It would do Californians good to be able to view the videotape of the federal Proposition 8 trial and decide for themselves. There's such instructive material as the supporters of Proposition 8 being unable to articulate any ways in which same-sex marriage would harm the marriages of opposite-gender couples. And the admission, also by an opponent of gay marriage, that the institution would strengthen the families of such couples.

But there are issues beyond useful instruction. It's hard to argue with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision this week not to release the video because the trial judge, retired U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, repeatedly assured the participants that the proceedings would never be broadcast and that the tape was just for the use of the court. Shortly after he retired, Walker showed a clip from the trial at a speech he was giving, which also seemed out of line. The clip belonged to the court for court use.

Sometimes, there are compelling reasons for making a video or document public, so much so that it overrides a judicial promise. But edification of the public a couple of years later isn't one of them.

Of course, where the real problem began was with the U.S. Supreme Court deciding not to allow the broadcasts before the trial ever started, yielding to the silly claims by Proposition 8 proponents that the witnesses would somehow be too intimidated. The two witnesses in favor of the marriage ban were both prominent figures who had appeared on television before.

ALSO:

Israel's profound choice on Iran

Facebook: Who benefits from IPOs?

This time, the limelight for Komen is too hot a pink

--Karin Klein

Photo: Judge Vaughn R. Walker is seen on November 19, 2010. Credit: Elaine Thompson / AP Photo

When actress Cynthia Nixon described herself as "gay by choice" in a New York Times magazine interview, she not only set off a storm of reexaminations of the evidence on whether homosexuality is a matter of nature or nurture, but threw a verbal monkey wrench into the legal question of gay rights.

As Times science writer Karen Kaplan summarized, "The scientific consensus seems to be that there is indeed a biological basis for homosexuality -- though it's not necessarily 100% determined by either genes or by environmental factors." Science is painting a complex portrait in which biology -- not always genetics but also prenatal exposure to hormones -- is certainly an important factor, though perhaps not the only one.

Nixon, though, is framing gay rights in a new way. It's strangely reminiscent of the "gay cures" some religious groups have promoted. They say it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is inborn. It's still wrong, in their eyes, and so people have to "learn" to change their behavior, even if they can never change their sexual preference. A desire to philander might be "inborn" or "natural," they argue, but it still has to be overcome. Nixon, of course, is on the opposite side of that same logical coin. Why, she asks, should homosexuality be any less valid if and when it is chosen?

Why, indeed? So much of the debate about discrimination against homosexuals gets bogged down in extraordinarily judgmental issues. They shouldn't marry, opponents have told the editorial board, because studies show that children are better off with a mother and father. Actually, some excellent studies don't bear that out at all -- but that's not the point. Of the many heterosexuals who make bad parents, why isn't society judging their fitness to wed? When adults engage in sexual behavior of whatever type, why does society set up discriminatory laws against them only when that "type" involves homosexuality?

But in the courts, as the lawsuit against Proposition 8 wends its way through the appellate process, this issue could have very high stakes. Under the 14th Amendment, the courts have historically said that discriminatory laws must pass a very high legal bar to remain law, if they affect a "discrete" and "insular" community that has traditionally been singled out for discrimination. Traditionally, this has included ethnic and racial minorities, and women. In his ruling on the Proposition 8 case, then-U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker wrote that this surely applied to the gay and lesbian communities as well.

Historically, though, one of the criteria for such groups is that they must be a minority because of an unchangeable characteristic. If, as Nixon says, sexual preference can be a choice, then couldn't gays and lesbians simply "choose" otherwise?

Groups don't have to meet all of the criteria laid out, and other factors can be considered. But gay rights activists worry that if sexual preference is seen as mutable, they might lose points in their ongoing legal quest for legal rights.

Nixon, of course, speaks only for herself, and it's doubtful her comments would matter much, if at all, in the case. But in any case, I agree with her; it shouldn't matter. The complicated, perhaps never-knowable question of precisely how people come to be different from each other is a small one compared with the question of why there seems to be so much determination to deprive some of those people of basic rights that in no way harm other people.

ALSO:

Good news for gay marriage in Washington state

Santorum's defense of bigotry fails on all counts

Proposition 8: Watch the trial and judge for yourself

--Karin Klein 

Photo: Actress Cynthia Nixon is seen attending the "Lysistrata Jones" Broadway opening night at the Walter Kerr Theatre on Dec. 14, 2011 in New York City. Credit: Neilson Barnard/Getty Images

While California waits for an appellate court ruling on whether Proposition 8 is unconstitutionally discriminatory, legislators in Washington state say they have the votes  to legalize same-sex marriage there, which would make it the seventh state to do so. The governor already has vowed to sign the bill.

