The California Supreme Court has issued its much-anticipated ruling, and says that the state cannot limit marriage to opposite-sex couples -- specifically, that the state's "in-all-but-name" domestic-partnership law is not good enough.

Needless to say, I have not yet picked through the entire 172-page ruling. I'll have more to say later.

In the new issue of the Boston Phoenix, out today, I have an item about Boston police officers who were alleged to have defrauded the paid-detail system. Last year, Commissioner Ed Davis moved to fire them, amid considerable media attention. But last month, he quietly agreed to have them serve mere four-month suspensions, without demotions in rank.

Read it here: You're Fired! Or Not....

Also, you might be interested in the paper's editorial on Sal DiMasi, here.

--$35 million? Not worth recuperating, when you're the Mittster. "Governor Romney has no plans either now or in the future to raise money so that he can retire his debt," says spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom.

--The fulfillment today of the hotly anticipated (well, if you listened to me, anyway) announcement that former congressman Bob Barr is running for the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination is potentially a big deal -- especially if Ron Paul ultimately endorses him, which seems likely if Barr gets the nod at the party convention. (Barr is up against a bunch of lesser-known candidates, including Massachusetts's own George Phillies.) Barr has credibility and gravitas, and if that's coupled with the Paul fundraising machine it could have a big impact. Not to win, but to affect the outcome in individual states. He should be able to gain enough early support to force his way into the national media coverage. He should steal votes from Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents who are disgusted with the GOP, the War, and/or McCain. Barr's big issues are A) privacy and individual liberty, B) elimination of the income tax, C) securing the border against illegal immigration. As a Georgian he should have particular appeal to Southerners -- and if he takes a chunk of the white vote in southern states, you could easily see Obama win in Mississippi and elsewhere. It could at least force McCain to expend precious time and resources in states he should be able to take for granted. (Another question this raises: if Ron Paul supporters turn out to vote for Barr, instead of staying home as expected, how does that impact down-ticket races -- like the Senate contests in New Hampshire and Maine?)

--Possible indication of how the tide has turned in the Democratic nomination fight? In a weekend drive around Providence -- in a state that went heavily for Hillary Clinton -- Obama lawn signs were a fairly common sight, while Clinton signage was notably absent.

As you may have read, the feds recently raided the man I once dubbed "Bush's House Homophobe," Office of Special Counsel (OSC) head Scott Bloch. I'll have more to write about this journalistic gift who keeps on giving, but one item for now.

Back in August 2005, Bloch's then-#2 guy authored a lengthy opinion memo of OSC "findings" supporting allegations brought by Richard von Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian. This was particularly odd, because A) as the letter conceded, the OSC had no jurisdiction, because Sternberg is not a federal employee, and B) the OSC had not actually conducted any investigation whatsoever.

What was Sternberg alleging? That the Smithsonian had retaliated against him because of his religious beliefs -- ie, his belief in Intelligent Design.

The OSC's non-investigation, no-jurisdiction opinion was widely circulated among creationist circles, as validation of Sternberg's claims. And now, Sternberg's case is a centerpiece in Ben Stein's new documentary, Expelled, about the mistreatment of scientists who believe in Intelligent Design.

 

The proposal to tax the largest university endowments is -- let's see, how can I put this tactfully -- one of the stupidest ideas to recently emerge from the statehouse, as the Globe rightly editorializes today.

But it does bring to mind an intriguing proposal put forward by Chris Gabrieli during his recent unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign. The idea is to encourage companies and non-profits in Massachusetts with large trusts or endowments to invest a larger portion of those funds in in-state development.

If local companies like State Street -- as well as universities like Harvard -- committed to investing, say, a minimum of five percent of those funds into Massachusetts companies, that would provide an enormous pipeline for new and developing companies. It would prompt growth of those businesses, and encourage entrepreneurs to come to or stay in Massachusetts to start their businesses, all of which leads to more jobs and state tax revenues.

