Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

Poll sees marriage ban trailing, and other Prop. 8 bits and pieces

ame-sex marriageblockbuster democracyinitiativejoe mathewskevin norteopinion l.a.proposition 4proposition 8ron george

Joe Mathews' Blockbuster Democracy blog has this link to a Field Poll out this morning showing that Californians are leaning against Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment initiative on the Nov. 4 ballot to restrict marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

If it passes, what would be the effect of the state Supreme Court's May 15 ruling legalizing marriage for same-sex couples? The court called marriage a fundamental right. Can voters revoke a fundamental right by initiative?

Opponents of Proposition 8 said no, and asked the court to remove the measure from the ballot. On Wednesday, though, the justices declined, without comment.

Los Angeles Superior Court research attorney Kevin Norte has been warning that the court's failure to act may result in repeated ballot measures to restrict marriage. Even if Proposition 8 fails, he argues, lack of court action to bar similar ballot measures will result in one initiative after another, forever, much like the parental consent/notification measures that Californians have seen three times in the last three years. The latest version, Proposition 4 (also known as Sara's Law), is on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Norte calls the potential phenomenon the "Gay Marriage Industrial Complex." Read his quote in the Metropolitan News-Enterprise story.

Meanwhile, there's an online petition to recall Chief Justice Ron George for the "travesty" in ruling and writing the opinion in the In re Marriage Cases decision, but it's not an official petition qualified by the secretary of state.

 

Comments () | Archives (31)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazing Grace

This proposition will pass just like the others have in the past banning GAY MARRIAGE. Let the will of the people be heard and upheld!!!! This is not about hate.. this is about what the people who live in CA want!

TB

Sadly, Obama was right.....This is no longer a christian nation. God help the remainders

daniwitz13

Marriage is a law of nature. Why not change the Earth's rotation. From evolution or religious belief, it has always been a male and female concept. It has brought us to where we are today. It is immutable like the moon and stars. To have mere mortal men try to change Creation and Nature for a few aberrants is unthinkable. This is beyond State, Federal and international laws, It is the only one of it's kind known to exist in the Universe, as if by a Creator.

Lou

Did anyone read the details of this poll? Only 672 Californians participated. Only 672 out of the 27 million adults living in the State ... give me a break! Why is the media using this misleading propaganda as front line news? The mind games will not work! Homosexuality is a sin and the majority of Californians agree. Enough of this homosexual agenda lies ... let us all get back to common sense.

What God says about Homosexuality:

"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin. (Leviticus 18:22 NLT)

"That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved." (Romans 1:26-27 NLT)

"And don't forget Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, which were filled with immorality and every kind of sexual perversion. Those cities were destroyed by fire and serve as a warning of the eternal fire of God's judgment." (Jude 1:7 NLT)

tanaS

Upholding the right, that can never be taken away, for homosexual couples to marry would insure that they have the same rights of property, parenting, etc., as the rest of America. How can anyone oppose the proposal that everyone has unalienable rights to be a fully participating partner with another consenting adult?

Michael, Esq.

The reasoning in George's opinion is disingenuous. He cites to Perez - the case where a black and white couple wanted to marry - where the Court held the right to marry is a fundamental right, all the while IGNORING the obvious underlying premise that the Court was referring to a black MAN who wanted to marry a white WOMAN. The Perez case stands for the proposition that the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, no matter what their color is a fundamental right, NOT that there is a fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex. The appellate court had it right. The plaintiffs here wanted to create constitutional protection for "same-sex marriage." (Sorry, CJ, it's NOT just a matter of "semantics."). The result is a bastardization of marriage that can ONLY be rectified by amending the Constitution which George distorted to fit the outcome he obviously sought.

Lion Kuntz

So why shouldn't gays have the right to have failed marriages of 57% divorced rate by the 7th year, same as the Christian Taliban Fundamentalist Haters? Why should YOU only get the rights to support half the motel rooms in America with your tawdry adultery? Without adultery, you can't even get to be a top-contender for president in the Republican party. How can you deprive these folks of the same lying cheating that you have been doing sinc bfore the bible was invented? -- OH, and YOU, get it straight: SAUL (PAUL) was a serial murderer, not GOD, and his words are valued by serial killer fans, not GOD's friends -- you can't find GOD condemning homos, just Moses and Pail is all, two guys of particularly dubious moral histories.