Which has to have supporters of same-sex marriage in this state wondering: was it just a matter of bad timing in California? The state Supreme Court struck down a voter-passed ban on such marriages in 2008. That was followed a few months later by the victory of Proposition 8, which embedded the ban into the state Constitution. The current lawsuit claims that the marriage ban violates the U.S. Constitution's non-discrimination provisions.

Times have changed in a few very active years on the gay rights front. In Washington state, the number of people who say they support same-sex marriage has increased. A University of Washington poll found that if the legislation passes, and if a subsequent referendum were held, 55% of state residents would vote to uphold the law and allow the marriages.

INTERACTIVE: Gay marriage rights in the U.S.

The more the movement spreads in the nation, the more opinion will shift toward recognition that it is discriminatory to withhold the joys and privileges of married life -- though sometimes that life can seem a little short on the privileges -- from gay and lesbian couples. So let's anticipate with glee the possibility that these couples will soon be able to wed a bit farther up the West Coast, at the same time that we wonder how the vote would go if Proposition 8 were facing the test in 2012 instead of 2008.

ALSO:

Gay marriage's diamond anniversary

Santorum's defense of bigotry fails on all counts

Gay marriage draws support from U.S. mayors led by Villaraigosa

--Karin Klein 

Photo credit: Damian Dovarganes / AP Photo

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I will say this for Rick Santorum: He's one of the more well-spoken bigots I've heard in a while. His defense of his absolutist position on gay marriage, delivered in front of a largely hostile crowd of college Republicans in Concord, N.H., was concise, logical and delivered with the rhetorical flourish of a seasoned attorney. None of it hadn't been expressed by same-sex marriage opponents before, but Santorum's gift is to make his morally and legally untenable position sound reasonable.

Boiled to its essence, his argument has three parts: First, the burden of demonstrating that same-sex marriage should be legalized falls on its supporters rather than its opponents, because the former group is the one that wants to change the law. Fair enough. Here's the reason, Rick: Because discriminating against a class of people by failing to grant them the same rights enjoyed by everyone else is unfair and unconstitutional.

The second part of Santorum's argument is that many of the legal benefits of marriage, such as the right to visit a hospitalized spouse, can be obtained via legal contract, so why should gays insist on marriage rights? This is monstrously disingenuous, as Santorum the lawyer well knows, but it seemed to confuse the crowd, so apparently there weren't any law students among them. Santorum is correct that property and inheritance rights can be transferred to another via contract -- gay partners can leave their houses to each other in their wills, for example. But, as Oakland attorney and author Fred Hertz explains, public benefits -- tax advantages, health insurance and so on -- can't be transferred via contract, except in states that recognize domestic partnership agreements (and most states, including Santorum's native Pennsylvania, don't). Even in the domestic partnership states, no federal tax, Social Security or other benefits apply to such partners because of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

Finally, there is Santorum's third argument, which by now is pretty familiar to anyone following the same-sex marriage debate: If you allow same-sex couples to marry, why not allow polygamy? This one's tougher to refute because it gets to a truism that gay-marriage proponents don't like to discuss -- there is a social-values component to marriage. Religious conservatives see no distinction between same-sex marriage and incest or polygamy, because to them, all of these things represent sexual sins. Yet there are obvious differences.

Setting aside the ick factor of incestuous marriage, sexual liaisons between family members can lead to offspring with terrible genetic abnormalities. Polygamy is slightly less objectionable on its face, but in practice it causes enormous social problems -- polygamous societies inevitably create a surplus population of young, restive males who end up on the streets or fuel upheaval because they can't find wives, most of whom have been snapped up by powerful older men. Underage women are frequently forced into marriages with much older men, and there is an innate power imbalance built into any relationship between one man (or one woman) and multiple partners of the opposite sex.

But more important than any of these distinctions is the fact that the entire comparison is irrelevant. There is no mainstream political movement in this country to legalize polygamy or incestuous marriage; when and if there is, we can debate whether it's appropriate. By dragging these things into the debate over same-sex marriage, Santorum and his ilk are simply playing reductio-ad-absurdem rhetorical games. This technique can be used to discredit nearly any position on anything: If we allow same-sex marriage, what's next, people marrying dogs? If we allow people to drink alcohol, why not let them snort cocaine? If we guarantee the right to bear arms, why not guarantee the right to build thermonuclear devices in one's garage?

