The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision applies only in California, according to its terms. But by striking down California's Proposition 8, the voter-approved anti-gay marriage initiative, the court put the issue of gay marriage bans squarely before the U.S. Supreme Court.

North Carolina has an anti-gay marriage statute, and we'll vote in May on an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriages and also civil unions between same-sex partners.

However, a state — even in its constitution — can't discriminate against citizens in a way the U.S. Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment to the federal constitution. That's what the Civil War was all about: States can't violate fundamental rights.

Some day, we'll think about these gay marriage bans the same way we think about the Dred Scott decision.

Talking Points Memo posted a handy map of states and their status re: gay marriage, civil unions & equal rights.

HUGE!! Komen reverses decision.See statement from PPFA President Cecile Richards - tinyurl.com/7v2nr3f

— PlannedParenthoodCNC (@PPCNC) February 3, 2012

(Update: I don't read Komen's statement as being ambiguous about future funding for Planned Parenthood. But a writer for DailyKos is dubious.]

(Update 2: Komen's cave-in has Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., deeply disappointed from her anti-choice perspective. I've posted her statement below.]

Komen for the Cure just released the following statement from Nancy Brinker and the Susan G. Komen Board of Directors:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics - anyone's politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public's understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

From Congresswoman Ellmers:

WASHINGTON — Congresswoman Renee Ellmers released the following statement from her office in Washington this afternoon:

"I am deeply disappointed in the sudden reversal by the Komen Foundation of their original pledge to cut ties with Planned Parenthood - the nation's largest abortion provider. Their original stance to stop funding pending an important congressional investigation was an act of courage and prudence, making their sudden reversal today appear hollow and weak."

"As a nurse and mother, I will continue to champion the sanctity of life and women's health, regardless of contemporary trends…and sometimes that takes the courage to do what is right, not what is convenient."

In July, Congresswoman Ellmers hosted a press conference with Congressman Randy Hultgren following a report published by Americans United for Life that detailed extent of Planned Parenthood's involvement in providing abortions while receiving taxpayer funding.

To learn more about the report and its findings from Americans United for Life, click here.

[Update: I'm updating this as I post it. The news about Bev Perdue has folks asking Brad Miller about a possible gubernatorial run, and I read that he hasn't ruled it out. In our conversation yesterday, the subject of governor never came up — I would say Brad hadn't heard anything about Perdue; if that's not the case, I'd put my money on him in a poker game.]

Ahem ...

Brad Miller is my congressman. I should add, he's also my kind of congressman — the kind who gets his hands dirty in the scuffle over complicated issues, in Miller's case Wall Street and banking issues, and takes the consumer/citizen side even though the big-money interests are warning him that it's not the smart thing to do. So I'm happy with Brad representing me in Washington. Unfortunately, that's not going to be the case after 2012.

Thanks to the Republican redistricting, my part of Raleigh will be represented next year by a Republican, either Paul Coble or George Holding. A Republican, Renee Ellmers, already represents a different (small) part of Raleigh. The redistricting should help Ellmers be re-elected. Thus, the Triangle — Raleigh, Durham, Cary, Chapel Hill — will have two Republicans in Congress next year thanks to GOP map-drawing. (Which is how these things work. When Democrats drew the districts a decade ago, the result was three seats all held by Democrats until Ellmers ousted Bob Etheridge in the 2010 elections.)

Still, the Republicans left us — I say us as in we citizens of the Triangle — with one Democratic seat. It's the new 4th District into which both Miller and Rep. David Price were packed. Until yesterday, when Brad told some of us that he wouldn't be running for re-election (he asked that we not report it until this morning), it looked like Miller and Price would be squaring off in a Democratic primary to see which of them the voters — the Democratic voters — preferred.

I was looking forward to that contest. I was looking forward to Miller and Price describing for us why each would think he'd make the better representative of our interests in Washington. Not that I'd have an actual vote, since I don't live in the new 4th, but if I'd had one, I think I probably would've voted for Miller. But not necessarily. As I say, I looked forward to the debate.

In fact, when Brad's office called to say he wanted to talk about his re-election plans, I assumed he would be running and I jotted down some questions — would he agree to a series of debates? how about a spending limit? how about both sides agreeing to mutual disarmament on negative ads and instead running a campaign we all could be proud of, regardless who won?

Ah, but now it won't happen.