Concerned citizen

I vote to bring back slavery for blacks, deportation for non-americans, and wait take back women's right to vote if this passes. SERIOUSLY, if you belong to ANY minority group you should be treated as a 2nd class citizen if you vote in favor to ban gay marriage. As an educated being in our society we should ALL see how important equality is for all people.

Jason

"When two men are fighting and the wife of one intervenes to save her husband from the blows of his opponent, if she stretches out her hand and seizes the latter by his private parts, you shall chop off her hand without pity. "

Unfortunately our laws are not based on the Bible. I'd like to see this one imposed. Let homosexuals marry and worry about your own lives. They have no agenda to make us all gay. Even if they did, do you have so little faith in your sexuality that you're afraid you might submit (and I mean that literally.)

ahteist

The human ANIMAL has created all kinds of gods. Shiva, Jewovah, Spaghetti Monster and Whatever. And of course this primate created dogma for his various religions. Killing others, not of his faith, provided him an excuse to appropriate cattle, land and other wealth as his own. Look at what chimps do when one group confronts an adjacent group.

John Schinnerer

As I read the California Supreme Court ruling, I agree with it's finding that homosexual couples, under the Registered Domestic Partner agreements, already have the same rights, duties and privileges that heterosexual married couples have.
It follows that to deny homosexual couples the right to call their unions "marriages" is to call a rose by any other name -- it will remain a rose, and these unions remain marriages, no matter what you call them. Those who call these unions anything other than "marriages" are simply denying reality.
More than that, they seem to despise the enacted law of the State of California. I wish my brothers and sisters in Christ who so glibly quote Romans would turn a few pages further and read chapter 15, vs 1-7. It hasn't got anything naughty in it, but perhaps they will still find it interesting reading.
As a heterosexual professing Christian, I can find no reason to support Proposition 8 other than hatred and fear. Christ calls us to neither of these things.

Read your bible

Lou's quotes from the "bible" are not actual bible passages. They are 1996 INTERPRETATIONS of what someone THINKS the bible meant to read. He even acknowledges it by including "NLT" after each passage. "NLT" stands for "New Living Translation"

The bible DOES NOT say "homosexual" anywhere in it.

jack

Gays should be allowed to be as miserable as anyone else who gets married.

Brian Richards

If you believe that there is an invisible man in the sky who does magical things, or cares who is having pleasurable physical contact with whoever else, then there is something the matter with your brain.

It can't get any simpler than that.

Matthew

This issue has become personal enough for me that I just feel like I have to make a few comments. First though, let me make some counterpoints:

To daniwitz13: "Marriage is a law of nature."

-Umm, that statement would be patently false. If that was the case, wouldn't animals also 'marry'? The reality is that marriage is a man-made institution that's existed even before any of the current organized religions. It's also changed...ALOT...in the thousands of years it's existed.

To Lou: "Did anyone read the details of this poll? Only 672 Californians participated."

-I assume you never took a statistics class in high-school or college. That's actually a reasonable sample size. Where you could have a valid argument would be if you looked up the regions where the poll was conducted and found that they only polled in say...S.F. and L.A. However the fact that the article gives some basic geographical information noting places such as Kern County, I don't think you'd find that to be the case.

As for your quote from the Bible...while many people respect the book including myself, using the Bible to create legislation would be an even more slippery slope than the fear-mongers who try and say that gay marriage would lead to polygamy and incestuous marriages. The Bible might tell you individually how to vote (that's really up to you), but I for one am not looking to change America and California into a theocracy. How would you feel if our laws were based on the Koran?

To Michael, Esq.: "The reasoning in George's opinion is...IGNORING the obvious underlying premise that the Court was referring to a black MAN who wanted to marry a white WOMAN."

