In 1970, two University of Minnesota students, Richard Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied for and were denied a marriage license in Hennepin County, Minnesota.  The clerk, Gerald Nelson, specifically denied the application on the grounds that the applicants were both men.   Baker sued Nelson claiming that his federal constitutional rights (1st, 8th, 9th and 14th amendments) had been violated.  A Minnesota District Court ruled against the two men’s claim and ordered the clerk to deny them a marriage license.

Baker appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court’s decision and dismissed the claims based upon federal constitutional rights.  Specifically, the Minnesota Supreme Court found that the Loving precedent did not apply because “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”

Undeterred, Baker appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, claiming violation of the two men’s rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment and “privacy rights” found in the 9th Amendment.  The case was brought to the Supreme Court under mandatory appellate review, not under a writ of certiorari.  As a result, even though the Court did not grant oral arguments in the case, the decision issued by the court stands as precedent.

On Oct. 10, 1972, the Court issued a one sentence decision:

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Case closed.  The identical set of justices who issued the Roe v Wade decision one year later found that there is no federal constitutional right to gay marriage.  This is almost the same group of justices who had found in 1967 that state bans on interracial marriage were a violation of the constitutional rights of interracial couples.

There really is only one question before the Supreme Court on the issue of gay marriage in 2012:  Does precedent matter?  If it does, the Supreme Court will abide by the decision in Nelson v Baker and rule that their is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  They will affirm the right of the citizens of California (and all other states) to prohibit same-sex marriage.  And they will find that the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional.

I am afraid that in negotiating with President Obama on the pending fiscal cliff that you and the Republican leadership have lost your way.  In your desire to strike a “Grand Bargain”, you risk making a “bad bargain” which will cause permanent damage to the Republican Party, alienate conservatives, and have lasting consequences for the American economy.  In a desire to make a deal, you forget that you–not the President, not Harry Reid, not Congressional Democrats, and certainly not the mainstream media–are holding all of the cards.  What you must keep in mind in these final days of 2012 is what the fiscal cliff is really all about and what you still have time to resolve in the new Congress that convenes in January.

Mr. Speaker, you do not have to fix entitlement programs before January 1.  Those programs are exempt from sequestration and delaying entitlement reform for the new year is not “kicking the can” down the road.  It has already been kicked.  The same is true for reforming the tax code.  Simplifying the tax code is a major project that can likewise be postponed.  The same is true of budget cuts–you have a continuing resolution and an increase in the debt ceiling coming up next year in which you can deal with reducing the budget.

So, what should you do, Mr. Speaker?  Why not start with two issues that the Democrats can’t object to–a permanent “doc fix” and a permanent “AMT patch”.  How could President Obama refuse to sign those two pieces of legislation.  Pass them immediately and send them over to Harry Reid in the Senate.

Then, there’s the big one:  The House should pass legislation that makes the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone except millionaire and billionaires.  Call it an Act to Make the George W. Bush Tax Cuts Permanent for the Middle Class.  Dare the Democrats to vote against it.  Dare President Obama to refuse to sign it.  Dare them to insist that tax rates have to increase on everyone making $250,000 and up or risk making tax rates increase on everyone.  Recognize that even when Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency that you couldn’t pass legislation making these tax cuts permanents.  Accept 99.5% of what Republicans have wanted for ten years and declare that a victory.

The final piece of legislation that you also ought to pass is a permanent reduction in the payroll tax on employees.  This would roll back the payroll tax increase that Ronald Reagan negotiated with Tip O’Neill, money that Congress spent year after year, which helped create the mess we are now in.  Include in this legislation a requirement that all revenue generated from increasing the tax rate on millionaires and billionaires would be placed in the Social Security Trust Fund to replace revenue lost by this permanent payroll tax cut.  This would be fair, because of the cap on income that individuals pay social security taxes.  Also, you will have not voted to increase taxes, if you balance that increase with a tax cut.  Show the middle class that Republicans really do care about putting more of their own money back in their pockets.

Don’t try to fix sequestration.  Not now.  Take the trillion dollars in across the board cuts that have already been enacted and signed into law.  Congess tried and couldn’t come up with an alternative.  The President promised in the debates that sequestration wouldn’t happen.  Tell him to come up with an alternative list of cuts or forget it.  You can fix the problem with the defense budget next year.  Make him sweat on this issue.