Brad, when he called, conceded that he'd be the underdog in a race against Price, who's been around a lot longer and is better known in the parts of the Triangle (mainly Durham and Orange counties) ceded to a Democrat by the Republican map-makers. He said he struggled with whether to run anyway, but finally didn't look forward to it with any "joy," and without joy, a campaign is just drudgery.

What was also clear to me — reading between the lines — is that the Democratic "establishment," meaning Democrats with the money that Miller and Price would've needed to run their respective campaigns, had made it clear to Brad that, hey, nothing against you (except for that rebellious streak), but we're for David. And we don't want to pay for two primary campaigns.

Then there was Brad's disappointment that, while he was telling the world that he wanted to run but also had the greatest respect for Price and it was a tough decision, etcetera, etcetera, Price acted like the 4th District was "his" district and he was running for re-election regardless ... and — per a leaked poll — he, Price would win against Miller, and Miller should know it.

Miller, in other words, was treating the race like it belonged to the voters to decide which of the two should be their representative. Price was treating the race like it belonged to him. Or so Brad perceived it.

I don't know if that's fair to Price. I did want to hear from David why he thought he'd make a better congressman for us given the situation that exists in Washington. Given, that is, that the Democrats are the minority party in the House and will probably continue to be the minority party for as many years as the 71-year old Price could reasonably expect to be there. Given that the new 4th District is rock-solid Democrat and should produce — or should it? that's really the question — a fighting progressive Democrat with no need to worry about appealing to some fictional political "center" or gee, let's triangulate, let's look for a "Third Way."

And if it produces a fighting progressive, what should that member fight for when it comes to the major issues of our time: corporate and financial globalization, "free" trade agreements, the outsourcing of American jobs to cheaper labor markets around the world, and the dominant role of Big Money in American politics? (The dominant role of Big Money in the World._

A Miller-Price debate could've focused attention on the critical problem for America, which is that the Republicans can't address these issues, for obvious ideological reasons; and the Democrats, who are torn between their desire to stand with the people and their dependance on Wall Street and corporate cash for campaigns, won't.

And we only have two political parties, so unless the Democrats get their s—- together, we're screwed.

Miller, as he tried to keep his options open over the past year, said that if he ran against Price, he hoped the campaign would be about "the soul of the Democratic Party" and how to restore its populism without committing political suicide.

In September, 2008, he told me yesterday, he had to turn to Wikipedia for a working definition of credit default swaps. He was an attentive, hard-working member of the House Financial Services Committee. Even so, he'd never heard the term ... until, that is, trillions of dollars of unsecured credit default swaps and other so-called "collateralized debt obligations" pedaled by Wall Street that turned out to be un-collateralized "toxic assets" damn near sank the U.S. and world economies.

He knew then, if he didn't already know, that the bankers who testified before his House committee weren't a great source of information about banking, nor were the Wall Streeters who ran the Treasury Department for George W. Bush and, since 2009, for Barack Obama.

Since 2008, Miller has emerged as one of the leading progressive voices on these issues in the House. With Rep. Barney Frank's retirement, Miller stood to be THE leading progressive voice. That was his case for wanting to be re-elected. Deep down, he thought it was Price who should be thinking about stepping aside. But Price wasn't thinking that at all.

The question is floating around out there whether Price and Miller made a deal where David would serve one more term and then step down and let Miller run for the seat. (
I would hope not. If Price only plans to run one more time, he absolutely should've stepped aside in favor of the 58-year old Miller, who certainly has more "upside.")

Anyway, It's not true, Miller told me. There is no deal. In fact, Miller said it's unlikely that he'll ever run for Congress again, because even if Price did step aside in two or four years, Miller — if elected — would return to the House as a freshman, with his committee assignments uncertain and no seniority.

And meanwhile, the debate over banking and global capitalism — the issues he cares about — would've moved on without him.

So instead, Miller said, he'll look for ways to be an advocate for citizens' interests from the outside, working with (for?) progressive groups, maybe doing some TV commentary and punditry: Untethered to the grind of congressional duty, Brad could soon be to the progressive side what Newt or Pat Buchanan's been to the conservatives. No, that's a low blow. Nobody should wanna be like Newt.

But there is an opening in the mainstream media for a Democrat who actually knows something about banking issues and stands with the people nonetheless. Somebody not named Robert Rubin, in other words.

RT “@thinkprogress: "God never intended one group of people to live in superfluous inordinate wealth, while others live in abject deadening poverty." — MLK Jr.”

Think Progress is tweeting MLK today. One good thought after another.

... Durham, N.C.

