It's a testament to the political security of Orrin Hatch, and the relative political cowardice of Harry Reid, that it's the conservative Utah Republican who has been willing to stand up for the rights of Muslims in New York. Quoth Hatch:

There's a question of whether it's too close to the 9/11 area, but it's a few blocks away, it isn't right there. ... And here's a huge, I think, lack of support throughout the country for Islam to build that mosque there, but that should not make a difference if they decide to do it. I'd be the first to stand up for their rights.

Hatch is showing statesmanship and political maturity in a year when, in his party, it has become highly unfashionable to do so. Whatever you think his motives may be, the fact remains that in making this statement, he is doing a lot of tangible good for American Muslims by establishing an orthodox Republican position that affirms religious liberty. With any luck, this will embolden other politicians of both parties to follow his lead.

Related: George Washington and Touro Synagogue

(Update: The charges have been dropped for now, but an investigation is still ongoing.)

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was accused on some fairly serious charges this morning--rape and molestation--and that puts those of us who are concerned about multiple human rights issues in a bit of a bind.

We can't assume guilt; the presumption of innocence is fundamental to due process. But we also can't assume that this is a government conspiracy. The charges need to be taken seriously.

I am not certain of much at this stage in the case, nor should I be. But there are two things about which all civil libertarians should be able to agree:

1. If Assange surrenders to prosecutors on these charges, neither Swedish nor U.S. authorities should be able to use that as an opportunity to pursue unrelated charges or extradition related to WikiLeaks.

2. We are obligated to support WikiLeaks throughout it's leadership transition process.

Rape and molestation charges must be taken seriously--but they should never be used as weapons to silence activists who work for greater government transparency.

The Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruling is significant as a cultural milestone in its own right, but it's significance to marriage equality as a movement will be impossible to assess for another 18 to 24 months.

Essentially, I see three possible outcomes:

1. California reinstates Proposition 8 after Judge Walker's ruling is overturned on appeal. This is what will happen if the Supreme Court overturns Judge Walker's ruling, or if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturns Judge Walker's ruling and the Supreme Court declines to hear the case.

2. Same-sex marriage is legal in the nine west coast states and two U.S. territories under the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction. This is what will happen if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Judge Walker's ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear the case.

3. Same-sex marriage is legal in all fifty states. This is what will happen if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds Judge Walker's ruling.

It's impossible to assess odds, but at this juncture I find option #1 extremely unlikely. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that marriage is a constitutional right (Loving v. Virginia, 1967) and that lesbians and gay men are a protected group from whom constitutional rights may not arbitrarily be deprived (Romer v. Evans, 1996; Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). In order to overturn Judge Walker's ruling, the Court would need to either overturn one of these precedents, or make an argument that the need to ban same-sex marriage is strong enough to create a compelling government interest that would justify discrimination against a protected group.

I don't really see five Supreme Court justices who would be willing to participate in either of these scenarios; Scalia and Thomas probably would, because they do still oppose some of the relevant precedents, I find it impossible to conceive of Justice Kennedy or any of the four liberal justices going along with that, and the opinions of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito on this issue are not necessarily a moot point. I think a Supreme Court ruling establishing marriage equality in all 50 states, by a margin ranging between 5-4 and 7-2, is more probable than either of the other two scenarios. But the Supreme Court has surprised observers many times before--both pleasantly and unpleasantly. It would be unrealistic to take anything for granted in this case.

Fresh from the controversy over Republicans attacking the Civil Rights Act, party leaders have now turned their attention to attacking the Fourteenth Amendment. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has called for hearings, and John McCain, facing a tough party primary, has backed him.

While Republican leaders' official reason for reexamining the Fourteenth Amendment has to do with retroactively repealing the citizenship of "anchor babies," the Fourteenth Amendment's language is what extends the Bill of Rights to the states, and establishes the due process and equal protection guarantees that are the basis of modern civil rights law. If Republicans could somehow eliminate this amendment, they would be able to undo the majority of landmark Supreme Court civil rights and women's rights cases, eliminate the concept of privacy rights that has formed the basis of federal court rulings on LGBT rights and abortion, and essentially reclaim, at least with respect to the judiciary, Andrew Johnson's vision of "a government for white men."

Fortunately, this isn't going to happen any time soon--revising the Fourteenth would require a ratification process that would include a two-thirds majority in Congress, followed by approval of two-thirds of the states--but the fact that GOP voters even want this, badly enough for party leaders to pretend they're ready to act on their wishes, is cause for serious concern.