Newt Gingrich has offered a grudging apology to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor for calling the judge a racist. Here it is, from his Human Events column:

"Shortly after President Obama nominated her to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I read Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s now famous words: 'I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.' My initial reaction was strong and direct -- perhaps too strong and too direct.  The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice. With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree.  The word 'racist' should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted)."

I don't want to defend Gingrich, but his initial use of the R word is part of a larger slippage of precision about the definitions of "racist" and "racism."  In the 1960s, it was pretty clear who was a racist: an anti-black bigot, a segregationist (George Wallace) or a beliver in the innate mental superiority of one race (usually the white race) to others. Then the fudging began.

The initial blame belongs to the left, which liked to talk about "institutional racism." To borrow some legal jargon used in civil-rights cases, this established an "effects" test for racism rather than an "intent" test. If an institution (the military, higher education, the polity) is racist because its policies or folkways disproportionately disadvantage members of a particular race, they are "racist." This more encompassing connotation provided a short-term polemical advantage for liberals, but at the cost of diluting the original meaning of the term. The easier it is to cry "Racism," the less those accused of it will be stigmatized. If everyone's a racist, no one is.

But conservatives must share the blame for watering down "racist," again to score political points. I'm referring to the notion, dear to opponents of affirmative action, that racial preferences benefiting blacks or other Americans amount to "racism in reverse." This view is reflected in Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s view that a program that takes race into account for the purposes of educating black and white children in the same classroom is just as invidious as the segregated schools struck down in Brown vs. Board of Education. 

Rush Limbaugh at least acknowledged the sliver of difference between the two concepts  when he attacked Sotomayor: "Here you have a racist – you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist." But even the "reverse" qualifier distorts an important difference between old and new "racism."  Take Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment. OK, it does assert that, in some cases at least, the wise Latina would out-judge the white male judge. But that supposed superiority has nothing to do with the argument of old-style racists that God or evolution had made whites smarter than other races.

It isn't just "racist" that has lost its sting through overuse. So has "homophobic." Here's a quotation from a primer from the The Campaign to End Homophobia: "Institutional homophobia refers to the many ways in which government, businesses, churches, and other institutions and organizations discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation."

I'll close with a thought experiment: If combatants in political and cultural wars were forbidden to use the R word, would they have to be more specific about their assertions? I think so, but we'll never know. Now I just hope that no one calls this post "racist."

* Photo of Newt Gingrich by Mary Ann Chastain / AP file

Two topics dominate today's Opinion pages: the California Supreme Court's validation of Proposition 8, and President Barack Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. The editorial board said the debate prompted by the Prop. 8 and the subsequent appeal has helped persuade lawmakers in other states to legalize gay marriage. The challenge for proponents in California, the board said, is to conduct a better campaign for legalization here:

Civil rights groups should be focusing their time and money on reaching out to moderate voters with information that quells misdirected fears. Contrary to what the pro-Proposition 8 ads implied, no religious group ever lost tax-exempt status over refusal to perform same-sex weddings; San Francisco students who attended their lesbian teacher's wedding had the written endorsements of their parents; gay marriage will not be forced into the California schools curriculum; and faith-based adoption agencies will continue to operate.

Columnist Tim Rutten, meanwhile, focused on the ruling itself, calling the justices' reasoning "intellectually and morally incoherent":

So, if a majority of Californians voted to "carve out a narrow exception" to California's right to privacy and applied it only to Jews, would it be constitutionally acceptable? If Native Americans were accorded all the protections of the law by a ballot proposition, except the right to marry a non-Indian, would that be legal?

This is social and moral nonsense.

Regarding Obama's Supreme Court pick, the editorial board likened Sotomayor to 2005 nominee John Roberts (whom the board supported). Her point of view wouldn't be confused with his, the board said, but she also fits "squarely within the tradition" of nominees with excellent legal credentials and views that "fall within the mainstream." On the Op-Ed side of the fold, Rutgers University professor David Greenberg speculates that Obama's choice of Sotomayor was so politically shrewd, it may have "checkmated" conservative opponents. (Backing Greenberg's thesis, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee all but ruled out a filibuster.)