And, as for extending unemployment benefits.  Hey, we’re in the middle of a recovery.  The unemployment rate is going down.  We don’t need to extend those benefits any longer.  Let them expire.

Finally, after you have passed the doc fix, the AMT patch, the  Bush tax cuts and the payroll tax cuts, adjourn the House.  Tell the other side to take it or leave it.  And act like you don’t really care.

My all-time favorite movie is Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.  At one point, Butch and Sundance are being relentlessly pursued by a posse of Pinkerton agents.  Finally, they come to the edge of a cliff overlooking a ravine with a raging river below.  The outlaws have three choices.  They can surrender, in which case they will probably be tried and hanged as bank robbers.  They can stand and fight, in which case they will certainly die gloriously in a hail of bullets.  Or, they can jump.  They decide to jump.

Butch Cassidy: I’ll jump first.

Sundance Kid: Nope.

Butch Cassidy: Then you jump first.

Sundance Kid: No, I said!

Butch Cassidy: What’s the matter with you?!

Sundance: I can’t swim!

Butch Cassidy: [laughing] Why, you crazy — the fall’ll probably kill ya!

It seems to me that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell find themselves in a similar situation.  My advice: JUMP.  Given the alternatives, it appears to be the best choice.  And, as it turns out, the fall didn’t kill Butch and Sundance after all.

Since Reagan carried the state, Pennsylvania has been the Holy Grail for Republican Presidential candidates.  But, Romney has a realistic chance of winning the state, while John McCain and George Bush never did.  Unlike, Ohio and the other swing states, the Democrats have not poisoned the well with millions of dollars in anti-Romney ads.  Instead, both campaigns have been relatively absent, especially considering Pennsylvania’s importance.  Obama’s War on Coal should drive voters in western Pennsylvania to the polls and turn out could tip the balance.  Key demographic groups that Romney must make inroads with are the “Reagan Democrats”, particular the steel workers in Pittsburgh, and suburban women in the Philly suburbs.  The aftermath of the hurricane may depress Obama’s turnout in Philadelphia, where Democrats have always counted on a strong showing to overwhelm Republican strongholds in the western part of the state.  The Obama campaign’s vaunted GOTV effort, which they are counting on in other swing states, has been less than active in Pennsylvania, which they long ago felt was in their column.  And voters here have every reason to be even more “bitter and cling to their guns and religion” than they were in 2008.

For Romney, Pennsylvania with its 20 electoral votes, represents an insurance policy in the event that he loses Ohio.  Romney doesn’t have to win here, but if he does, then the election could be wrapped up before we leave the East Coast.  Obama, on the other hand, has virtually no path to victory if he loses Pennsylvania.  He would have to run the table in Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire.  Romney has a reasonable chance to win those states, except for, perhaps, Nevada.

Which brings us to Axelrod’s mustache.  David Axelrod has promised to cut off his mustache if Romney wins Pennsylvania (or Michigan or Minnesota).  I’m thinking he would look a lot nicer, if he were clean shaven.

A Romney win in New Hampshire, coupled with wins in North Carolina, Florida and Virginia, will put him at 252 electoral college votes.  Obama will be in the position of having to win Ohio (18 ECV) or the election is over.  Obama could sweep all of the remaining battleground states and would still lose the election.  And, if Romney can pull off an upset in Pennsylvania, where people are still “bitter and cling to their guns and religion”, Romney will have wrapped up the election before we leave the Eastern Seaboard.

A Romney win in New Hampshire also means that Romney still has a credible path to winning the election even if he loses Ohio.  Winning Colorado (9ECV), where he has the lead, and Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin (19 ECV) would put Romney over the top.   By winning either Colorado or Wisconsin and both Iowa and Nevada, Romney could also get to 270+ ECV, although this is a less likely scenario.

Losing New Hampshire is less significant for Romney.  He could still claim the prize by winning Ohio and one of the remaining battleground states (most likely Colorado).  But losing New Hampshire will make Ohio even more critical to Romney, although he does have a pathway to winning even if he loses Ohio and New Hampshire.

There is every reason, in addition to the most recent polls, to believing that Romney will prevail in New Hampshire.  The state does not have a large minority population of African Americans or Hispanics that Obama counts on in other states to pull him through.  Romney has a home in New Hampshire, where the Romney clan spends their summers.  And New Hampshire is the most independent and libertarian of all of the New England states.  On election night, therefore, keep your eyes on New Hampshire.  If Romney wins there, this election may be over.  New Hampshire’s four electoral college votes are an important prize.