-Well I see you read some of the decision (which is a good thing), but you seem to have either skipped or not paid attention to some particular passages. This is a direct quote from the In Re Marriage full opinion:

"From the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a
woman." -- C.J. Ronald M. George

What he goes on to say is that two very important things happened. First, in 1971 the family code was changed and the gender language was removed. However he admits that the court found the intent was still that only a man and woman should be married. But then the California Legistative Branch passed a number of statutes that granted same-sex couples pretty much the exact same State rights as hetorosexual married couples. In other words, the state wanted to treat same-sex couples the same, but decided to use different language for the union. This specifically ran into a conflict with the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution (see Equal but Separate for a more in-depth explanation). The Supreme court could only offer one of two solutions that would be Constitutionally acceptable: either revoke the status of marriage from straight couples, or grant the right of CIVIL marriage to gay couples. They felt it was in the State's best interest to do the latter.

The reality is that it sounds like you mis-read the opinion. From what I can tell, Chief Justice George weighed your statement heavily, but had to uphold the law regardless of his personal opinion on the matter.

Matthew

I'd like to continue on with one other thing, because I believe in building bridges, not arguments and debate. For some of you that haven't already figured it out, I am a gay man.

Before the Supreme Court's ruling, I was willing to live with 'Domestic Partnership'. I figured it was close to the same thing, and my initial concern was more of the legal persuasion than an emotional one.

That changed significantely when I read Justice George's opinion. What he seemed to boil the issue down to, was that by me accepting a Domestic Partnership and not a state-recognized civil marriage, I was allowing myself to become a second-class citizen. The majority of the court saw that as an injustice to me as a California citizen. I never really thought about it that way. It significantly changed my opinion on the matter.

If the highest court in the State...andone that has been considered moderate and often times, conservative...was willing to go out on a limb for me and tell me they'll stand up for me, what kind of person would I be if I didn't stand up for myself as well?

The truth is that Proposition 8 (and I encourage all opponents to call it Proposition "Hate", it's good PR), enshirines a form of discrimation into our Consititution and in our great State. I urge everyone to vote 'No' on this initiative. I know I'm asking for something that could be difficult for a lot of you, but we've come so far and we've made such great strides in California to be a leader in civil rights. Won't you go just a little further for us fellow Californian's?

Holy Moses

The comments on this issue bother me because it seems like the people supporting Prop. 8 support some type of theocratic state where we based our laws on Christian laws. The issue is whether we should vote in or out fundamental rights at every election. If Prop 8 wins in Novmeber, does anyone think it will ever go away? Perhaps GOD should be in control of marraiges and the state in the business of Domestic partnerships. Perhaps the state could avoid the equal protection claim by calling everything Domestic Partnerships and leave marraiges to religion. When you think about it, having a rabbi create a legal relationship treads on the separate of church and state. France has gone this route. Perhaps California should follow this rule?

ealchip

It's apparent that those reporting Prop 4 as just another parental notification initiative are not bothering to educate themselves. The lack of informed reporting shows that most, including the author of this post, have not even read the proposition. Proposition 4 is significantly different from previous parental notification initiatives and for the first time puts FAMILY notification on the ballot. Prop 4 protects girls from abusive homes by allowing the doctor to notify another adult family member, such as an older sister or aunt. The goal is to protect vulnerable young girls who are often the victims of sexually exploitive relationships with older men, and help them get the care that they need.

daniwitz13

I don't think that our constitution says you have a right to be what you are not. If you are a man, you do not have a right to to be considered a woman, and vise versa. If marriage is between a man and woman, a defined composition, you do not have a constitutional right to include a different composition because you want it so. Our courts are wrong to allow it.

Mat

May god help you Lou. Personally I'll take direct quotes from Jesus in the Bible to be the ones I take to heart. (Not to mention the use of NLT to make your point. We're a nation of incredibly stupid Christians :/