The answer: Because it's ridiculous. Let's stick to the matter at hand -- whether consenting adults of the same sex should be allowed to marry. It's OK to agree with Santorum that they shouldn't, but let's not drag the cast of "Big Love" into the discussion.

ALSO:

Mitt Romney snubbed by Massachusetts' top newspaper

Rick Santorum was full of surprises from the beginning

Iowa caucuses' count confusion: Hold on to your hanging chads

-- Dan Turner

Funny that Fred Karger, gay rights advocate, founded the group Californians Against Hate, since his most recent campaign seems to be about spreading bigotry. For those who haven't heard of Karger -- and that's a lot of people -- he's a Republican candidate for president, listed on the ballot of the New Hampshire primary, who took on a more active political identity after California voters passed Proposition 8 in 2008. Karger is an openly gay candidate who was angered and dismayed by the role that the Mormon Church and its followers took in getting the ban on same-sex marriage passed. 

Negative campaigns and ugly smears might be the stuff of politics these days, but within this category, Karger gets a special space all his own after launching an attack website against Mormonism that purportedly reveals the 10 "craziest beliefs" of Mormons, lest voters consider voting for Mormon candidate Mitt Romney. The site doesn't actually have such a list; it's more a place where anyone can anonymously post any sort of canard about Mormonism. Perhaps rational people could also try inserting some truths, if those are actually allowed.

On the site, Karger writes:

We simply want to help understand Mormons and their beliefs, and have created this web site and blog to help enlighten you and us on the Mormon faith and it many ceremonies and rituals.

This web site is by no means meant to harm anyone or any faith.

Sure it isn't. That's why its title is so balanced.

Karger has his reasons for being at odds with Mormons and their religion; he also has reasons to seek out publicity at any cost, even the cost of religious bigotry.

But during the Proposition 8 campaign, he saw and heard plenty of hateful and false garbage spewed by some of the ban's supporters about and against gays and lesbians, their relationships and their children. Obviously, the lesson he drew from that wasn't what people thought when he founded Californians Against Hate, a phrase that apparently means something different to Karger than to most of the rest of us.

ALSO:

Ron Paul's naive promises

How the GOP can score with Latino voters

GOP candidates: Bashing judges, threatening democracy

--Karin Klein

Photo: Fred Karger, photographed in 2006. Credit: Don Kelsen / Los Angeles Times

In October, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law banning the open carrying of handguns in public.

For several months before that, "open carry" proponents had been especially visible in the South Bay, making their 2nd Amendment point by packing heat in public on the beach and at a fair, among other places.

The sight made some people nervous, including the police; the bill's sponsor, Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, a Democrat from La Canada Flintridge, said police "felt strongly that 'open carry' is not safe and that someone could get hurt or worse."

California became the fifth state to ban open carry. Arizona, right next door, is an open-carry state, except where other laws restrict carrying weapons near schools or in parks.

The open-carry issue in California has an odd history. In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited anyone from carrying a loaded gun in public. Yep, Ronald Reagan.

The back story of this is stunningly dramatic. The Black Panthers had become poster people for the 2nd Amendment. California law at the time allowed them -– and anyone else -- to carry long guns as long as they were in plain sight and not being aimed at anyone.

The Mulford Act, sponsored by a conservative Berkeley legislator named Don Mulford, was the Legislature’s response. And the Panthers’ response to the Legislature was this -- a group of armed Panthers, in berets and leather jackets and carrying their weapons, staged the PR coup of marching up the Capitol steps and into the Assembly. As I like to say, I imagine there wasn't a dry seat in the house.

Concealed weapons are another matter.

California counties issue concealed weapons permits. Some sheriffs, like Los Angeles' Lee Baca, approve very few, which ticks off gun advocates; onetime Orange County sheriff Michael Carona rewarded his supporters with concealed weapons permits.  After Carona was indicted on federal corruption charges and resigned -– he was convicted of felony witness tampering -- some of those concealed weapons permits were revoked by the new sheriff.

Now the secretary of state's office has announced that there's a petition ready to circulate in search of  half a million signatures to rearm Californians with concealed weapons.

If it gets on the ballot and passes, it could create a gunslinger's paradise, throwing out virtually all current requirements for getting a concealed weapons permit and letting almost anyone who's not under criminal investigation or indictment or restraining order carry a hidden gun.