We have little confidence that Obama would be more successful managing the economy and the budget in the next four years. For that reason, though we endorsed him in 2008, we are recommending Romney in this race.

The editorial points out that President Obama had strong Democratic majorities his first two years in office which allowed him to enact his agenda, an agenda which did not lead to economic recovery while piling up more debt.  It points to his failure to be able to work with House Republicans during the past two years, reminding voters that Bill Clinton faced similar circumstances and produced different results, and that one or both houses of Congress will be controlled by Republicans for the next four years.  It goes on to say that

It verges on magical thinking to expect Obama to get different results in the next four years.

While declaring that Romney is not their “ideal candidate” and that, like Barack Obama 4 years ago, he “faces a steep learning curve in foreign policy” the editorial concludes that

. . . the core of Romney’s campaign platform, his five-point plan, at least shows he understands that reviving the economy and repairing the government’s balance sheet are imperative — now, not four years in the future.

Romney has a strong record of leadership to run on. He built a successful business. He rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics from scandal and mismanagement. As governor of Massachusetts, he worked with a Democrat-dominated legislature to close a $3billion budget deficit without borrowing or raising taxes, and pass the health plan that became a national model.

This is Romney’s time to lead, again.

This editorial is already being picked up and reported in other major media outlets including by Jeff Zeleny in the New York Times and CNN’s website .   While newspaper endorsement don’t carry the weight that they used to, this endorsement signals the seismic shift that has occurred in this election since the first Presidential debate.

In the event of an electoral college tie, the Presidency would be decided by the House of Representatives with each state having one vote.  Because the Republicans control an overwhelming majority of state delegations, which is almost certain not to change regardless of the outcome of House elections, Romney would be elected President.

But there is an interesting twist in the 12th Amendment.  The Senate would choose the Vice President, with each Senator having one vote.  That makes it even more urgent for Republicans to win control of the Senate (and hold their collective noses and support Aiken in Missouri).  If Democrats maintain control of the Senate, they would control the election of the Vice President.  And in the event of a 50 – 50 split in the Senate, the incumbent Vice President would, according to the Constitution, cast the tie-breaking vote.  Does anyone believe that Senate Democrats or Joe Biden would do the right thing and vote for Paul Ryan?  I don’t think so.

Friends, it is not outside the realm of possibility that we could end up with Romney – Biden.

Dr. King further conflates this scrap into an entire “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife”, placing it on a par with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—Canonical Scripture for which we have multiple complete texts that have been authenticated from a much earlier period close to the time of Jesus.  She would be laughed out of any meeting of professional historians with a claim based upon such a flimsy piece of documentation.  It is as though I were to find a post-it note that says that John Smith was married to Pocohantas.  We know, factually, that Pocohantas married John Rolfe and we have contemporaneous primary sources to support that fact.  This simply doesn’t stand the test of objective historical analysis.

And yet, The Smithsonian Channel will premiere a special documentary about the discovery on September 30 at 8 p.m. ET.  Why is an agency of the U. S. government promoting this assault of the foundations of Christianity.  Why are my tax dollars being spent to attack my faith?

I have to wonder if airing of this video will send angry mobs of Christians by the tens of thousands into the streets, attacking American embassies around the world.  Will Christians become so enraged that the founder of their faith has been insulted, disparaged and demeaned by this video that they will tear down the American flag and hoist the Christian banner in its place.  And, if they do, what will be the reaction of the Obama administration and the American media.  Will they claim that Christians are understably angry and that this Harvard professor is responsible.  Will they ask the Smithsonian Channel to remove the offending video.  I doubt it.  I expect they would call these Christians “fanatics”, extremists”, “nut-jobs” and worse.

I invite you to read some of the coverage in the media already:

From the N. Y. Times:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49075679/ns/technology_and_science-the_new_york_times/#/?ocid=ansmsnbc11

From the Huffinton Post:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/the-gospel-of-jesus-wife-_n_1891325.html

From the Baptist Press:  http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=38755

From the Smithsonian Magazine itself:  http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Inside-Story-of-the-Controversial-New-Text-About-Jesus-170177076.html?c=y&story=fullstory