Ian McLean

I will not speculate on whether Proposition 8 is doomed to failure since I believe that is entirely too early to say. What I will comment on is the absolutely repulsive hypocrisy on the part of the California State Supreme Court. When striking down the ban on gay marriage in California, the State Supreme Court drew on the Perez-Sharp decision in 1948, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law banning interracial marriage, thereby clearing the way for a Hispanic man to marry a White woman. In doing so, the California State Supreme Court concluded that marriage was a fundamental constitutional right that “represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.” While admitting that marriage traditionally has been limited to opposite-sex couples, the court reasoned that tradition alone should be not sufficient grounds to deny those wishing to marry this "fundamental right" Also drawing on the 1948 Perez-Sharp case, the court ruled that laws banning same-sex marriage violated the right to equal protection under the law, requiring the state to provide a very high standard of justification for such a violation, especially when this violation was based on race, sex, religion and now, sexual orientation. However, as soon as this groundbreaking decision was made public, Chief Justice Ronald M. George of the California Supreme Court rushed to make it clear that this "fundamental right" was suddenly not so fundamental after all. Justice George, in a shocking display of hypocrisy, said " This ruling did “not affect the constitutional validity of the existing prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives.” So let me get this straight, The California State Supreme Court strikes down not only the law banning gay marriage but also strikes down the constitutionality of the definition of marriage under California State law on the basis that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right, whose denial would necessitate a very high standard of justification by the state yet similar restrictions against polygamous unions would stand? I am certainly no legal expert but I'm pretty sure that once a law defining marriage as that of a union between a man and a woman has been struck down, it has been struck down for everybody. That would include polygamists. Imagine for a second that after the 1948 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the law banning interracial marriage that the Chief Justice at the time had stated that the ruling affected only White-Hispanic marriages and that it did not affect the validity of restrictions on White-Asian and White-Black marriages . How ridiculous!! In my opinion, the California State Supreme Court was very aware of the fact that its decision legitimized claims that the laws prohibiting polygamy had just been rendered as invalid as those against gay marriage but did not want to say so for fear of incurring the wrath of the public. This does not mean I am against legalizing polygamy however. I just think polygamy should enjoy the same legal status as gay marriage does now and that anything less than full legal recognition of this institution is a violation of the principles listed in the May 15th decision overturning the ban on gay marriage.

Lynn H

I attended a most beautiful wedding ceremony in Provencetown on July 7- two men, committed to one another for 28 years, without the legal shackles that bind men and women. After 28 years of unforced, unprotected commitment, they united as one in a small, traditional ceremony, surrounded by the love and support of their families. We, the family, are finally out of the closet. Because Massachusetts and now California have been strong enough to legitamize what always was and what always will be, our family can breath a sigh of relief that those whom we love can experience what had been denied same sex couples - respect, acceptance, and pride. So many families and friends remain in the closet. Now that Proposition 8 is on the ballot, legal or not, we need to step out and support our gay friends, brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews. Only by freeing them, will we free ourselves.

Jared Stucki

ATTENTION! For each of you supporting gay marriage, you must clearly understand you are treading in dangerous water. You are being discriminitory, exclusionary, and even "hateful" towards not only heterosexuals, but also all other prospective or potential pairings. You are shutting out all other types of possible marriages that could surely arise out of this ugly fight you have created. By doing so, you will be excluding cousins, siblings, and otherwise human & animal couplings that feel just as passionate as you do about their right to marry. You see by opening up marriage for debate, for the first time in over six thousand years, you leave it as "open season for attack "from a myriad of predators. Leave marriage alone!.......... Stand up and face the facts. Be responsible for your actions and ponder deeply over your mental illnesses. Think of how your mental illness affects young California children and adolescents. Be honest with your true selves and feelings. Give up. Give up. You will never defeat the 80% of this great state who still believe that" marriage is for one man and one woman". Don't call this hate speech, that term is for pansies and is all to often overused. Call this tough love from a concerned California husband and father. Call this the truth.Yes on proposition 8!
Jared (Southern California)

Eric

Can you believe some of these religous whackos on these comment pages?

I find the most religous many times are the most immoral.

Equality For All Californians

JR KEITH

CAREFUL Jared Stucki:

That's quite a slippery slope to which you want readers to pander! Your vehemence is showing. You have absolutely no sympathy, much less compassion, toward your fellow human that is homosexual (by the way, Jared, homosexuality is not an illness as determined by the American Psychiatric Association 25 years ago in 1973). Please realize that name-calling and labeling is "hitting below the belt" in an argument.