It's not that simple, of course. Mandating a minimum percentage is almost certainly too constrictive. Also, many of those large funds are ill-equipped to do well-timed direct funding; they are better suited to funding venture capital funds that then put the money into start-ups or companies well-positioned to expand with a timely shot of capital. Gabrieli has suggested to me that the best method might be encouraging (but not mandating) large institutions to invest more of their funds with local VCs, which do much of their funding in-state. (Gabrieli, of course, made his fortune as a local venture capitalist, but at this stage of his career I don't think he's seeing this as a self-serving policy.) That approach seems promising, although it clearly needs more study.

This doesn't have to mean they'd be forced to choose worse investment opportunities. Gabrieli compares the general concept to the way that some large corporate trusts are being encouraged to do "responsible investing." When faced with investment options of otherwise equal value, if one of them has a positive social value -- reducing greenhouse gases, for instance -- that should serve as the tie-breaker. In this case, the tie-breaker would be the in-state location.

Skeptics of "encouragement" will have a legitimate objection to all this, but I'd be eager to see it tried. And remember that one of the best forms of encouragement is the threat of other action; none of these institutions wants to see the state government targeting their trusts and endowments with statutes and regulations, so the proposal for the endowment tax, as stupid as it is, may be helping to create the right atmosphere for a creative voluntary proposal like Gabrieli's

--Here's my take. Barack Obama was able to rack up a huge number of delegates, and become the presumptive nominee, by February 12th (the 'Chesapeake' or 'Potomac' primaries, a week after Super Tuesday), without ever really being properly vetted as a candidate at this level. That was because A) he came in remarkably un-vetted compared to most Presidential candidates; B) the GOP nomination race took up so much media attention that Obama didn't really get the typical level of national scrutiny; and C) by the time Obama emerged as the frontrunner, the tremendous front-loading of the primaries meant that the race was essentially over. Anyway, the upshot is that if I was a Democratic superdelegate, I would have found it appropriate to hold off on declaring my intent (and helping soildify the nomination), while Clinton and the national media put Obama under the hot lights and we saw whether something potentially disqualifying emerged. Well, three months later, all that's emerged is little, peripheral things. So now, or sometime over the next several weeks, it will be appropriate for me and my fellow superdelegates to declare, In other words, what I'm saying is that I think everybody pretty much behaved pretty appropriately, or at least justifiably, all around.

--If I was an Obama supporter, I would be pointing out that in the 13 primaries held since Super Tuesday, Clinton won five -- and only one by a margin greater than 10 percentage points (Rhode Island). Obama won eight, of which North Carolina, at 14 points, was the closest. (That's not even counting the caucuses, in which Obama routinely crushed her)

--While everybody's been debating how the Democratic Party's divisiveness may be hurting it, how about the GOP and John McCain? At the very moment Hillary Clinton appears to be winding down her candidacy -- presumably sending her supporters out searching for reasons to choose between Obama and McCain -- the Arizona Senator has been out publicly wooing the ultra-conservatives. The very day of the Indiana/North Carolina primaries, McCain gave a speech effectively promising to be a super-strict pro-life President; isn't that likely to alienate huge numbers of those potential cross-over Clinton voters?

--John's wife Cindy McCain gave an interview to NBC's Ann Curry, portions of which were shown this morning on the Today Show. See if you can spot her error in this statement she made about the cyclone tragedy: “I want to be there. And I want thousands of people to follow me. I'm appalled at the government of Myanmar doing what they're doing." Answer: the US government does not recognize the existence of "Myanmar," or the legitimacy of its military "government." All US officials -- and Laura Bush, and all the Presidential candidates -- have been very careful about referring to "Burma," and you can be certain that Cindy McCain has been told to do so. (Particularly because her husband frequently speaks about his contempt for that country's illigitmate military rule.) Now, I don't want to go over the top and claim that this should be treated as a huge campaign issue, but this is serious: the First Lady must be able to follow these kinds of State-Department directives, or she's going to create international tensions and problems.