San Francisco is 3rd, my old home town of Trenton, NJ is 7th, and Raleigh checks in at a not-too-shabby 18th, just behind Orlando, FL and San Diego and ahead of Riverside, CA and Tampa.

It's all right here in the Daily Beast. (And who could argue with the DB?)

"Tis the season to Occupy something, yes? (I mean, other than a checkout line at the mall?)

So tomorrow — Saturday, December 17 — the Walking Occupation marchers from #OWS will reach Raleigh, the halfway mark in their trek from New York City to Atlanta. They'll march into Raleigh in time for a 3:30 p.m. rally at Mordecai Historic Park. At 4:30, they and all who join them will step off toward the State Capitol. From the Capitol, the march will move to the Occupy Raleigh encampment in "the triangle" — the little one formed by Edenton and Hillsborough Streets at West Street.

I copied this missive from the Occupy Chapel Hill website. It's a call to everyone in the Triangle who's Occupied something or who's thought about Occupying something — and either way, shouldn't you be able to tell the (grand)kids that when the Occupation started that turned the ol' U.S. of A around, that you were in the vanguard?

RALLY IN RALEIGH!!! Meet at Mordecai Park at Dec. 17th, 3:30pm.

Triangle-Area Occupation Rally and March into Raleigh, NC on Saturday, December 17th 3:30pm, at Mordecai Historic Park. March at 4:30pm.

Join the Walking Occupation Marchers entering the Capitol City of North Carolina. They have walked close to 500 miles, from Occupy Wall Street in New York, and will continue another 500 miles to Atlanta, Georgia.

We call upon all Triangle-Area Occupiers to join us on this
momentous day marking the 3-month anniversary of the Occupying of Zuccotti Park, in Wall Street.

The Walkers will be coming into the city from the Northeast on Atlantic Avenue. Mordecai Historic Park will be the rally’s staging point. We will march past the State Capitol Building continuing to Occupy Raleigh’s encampment at Edenton Street and Hillsborough Street.

The Occupy Chapel Hill website is here.

They're activists, but it's so dangerous out there.

Margaret Schucker, the disabled Occupy Raleigh participant arrested at the State Capitol October 27 for sitting in her chair on the sidewalk, was in a Wake County courtroom this morning expecting her case to be heard. It wasn't. According to her lawyers, the prosecution didn't intend the case to be tried today and scheduled it instead for Jan. 10.

Schucker was charged with second-degree trespass when she refused to get up from her little folding chair after the Capitol Police ordered all of the OR demonstrators to get their stuff off the sidewalk. The demonstrators were told they could stay but their stuff — food, signs, chairs, bed rolls — had to go.

Schucker didn't consider her chair to be "stuff," but rather a necessity — given her very bad back — for her to be able to stay and exercise her First Amendment rights.

Katy Parker, legal director of the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation, was in court with Schucker today. Parker (see this ACLU statement) is co-counsel on Schucker's case along with Durham attorney Scott Holmes.

At least one other of the eight Occupy Raleigh folks who were arrested that day was also in court this morning. Katina Gad said she'd been notified to be in a different courtroom at 12 noon anytime between 7:45 a.m. and 3 p.m. So Gad was surprised, when she arrived to support Schucker, to see both of their names on the 9 a.m. list for Courtroom 2C. Gad's case was also put off until Jan. 10. Gad (shown next to Schucker in the picture below) was among the demonstrators who sat down with Schucker in a show of solidarity as the Capitol Police were preparing to arrest her. Gad's lawyer is Raleigh attorney Steve Edelstein.

[Update 4:25 p.m.: Joe Huberman posted a schedule for the City Council meetings tomorrow on the Occupy Raleigh legal forum. Note that meetings are at 1 p.m. and 7 p.m.:

Here is the latest as I understand it on tomorrow's City Council Meeting 11/1/11

1:00 P.M. Session

Mayor Meeker will request a report on the Police action and our 1st amendment rights at the 1:00 session of the meeting. It is very unlikely that we will be able to speak, but we are welcome to be in the audience and we can wear our identifying thing.

7:00 P.M. Session

Mayor Meeker will request that we be added to the agenda at the meeting so we can petition the City Council for our request to occupy Upchurch Park at the 7:00pm meeting.
At this time we will be able to speak to the City Council. We should keep our remarks short, to the point, and not repeat what others have said.

The tentative plan is that:

Joseph Huberman will present our request to the council and then introduce
Margaret Schucker who will speak next (The evening GA reached consensus for this on 10/30/11)

Others will then be asked if they have anything to add, and usually you move to the front row to show that you want to speak. You will be asked to state your name and address when you begin speaking.