Rounding out the pages, author David Wolman offers an entertaining history of American spelling rules. And readers weigh in on small cows, shrunken education budgets, reduced spending on military cargo planes and a life cut tragically short in Vernon.

Credit: AP Photo / Alex Brandon 

Public officials come out of the woodwork to comment on high-profile news events, such as the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8. Maybe they figure the public eagerly awaits the mail carrier's opinion on the matter; more likely, they're simply establishing their alliances.

Among an inbox stuffed with such statements today, one of the odder emails  comes from Monica Garcia, president of the Los Angeles Unified School District board.

"And for the hundreds of thousands of LAUSD students, [the court's decision is] a lesson that reverberates in the home and through the hallways, where bullies teasing students over their sexual orientation will continue with impunity."

That sentence begs for a second and third reading. Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools or what happens in their hallways. The L.A. school board, which Garcia heads, has everything to do with it. Surely the district's anti-bullying policies forbid harassment of gay and lesbian students. Garcia's memo, by predicting that this bullying will continue, in essence tells us that this bullying has been going on "with impunity." And the reason she cannot stop it is because of a state Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage?

Commenting today on Proposition 8? Fine. But it sounds like tomorrow, Garcia has some major work to do enforcing the policies in her school district. The Proposition 8 ruling constitutes a sad day for same-sex couples, but it can't be blamed for chaos in L.A. Unified's hallways.

Photograph by Damian Dovarganes/AP

Perhaps, but it'll be a much tougher battle for gay marriage foes in the Hawkeye State to amend their constitution in the name of enshrining "tradition." First, the news: Where justices of California's Supreme Court were split last May, Iowa's were unanimous:

Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady, who wrote the unanimous decision, at one point invoked the court’s first-ever decision, in 1839, which struck down slavery laws 17 years before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of a slave owner to treat a person as property.

Iowa’s gay marriage ban “is unconstitutional, because the county has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage,” Cady wrote in the 69-page opinion that seemed to dismiss the concept of civil unions as an option for gay couples.

“A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution,” Cady wrote.

The ruling, however, also addressed what it called the “religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate,” and said judges must remain outside the fray.

Some Iowa religions are strongly opposed to same-sex marriages, the justices noted, while some support the notion.

“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them,” the opinion says.

I appreciate the religious angle of Cady's opinion: The morality of gay marriage is essentially a debate among religious groups, and the Iowa government and courts are barred by law from settling such disputes.

What happens now? Like gay Californians did between May and November 2008, will same-sex couples in Iowa have to rush to the altar (or, more likely, the courthouse) to tie the knot with a traditional-marriage revolt looming at the voting booth? Hardly. According to the Des Moines Register article linked above, Iowa requires more than the momentary populist backlash needed in California to put a law beyond judicial review by passing a constitutional amendment. Changing the Iowa constitution requires that a proposed amendment be approved in two consecutive state legislative sessions before going to the voters. At the earliest, voters could overrule the Iowa high court's decision in 2012. California's same-sex couples had a six-month window to get marriage; Iowa's will have several times' that.

So we finally get a true gay-marriage laboratory in America -- and in a state that voted for George W. Bush in 2004, the year in which the former president called for a so-called marriage-protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If a gay-marriage ban does go up for a vote in Iowa, it'll be interesting to see whether heartland voters who've actually lived with same-sex unions for a while are more comfortable with marriage equality than we left-coasters were last November.

In Wednesday's Letters to the editor, readers sound off on a Times editorial questioning, "Does Antonin Scalia hate gays?"

Keith Keilman, of Mountain View, thinks so:

What does a Supreme Court justice have to do before The Times will give permission to use the word "homophobe" -- comparing homosexuals to murderers and ruling that they should be labeled criminal isn't enough?