"Animal pairings," Jared, really? And your comment "you leave it [marriage] as 'open season for attack' from a myriad of predators" leaves me scratching my head. Victims and animals and children and the unsuspecting cannot consent to marriage! How do you make an incredulous remark such as that... such a sophomoric use of analogy: that by allowing homosexuals to marry is going to lead to “legal” pairings with animals... that seems silly to me. So stick to the facts and stay away from "Slippery Slope" hypothesizing and theorizing.

By stating "this ugly fight you have created," you make it seem like this argument is one sided. People who are homosexual want to make marriage sacred for themselves. Homosexuals are not second class citizens and deserve EVERY right you have in this country (as the Constitution of the USA underlines). As your argument belittles and demeans homosexuals, you are clearly the one making things "ugly" here. Be adult about this.

And you want to change our constitution of the state of California??? TAKING AWAY FREEDOMS FROM ONE USA CITIZEN... THESE SAME FREEDOMS UNDER WHICH YOU ENJOY AND ARE PROTECTED... to me, RESEMBLES THAT OF PREJUDICE. Read the definitions of MARRIAGE in the current edition of the MERRIAM-WEBSTER dictionary; you'll see that SAME-SEX is included within the denotations. I have no idea why that definition does not reflect in our laws across the USA.

And I, too, dislike the term HATE these days. I agree with you there, Jared, HATE is overused. I readily replace that word with IGNORANCE and FEAR and PREJUDICE... all three words containing definitions under which our nation is quite beguiled these days.

II wanted to point out your flawed data (which doesn't align with the most recent data, anyway) that "80% of this great state who still believe that 'marriage is for one man and one woman'". Come on, now Jared... get your facts STRAIGHT. That's one of the most simple-minded uses of propaganda known as BANDWAGON! (Trying to get everyone to think that "everyone's doing it" or "everyone's not doing it.")

FINAL OBSERVATION: Jared, YOU used the world HATE... and I think you might have called yourself a pansy in the process. For the record, Jared, go back and re-read your second and third sentences, they really don't make sense.

[For you that read this far, I hope it made you think; I don't think I can change Jarad's ignorance with this posting; however, I do hope that you realize that homosexuals are fighting for freedoms that are due them... freedoms already granted to heterosexuals without prejudice. Homosexuals want to be treated without prejudice at least by the very government that promises us certain, unalienable rights.

I think and feel quite strongly, and hope people realize, that any debate against Gay Marriage cannot be argued without using context from traditional values, quotes from the Bible and/or other religious text, loose connotations, personal/individual convictions, name-calling, labeling, FEAR, IGNORANCE, and/or PREJUDICE. No Sects of societies, religions, or governments of the world are either entitled to or “corners the market” on the sanctity of MARRIAGE.]

vsmith

If this was simply about giving homosexuals the right to legally marry, I might almost be for it. However, I can see that many homosexuals have a strong antipathy toward Christians, Catholics, Mormons, and who-knows-what-other religious groups, and with the lawsuit-happy nature of the gay activists, I greatly fear the results of the failure of Prop 8. How many lawsuits will be brought against pastors, priests, and churches that will not perform gay marriages as a matter of conscience? If we think the homosexual lobby will be content with legalizing gay marriage, we're fooling ourselves.

curtis molina

You have all missed a fundamental point: "Homosexuals" are NOT a minority group. A "homosexual" is a person who chooses a sexual practice of having relations with a person of the same sex, this does not make he/she another "race" or "gender." If you say that homosexuals are a minority group then you also have to say that foot fetishists are also a minority group, or people who choose to have relations with animals, etc. The choice of a specific sexual practice, even if it is a person's primary choice, does not denote a separation from society. In other words, just because people want to have sex and relationships with other people of the same sex does not give them the right to marriage, no more than people have the right to marry animals they have sex with or children they love. Furthermore, the very desire to have sex with a person of the same sex is unnatural by any definition. We as human mammals are created/evolved (whatever you believe) to reproduce, every person goes through puberty to prepare their bodies for reproduction- men to donate sperm, women to produce eggs. Our physical state of arousal- the quickening of the blood, the wetting of the vagina, the hardening of the penis- is simply a physiological response to facilitate reproduction. If this response is leading to relations with a person who cannot reproduce from the union (same sex) it is a perversion of our natural and healthy function. As cerebral and advanced creatures we are able to make physical changes to our bodies due to the raw power of our minds: we can induce hallucinations, we can split our own personalities, etc. This higher brain function we possess should also not be abused for the sake of "physical pleasure." There is no argument, whether social, psychological, physical, scientific, or religious that supports the practice of homosexuality as legitimate.