At some point people in the audience who support our request will be asked to stand. It will be very useful to have as many people in the audience as possible at that time.

After we have spoken the City Council may approve our request, deny it, or refer it to a committee for further study.

***

The original post follows:

Gov. Bev Perdue's spokesman said, following the arrests on Thursday at the Capitol, that Perdue wasn't trying to squash Occupy Raleigh, only clear the sidewalk for the children and passers-by who were, well, not obstructed at all by the Occupiers prior to the arrests. If that was the Governor's objective, she'll doubtless be pleased to learn that Occupy Raleigh continues undaunted.

On Friday, the weather turned cold and rainy. It was one crappy day, but apparently 30-40 still showed up for Occupy Raleigh's daily General Assembly at 6:30 p.m., and a small group remained overnight. Saturday and Sunday, the Occupation enjoyed better weather and the absence of Capitol cops. When I went by on Sunday evening at 6, a pair of Raleigh police officers were standing a benign guard across the street, but no Capitol cops were in evidence. About 30 men, women and a couple of children were on hand, with more expected by 6:30. I needed to leave before then, however.

I can report that the Perdue Doctrine — peaceably assembling is allowed, but chairs aren't, even if you have a disability and need a chair — was being followed. Margaret Schucker, who caused the Capitol police such agitation Thursday, was back and sitting this time, not on her chair but on one of the permanent benches set by the monuments on the Capitol grounds adjacent to the sidewalk.

Why didn't she sit there before? Because of the barricades keeping the Occupiers on the sidewalk and off the grounds. The barricades were key to the previous Perdue Doctrine, i.e., peaceably assembling is allowed, but not on the Capitol grounds, only on the sidewalk, chairs optional. On Thursday, the barricades went away.

On the subject of whether the Morgan Street sidewalk was obstructed prior to the arrests, Joe Huberman says it wasn't (me, too), and he supplies this picture to prove it. He snapped it moments before the arrests.

Capitol Police Chief Scott Hunter had ordered everybody to get their stuff (water, food, Rx, chairs, bedding) off the sidewalk, and within a few minutes, they did — as he acknowledged. In fact, he seemed quite proud of the response. Only Margaret Schucker's chair remained, with her in it. It was one of those $10 collapsible chairs that takes up no space, and if Hunter'd just left her alone, Schucker would've removed it and herself too when she went home for the night. Why he didn't, I don't know, except of course for that "rules are rules" thing that prohibits the use of common sense when one's authority is challenged. The fact is, for days it had been the practice of Occupy Raleigh for people to announce, "Sidewalk!" whenever anyone who was not part of the OR group approached — and immediately anyone clustered on the sidewalk would clear the way. There simply was no sidewalk problem.

Further, Schucker said she had a disability and needed her little chair, and therefore she should be an exception to Hunter's rule. I'd have let her keep it. Guess that's why I'm not a cop. By the time Huberman took this picture, Katina Gad had put a second chair down next to Margaret's — in solidarity. Before long, a half-dozen others seated themselves in front of those two as Hunter's guys moved in.

So now I hear that Occupy Raleigh may relocate off the Capitol grounds for awhile if, that is, they can work out an arrangement with the Raleigh City Council for "occupational" use of the space in front of City Hall and on the Dawson Street side (what's called The Pit, in front, plus green space on the west which apparently is named Avery Upchurch Park — after the late former mayor).

Occupy Raleigh folks are planning to be at the City Council meeting Tuesday at 1 p.m., and Mayor Charles Meeker has announced that he'll bring up the subject of their treatment by the police, including the Raleigh police. Meeker is questioning why the Raleigh cops got involved in Thursday's arrests after he'd been assured that they wouldn't. The answer may be that the Capitol cops have no ability to transport "prisoners" to the jail unless the Raleigh P.D. shows up with a transport vehicle — which it did.

Raleigh cops ringed the scene Thursday, in what seemed an unnecessary precaution against others from the Occupation force interfering with the arrests. The Raleigh cops took no direct role in making the arrests, however.

Meeker sent a memo to his fellow Council members Friday — read it here:

Meekermemo.pdf

On the subject of whether the Morgan Street sidewalk was obstructed prior to the arrests, Joe Huberman says it wasn't (me, too), and he supplies this picture to prove it.

If the Raleigh Council allows, even welcomes an occupation of city property, get ready for howls of disgust from right-wing Republicans ... and of delight from those of us who count ourselves part of the 99%.