LA Times story

SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.

The state high court's ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, and the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.

More at the link.

After winning a court case that changed a California law against men taking their wives' last name, Michael Buday picked up his new driver's license bearing his new name -- Michael Bijon, according to Reuters.

Two years ago, Michael and wife Diana Bijon were surprised to learn that for him to take her surname, he would have to pay $350 and face a barrage of bureaucracy, including court appearances and paper work usually not obstacles for women. The couple took their case to the American Civil Liberties Union -- and won.

"Women have fought for so long for equal rights and it feels like this is part of that fight," said Diana Bijon. "When we got married, the law basically said, 'Don't be silly, only a woman can change her name when she gets married."'

"I am really, really proud of him. Not many men would do this," she said.

A subsequent lawsuit led to a new California state law guaranteeing the rights of both married couples and registered domestic partners to choose whichever last name they prefer on their marriage and driving licences.

"This disposes of the rule in California that the male surname is the marital name to the same trash bin where dowries were once tossed out," said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the Southern California chapter of the ACLU.

Michael said he decided to take his wife's last name because he is closer to his father-in-law than his own father.

I learned about this story through Salon's Broadsheet.

Last night I attended a private book signing in Palo Alto featuring writer and California First Lady Maria Shriver. A group of us mom bloggers gathered for some Lovin' Scoopful ice cream-- a business venture by Shriver and her brothers to also benefit the Special Olympics -- and to hear her discuss her latest book, Just Who Will You Be? ($15). The tiny 91-page-tome is a commencement speech she gave at her nephew's high school graduation. It is peppered with inspirational quotes and would make a good graduation gift or stocking stuffer.

After her spiel, she took questions from the audience, although I did not feel comfortable posing mine amidst fluff like "how do you fit in time to meditate?" Once I reached the front of the line for her to sign my book I asked her, "So, are you encouraging Arnold to fund our schools?"

"I am encouraging him to put money in a lot of places."

The problem, she said, is identifying other sources of revenue for the state. She was not sure how we could pay for education and other services without increasing taxes. Fair enough.

"He wants to," she said of her husband's willingness to fund our schools. If he puts his money where his mouth is, he will encourage his fellow Republicans to support the necessary tax increases. Of course, lack of federal funding and Proposition 13, which puts a tight cap on property tax revenue, doesn't help.

Anyways, Shriver was really friendly and articulate. Also, what can't money buy, including a killer body after having 4 children? Seriously, she looked more amazing in person than on television!

Public education, which is a free service guaranteed by the California Constitution, is no longer free. According to the Los Angeles Times, various school districts are asking parents to fork over cash in an effort to hold onto teachers after proposed budget cuts by our Governator.

South Orange County families are being urged to donate $400 per student to save the jobs of 266 teachers in the Capistrano Unified School District.

Parents at Long Beach's Longfellow Elementary are among countless statewide who are launching fundraising foundations.

Bay Area parents launched a campaign featuring children standing in trash cans; the theme is "Public Education Is Too Valuable to Waste..."

"Public education is free, but an excellent public education is not free at this point," said Janet Berry, president of the Davis Schools Foundation, which recently launched the Dollar-a-Day campaign, urging citizens of the city near Sacramento to donate $365 per child, grandchild or student acquaintance.

Gov. Ahnold Schwarzenegger has proposed cutting about $4.8 billion in education this year and next. In the meantime, about 20,000 teachers, librarians, nurses and other school positions have been alerted that they will be fired.

In an effort to save money, school districts are looking at increasing class sizes, closing down some schools and eliminating programs such as International Baccalaureate and Advanced Placement. Don't worry, sports will also be eliminated so this budget crisis affects everyone. Everyone except those who live in wealthy school districts and can raise the funds to keep their programs.

The liberal think tank the Rockridge Institute is holding an online discussion on homeschooling. Just FYI if you are interested in getting in your two cents. The discussion was sparked by the controversial California ruling against homeschooling without teaching credentials.

California is extremely short on funding this year, thanks to a nosediving stock market and the housing meltdown.  The governor's budget proposal, to be reviewed and revised in May by the legislature, calls for a $4.8 billion cut to education.  This cut in combination with other loss in funding has resulted in approximately 170,000 layoff notices to teachers throughout many districts in California.

(In California, school finance is extremely complex, but unlike some other areas which rely on local property taxes, school funding is done primarily through state funds, so cuts will end up hitting everyone even if a particular local district has not experienced declines in property tax revenue.)

