sex couples to adopt), except for their sex. One person's mom even had to move to California to be able to marry her spouse, thanks to a court decision there that overturned the state's ban on biracial marriages. And, domestic partnerships are a weak alternative -- they cover few of the over one thousand benefits, rights and privileges the U.S. GAO recently noted marriage offers.
The basic core of the ruling is that the state constitution of New York protects a right to choose whom to marry (one in some sense also protected by the federal Constitution), a right the state did not submit a compelling reason to deprive to these plaintiffs. New York is special in this respect in various ways, especially its right to second parent adoptions and special housing rights arising from the "family" aspects of homosexual relationships.* Also, the Supreme Court itself in Lawrence v. Texas honored the right to same sex couples to have relationships. Finally, New York protects said relationships from discrimination in various respects.
Thus, and all states would not be in the same boat, the plaintiffs' battle was not too hard. The state did not challenge the stability of their relationships. "Tradition" could not trump the right to marry, nor did the fact that other states might not recognize the unions. And, thus, there was no rational basis (offered by the state) to discriminate on account of sexual orientation.
I'd add two things. (1) Clearly expressed or not, sex specific marriage laws put forth stereotypical views about sex roles and are illegitimate on that ground.** (2) This ruling is in no way final; the state's informal role suggests as such. Thus, prudent or not, it does not really matter, since this is almost as important as pre-season baseball. With that in mind, the ruling is fairly reasonable, if at times conclusionary.
---
* The state also has no mini-DOMA, thus another NY case recognized a Vermont same sex couple's domestic union for the limited purposes of settling a property dispute. Nonetheless, it also noted such recognition did not violate state public policy -- the decision argued (in an interesting section) nor did the ruling here.
** I'd return to my acceptance of the term "domestic union" because ultimately we are talking about benefits. The main problem with this is that the term "marriage" brings with it special benefits. Tricky. Anyway, those who want to define relationships that in all ways but one are marriages by another term also have a problem on their hands.
Incestual unions and polygamy are missing more important aspects of "marriage," which as defined in our society involves two person unions outside the (immediate) family. Discrimination based on sex is a bit more tricky, especially since gender roles alone do not decide the issue. Finally, developing acceptance of homosexuals factors in as well -- "tradition" develops, including marriage. Divorce and spousal rape once were narrowly handled in N.Y.