Here's what the initiative would do, according to the secretary of state's website:

• Eliminate good cause and good moral character requirements for license to carry concealed firearms.
• Compel sheriffs and police chiefs to issue licenses to carry concealed firearms to any eligible applicant with no history of mental illness, substance abuse or domestic violence, who is not currently under criminal investigation or indictment or currently subject of restraining order.
• Eliminate sheriffs' and police chiefs' option to require applicants to complete up to 24 hours of firearms training, and prohibit them from imposing reasonable restrictions or conditions when issuing the firearms license.

Not even "reasonable restrictions or conditions." Not even a 10-minute course on gun safety. Ready, fire, aim.

Odds are this won't get on the ballot, but the collateral effect of social-issue ballot initiatives in big election years shouldn't go unnoticed. An anti-gay marriage measure on Ohio's 2004 ballot spiked conservative voter turnout and contributed to John Kerry losing the state to George W. Bush.

And in 1982, Los Angeles' Democratic mayor, Tom Bradley, unexpectedly lost a squeaker of a governor's race to Republican Atty. Gen. George Deukmejian. Some analysts now think that -- whatever may have been a closet race vote against a black man trying to become governor, now known as the "Bradley Effect" -- the conservative turnout against a handgun control initiative generated the losing margin for Bradley.

Proposition 15 –- which Bradley, the former cop, endorsed -– would have required some handgun registration and limited handgun purchases. It lost -– and so did Bradley.

RELATED:

Gun control that won't

Guns and states' rights

Gun safety, Texas-style

Open carry: Would-be Yosemite Sams are shot down

Cartoon: Why state legislators needn't carry concealed weapons

-- Patt Morrison

Photo: Tammy Cude of San Pedro wears a banana in her gun holster as she passes a Redondo Beach police officer while participating in an "open carry" event at Redondo Beach Pier in August 2010. Credit: Christina House / For The Times

It's time someone stood up for Mitt Romney.  And I'm just the Democrat to do it.

No, I won't be voting for Romney, should he earn the Republican presidential nomination.  (Then again, I won't be voting for Newt Gingrich. Although I confess, a race between him and President Obama would be entertaining.)

But I think Romney deserves a small pat on the back for something that happened Monday on the campaign trail.  Basically, he was wrong -- but he was right.

Chatting with potential voters at a breakfast spot in Manchester, N.H., Romney was asked by Vietnam veteran Bob Garon, 63, for his views on the proposed repeal of New Hampshire's law permitting gay marriage. (Oh, and Garon is married -- to a man.)

"I've have a question for you,” Garon said, cutting off the former Massachusetts governor's attempt at chit-chat. "New Hampshire has some legislation kicking around about the repeal of same-sex marriage [law]… All I need is a yes or a no."

Romney crisply told Garon that because of his view that "marriage is between a man and woman," he supported efforts to repeal the law.

OK, there you go.  Yes or no?  Romney says no.

Garon, though, really didn't want a yes or no answer.  He clearly favors the same-sex marriage law, and he went on to debate the issue with Romney.  Soon, Romney's aides sought to usher the candidate away.

"I guess the question was too hot," Garon said to the candidate.

"No," Romney replied, "I gave you the answer. You said you had a yes or no (question), I gave you the answer."

And Romney's right.  No, not about the same-sex marriage law. But in defending himself. 

He stood up for what he believes.  Just because Garon didn't like the answer, that's no reason to criticize Romney.

Probably many Americans don't like that answer.  But that's what candidates should do: Let us know what they believe, and stick to it.

Romney's been criticized for blowing with the political winds. But at least in this one small incident on a very long campaign trail, he showed backbone. 

I don't agree with his stance, but I respect him for taking one.

RELATED:

Feisty Gingrich blasts Romney record at Bain Capital

Gingrich: Even his sister doesn't want him to win

Fact check: Would Mitt Romney have won his $10,000 bet?

--Paul Whitefield

Photo: Vietnam veteran Bob Garon challenged Mitt Romney on his views on same-sex marriage at a diner in Manchester, N.H. on Monday. Credit: Brian Snyder / Reuters

What do gay marriage and Proposition 8 have to do with Kim Kardashian? Not a whole lot on the face of it, yet somehow the news of the celebrity's divorce so soon after her wedding has led to a new chorus of anger over the passage of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.

Partners in same-sex relationships have pointed out in online comments that their partnerships, whether formally called marriage or not, have lasted decades. Other gay-rights supporters rage that it's people like Kardashian who harm the institution of marriage, not the gay and lesbian couples who want to wed.

Much as I support same-sex marriage rights, this argument doesn't wash and does no good to advance the cause. Opponents of gay marriage will simply say that both quick divorce and same-sex weddings cheapen the institution.