Our district, which has a $4 million hole, issued 91 layoff notices, although they are hoping to rescind many if not most of them.  There is a good chance the final budget cuts from the state will not be as bad as the January proposal.  In addition, a certain number (typically 30-40) teachers resign or retire in a year, so that will absorb some of those cuts.  A local foundation is attempting to raise money to cover some of the remaining jobs.

The internet is already abuzz with commentary about a recent case involving a homeschooling family, where a California judge,  Justice H. Walter Croskey, wrote, "Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children."

And so people have taken that one line and started lining up on either side of the issue, with homeschooling advocates threatening to take it "all the way to the Supreme Court" and homeschooling foes apparently declaring some sort of victory. The defendant himself declared he believes the ruling stems from hostility against Christians and vowed to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

But when you look at the details of this case in context (which even some media didn't report), it changes the debate entirely:

LA Times

The appellate court ruling stems from a case involving Lynwood parents Phillip and Mary Long, who were repeatedly referred to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services over various allegations, including claims of physical abuse, involving some of their eight children.

All of the children are currently or had been enrolled in Sunland Christian School, where they would occasionally take tests, but were educated in their home by their mother, Phillip Long said.

A lawyer appointed to represent two of the Long's young children requested that the court require them to physically attend a public or private school where adults could monitor their well-being. A trial court disagreed, but the children's lawyer appealed to the 2nd District Court of Appeal, which has jurisdiction over Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.

The appellate panel ruled that Sunland officials' occasional monitoring of the Longs' home schooling -- with the children taking some tests at the school -- is insufficient to qualify as being enrolled in a private school. Since Mary Long does not have a teaching credential, the family is violating state laws, the ruling said.

"Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children," wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey in a Feb. 28 opinion signed by the two other members of the district court. "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program."

A few weeks ago, I wrote about an underground video by the Humane Society to uncover torture -- and even illegal processing -- of cows at a California meat packing plant called Hallmark. The meat was in turn sold to Westland Meat Co. in Chino, California, which provides meat to school lunches and some fast food restaurants.

Even though most of the meat from that Humane Society video has been eaten, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued a recall of 143 million pounds of meat processed by the Westland/Hallmark Meat Company, according to the Associated Press. It is the largest beef recall in the history of the United States.

Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer said his department has evidence that Westland did not routinely contact its veterinarian when cattle became non-ambulatory after passing inspection, violating health regulations…

Federal officials suspended operations at Westland/Hallmark after an undercover video from the Humane Society of the United States surfaced showing crippled and sick animals being shoved with forklifts.

Three ex-employees charged
Two former employees were charged Friday. Five felony counts of animal cruelty and three misdemeanors were filed against a pen manager. Three misdemeanor counts — illegal movement of a non-ambulatory animal — were filed against an employee who worked under that manager. Both were fired.

Authorities said the video showed workers kicking, shocking and otherwise abusing “downer” animals that were apparently too sick or injured to walk into the slaughterhouse. Some animals had water forced down their throats, San Bernardino County prosecutor Michael Ramos said.

Both the Jack-In-the-Box and In-N-Out fast food chains said they would discontinue using Westland’s meat. It is unclear how much of the meat customers ate. But officials estimate that about 37 million pounds of the recalled beef went to school programs and most have already been eaten. Ick.

The Democratic presidential debate in California will air on CNN tonight at 8 p.m. ET. With John Edwards out of the race, it will be only Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama. Super Tuesday is only days away so this forum should be insightful and interesting. Happy watching...

If you are married, did you change your name to match your spouse? It is a sign of greater equality for straight women that they are no longer required to take their husband's names, though ultimately it is a personal decision that may have nothing to do with feminism or equal rights. (Maybe one name is very hard to spell.)

Straight women who choose to change their names at marriage face the minor hassle of updating their driver's licenses and such, but do not have to worry about legal fees or court appearances. Not so for same-sex couples (except for those in the four states that recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions). Even in California, which provides extensive rights and protections for same-sex domestic partners, a member of a same-sex couple who wants to change her or his name to match a partner's has to go through expensive court proceedings. To address this inequality, a California Assembly committee has just passed the Name Equity Act, which would allow members of a same-sex couple to change their names upon registering as domestic partners.

A second part of this act benefits more than just same-sex couples, however. Under current law, a woman can take her husband's name at marriage without any additional proceedings, but a man cannot take his wife's name without the same legal and financial hurdles same-sex couples face. The Name Equity Act would remove these burdens, giving both members of the couple equal rights in this matter.