Murdoch Diplomacy: Behind O'Reilly's Electric Attacks

"Right on cue, some people are saying this gay marriage decision will doom the Democrats again, and I had two quick reactions: I honestly don't think so, and if it does, that's just the way it is. Six of seven Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican governors, and three of them joined the 4-3 ruling (written by Republican Ronald George, who was appointed to the municipal bench by Ronald Reagan in 1972) that said, in fairly conservative language, that marriage is too important to society to exclude gay Californians. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he'll uphold the ruling and will fight an effort to amend the state's constitution to overturn the ruling. Let John McCain try to ride this issue to a victory in California. I don't see it.

"As I've written before, I was once a cowardly civil unions supporter; I thought gay marriage was deadly for Democrats. But taking that position was like living in a dark, cramped house with low ceilings. Watching the explosion of love and jubilation -- and weddings, thousands of weddings -- that greeted Newsom's legalizing gay marriage in 2003 here in San Francisco was like walking out into bright sunlight. You just can't go back and live in politically and morally cramped quarters anymore."

From the right, Hot Air's Ed Morrissey doesn't see a huge impact either:

"Had the people of California chosen to recognize gay marriage through legislation, I'd accept it -- and in truth, I'd consider that a more rational policy than civil unions, which basically reproduce marriage with a different label. Government stopped being in the sacrament business at the moment it offered no-fault divorces. A civil-union contract has more binding power than does marriage these days. States would do best to leave the term 'marriage' as an exclusive province of the churches and have all couples sign civil-union contracts instead, and let the individuals determine whether they feel 'married' or not.

"The two Democrats can't bring themselves to say any of this, instead offering support for civil unions while trying their best not to annoy those clinging bitterly to their Bibles. While John McCain has the same position on civil unions, at least he understands the much greater issue of judicial activism better than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Arnold Schwarzenegger. This comes at a perfect time for McCain; he just delivered a speech on that very issue and highlighted the differences between himself and Obama, and this serves as a concrete example.

"Could it help him win California in the fall? It's possible but not terribly likely. The referendum will bring conservatives out in force this November, but it will also face a huge amount of opposition throughout the state and the intelligentsia."

It's interesting to note how far the "center" has moved on this. When Howard Dean ran for president, his support for civil unions in Vermont was controversial in some quarters. Now that's the default position for many politicians who don't want to come out for same-sex marriage.

In Newsweek, Mike Huckabee takes on Bob Novak:

NEWSWEEK:"The Novak column saying that you think an Obama win is what the country deserves has made quite a stir this week. Is there any truth to it?"

HUCKABEE:"It is less true than Hillary Clinton dropping out. I talked to Novak, told him it was completely false, and yet he goes with some unnamed source, some anonymous fantasy. It's absolute, total b.s."