Lora

What is marriage? Its an institution put in place for the protection and rearing of children. Can homosexual couples rear children? Legally, yes. But is it as good for the child as would be a mother AND father? No. Lets not forget to compare bests to bests here and not fall party to comparing bests to worsts. (i.e. comparing bad hederosexual marriages to good homosexual relationships.. we're talking about the comparing the best of both worlds) Are there homosexual couples with "normal" children? Yes. But the research shows that having both a mother AND father is predominantly BETTER for the child. Thus, protecting the traditional form of marriage as being that between a man and a woman is fundamental.
Homosexual couples already have every civil right and protection under the domestic partnership laws. There is NO REASON for them to call their unions "marriage" except that they are trying to impose themselves on people with traditional values. Already terms like "traditional family values" are being deemed "hate speech". Already homosexual couples are petitioning churches who oppose homosexuality to allow them to be married in those churches, because its "discriminatory" for the churches not to allow such practices to take place. Nevermind the churches are private organizations. Nevermind that fundamentally those religious teachings are contrary to homosexuality. These couples are looking to pick a fight.
Proposition 8 does not deny homosexual couples civil rights. They already have their civil rights protected under the domestic partnership laws. They already have all the benefits of hederosexual couples who are married. Again, what is the purpose of marriage? I believe its purpose to be to provide a safe haven in which children are to be raised by a mother and a father.. a balanced environment where they learn from both a male and a female. Vote YES on PROP 8!

Chesley

I lived in Colorado when Amendment 2 was passed by state residents in the early 1990's. This Amendment allowed people to legally discriminate against someone based upon sexual orientation. A homosexual could be denied employment, housing, removed from a restaurant, store, etc... based on the fact that they were gay. The group that started the Amendment said that homosexuals should not be allowed "special rights" and the Amendment passed. Fine. I don't have any rights. If I don't have the same rights as you, I want to pay less taxes. Will that work for you?

Kimberly

As American citizens, we all have the right to vote for what we feel is best for society. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I also believe that children are better off when raised in a home with both a mother and father. YES ON 8!!

protectmarriage.com

whatisprop8.com

patriot

I am sick and tired of all these religious fascits hyjacking good ideas. look gays have all the rights that a normal couple has. what gets me mad is that they will teach in elementary school that it is normal for boys to marry boys and girls to mary girls......it is MY RIGHT AS A PARRENT to teach morallity to my little girl, NOT THE GOVERMENT! public schools in mass are handing out books to little children that tell them it normal to be gay....as a navy veteran i worked alongside gays, had a great freind that was lesbian, and even had a gay roommate in my barricks. i honor thier rights....but they are not normal. if they were than most people would be gay..what is that famous saying 1 out of every 10 adults are gay... gays are a minority group of society forcing thier beliefs and agenda on the rest of society.. this by its nature is truly undemocratic. marriage should be man and wife, and that should be honored by gays just as i honor thier civil unions...... YES ON 8


Connect

Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video


Categories


Recent Posts
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves on 'Obamacare' |  March 27, 2012, 5:47 pm »
Candidates go PG-13 on the press |  March 27, 2012, 5:45 am »
Santorum's faulty premise on healthcare reform |  March 26, 2012, 5:20 pm »

Archives
 


About the Bloggers
The Opinion L.A. blog is the work of Los Angeles Times Editorial Board membersNicholas Goldberg, Robert Greene, Carla Hall, Jon Healey, Sandra Hernandez, Karin Klein, Michael McGough, Jim Newton and Dan Turner. Columnists Patt Morrison and Doyle McManus also write for the blog, as do Letters editor Paul Thornton, copy chief Paul Whitefield and senior web producer Alexandra Le Tellier.



In Case You Missed It...