Beyond that, the argument for same-sex marriage shouldn't be about how long such marriages will last. Some marriages between heterosexual couples will end quickly, and so will some same-sex marriages. Some heterosexual unions are strong and loving, and others are fraught with problems. Same for gay and lesbian relationships.

The reason to support same-sex marriage isn't about whether such couples will form better households or stay together longer. It's that marriage is a basic civil right. Just as it cannot be withheld from couples based on their race or religion, it should not be forbidden to couples based on their sexual orientation. Whether those marriages ultimately prove to be stronger on average than heterosexual marriages is irrelevant. We don't ban adults from marrying based on a perception that their marriages won't last, and we shouldn't, whether they are gay, straight or Kim Kardashian.

ALSO:

Kim Kardashian, the nation is in your debt

Kardashian, Humphries split after 72 days

'Will you marry me?' -- it used to be enough

-- Karin Klein

Photo: Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries in Monaco in May 27. Credit: Vincent Damourette / European Pressphoto Agency

Hey, what happened?  Did I miss the big news?  Didn't America's armed forces disband Tuesday?

After all, the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy  has officially ended.  Gays and lesbians are now free to serve openly.

Surely our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan surrendered, right?

Didn't thousands and thousands of troops desert, leaving places such as South Korea virtually undefended?

I'll bet the Navy has brought all of its ships into port, and the Air Force has grounded all flights. People probably fled the Pentagon en masse.  At West Point and Annapolis, cadets likely left school and went home.

No? You're kidding.

You mean, in 2011, America's fighting men and women actually don't care that those serving with them are gay?

Well, maybe that's too much to ask.  Maybe some do care.  And like all Americans, they're free to have their own opinions about homosexuality.

What has changed is that they can't officially discriminate against gays and lesbians.

And that's a good thing.

Of course, there are other changes.  Take this Navy officer:

Navy Lt. Gary Ross celebrated … by marrying his longtime partner in Vermont at midnight Monday -- the exact moment of the repeal. Ross told the Associated Press that when he returns to work as a surface warfare officer at Ft. Huachuca in Arizona near the Mexican border, he does not plan to make a big deal about the marriage. But he no longer has to keep it a secret either.

The old system "requires you to lie several times a day," he said.

Sheesh.  First, openly gay in the military.  Then married.  There seems to be no stopping this whole "equal rights" thing, once you get the hang of it.

Still, not everyone is pleased:

"It's a tragic day for America," said Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council.

No, Mr. Sprigg, it's not. 

Because what we've finally recognized is that a gay Marine is, well, a Marine.  A lesbian Air Force mechanic who works on helicopters is, well, a mechanic who works on helicopters. 

And that makes it a great day for America, and for all Americans. 

RELATED:

Photos: The faces of 'Don't ask, don't tell'

Obama certifies end to ban on gays in the military

Government calls ruling against 'don't ask, don't tell' moot

First Person: When friendship is the only thing that matters

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: A member of the Air Force reads a copy of OutServe, a new magazine aimed at gay military service men and women. Credit: Paul J. Richards / AFP / Getty Images

Monday night, a star-laden, one-time showing of a play about the Proposition 8 trial will be presented on Broadway. Yes, that's the New York Broadway, which seems rather odd and sad for a drama about California's initiative.

But that's OK. Because on the same day, U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Ware ruled that the videotapes of the federal trial must be made public. His order will take effect Sept. 30, if a higher court doesn't overrule him.

It only makes sense for the public to get to see the actual testimony and arguments in the case. Proposition 8, the 2008 constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, has riveted attention and caused divisiveness like few other issues. The initiative's proponents, leaders of ProtectMarriage, had argued against allowing the videotapes to be made public; it's unclear to me exactly why they're against public viewing. Their argument that the witnesses in favor of the ban would feel intimidated fell flat after they brought only two witnesses to the stand, both of them well-known figures who have appeared publicly -- and on television -- before.

Or perhaps it's that they would prefer their own supporters not see the trial. ProtectMarriage put on a less-than-stellar defense of the ban, with the witnesses admitting that the country would be more democratic if same-sex marriage were recognized and that such marriages would strengthen the family lives for same-sex couples. They were unable to articulate any way in which same-sex marriage would harm traditional marriages.

At least, should Monday's ruling stand and the video be unsealed, Californians will get a chance to see for themselves. And that's good for everyone.

RELATED:

Prop. 8's best defense

Broadcast the Prop. 8 trial video

Throw open the Prop. 8 video records

--Karin Klein

Photo: Former chief judge of the U.S. District Court Vaughn R. Walker. Credit: Beck Diefenbach / Reuters