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) should be praised for having the courage and wisdom to correctly point out Antonin Scalia's homophobia.

And, you know what, I don't need The Times' permission. Scalia is a homophobe.

San Francisco's Michael P. Clarke has another take:

Your editorial, like Frank, fails to distinguish between animus toward homosexuals and animus toward homosexual conduct.

You quote Scalia twice talking about disapproval of certain kinds of conduct, but present no evidence that Scalia has any feelings at all toward certain people. There is no necessary link between how one feels about a person and how one feels about a person's conduct.

A wife may hate the fact that her husband never remembers to put down the toilet seat, but one cannot conclude that she therefore hates him. A father may tell his son that it is unacceptable to smack his little sister, but that does not mean the father does not love the son. In fact, it is more often a sign of love, respect or at least concern when someone has the courage to tell you when you're behaving badly.

And Gail Wise, of Los Angeles, sees a bright side:

I see the brouhaha over Frank's remark as a sign of progress. In the past, few were bothered by being called a homophobe. Now, the term is considered an insult on a par with bigot or racist. This is good news.

Letters about the Employee Free Choice Act, expert witnesses (including those who testified for Phil Spector's defense team), why semesters are better than quarters, and finding a reputable surrogate agency, too.

Photo: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 2008.  Credit: AP Photo/Rob Carr.

A California Supreme Court justice found the idea intriguing. So did the Times editorial board: To ensure equal marriage rights, the state of California could consider getting out of the marriage business altogether, performing and recognizing civil unions for all. People who want marriage could go to the church or other private group of their choice, and those churches or groups would be free to recognize only the marriages that fit within their beliefs.

Practically within moments after Justice Ming W. Chin posed that scenario to lawyers on both sides of the Proposition 8 debate, two college students from Studio City stepped into the fray. They received permission from the Secretary of State to circulate petitions for an initiative to do that very thing: Substitute "domestic partnership" for "marriage" in state law and while we're at it, undo Proposition 8. My first questions were of the more substantive sort, like, shouldn't we talk about this for awhile first? Would we be undoing the marriages of people who opted for a civil ceremony in earlier years and figured they were married good and proper? What would happen to joint tax filings for the federal government? And wouldn't "civil union" be a more acceptable term to voters than "domestic partnership"?

Then I read the proposed initiative in its entirety and realized that my worries might be a little premature. The real questions are, Just how easy is it to get permission to circulate petitions for an initiatives? Shouldn't the wording have to pass some sort of writing test?

The proposed measure calls for the term "marriage" to be removed from government legislation. The State of California's Law code would have "marriage" replaced with "domestic partnership," while the definition and rights provided would remain the same. The purpose of which is to provide quality amongst all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, without offending the religious sect. Legally speaking, "Marriage" itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions. Furthermore, the initiative would void Proposition 8."

Ali Shams, one of the two authors and a senior at UC San Diego, told me that he and pal Kaelan Housewright were operating via Facebook, though they would get an Internet page going soon, and were posting copies of the petition online in the hopes that volunteers would print them and collect 1.2 million signatures. The new faces of politics. At least they're involved in the process.

The editorial board finds intriguing an idea raised about Proposition 8 during Thursday's state Supreme Court hearing: Having the state recognize only civil unions, while couples take their marriage vows at the religious or other private institution of their choice.

But just as marriage and family traditions have altered dramatically -- with shorter and more frequent marriages in a lifetime, couples living outside the married state and prenuptial agreements that trump customary family agreements -- it is time to consider an altered state role in domestic legalities. Justice Chin opened the discussion, and it is worth continuing.

The board also says the economy isn't a good reason to deny California a clean-air waiver to regulate greenhouse gases. In fact, the board says, Detroit will ultimately benefit from the production of more fuel-efficient cars. The board also calls on the world community to stand behind the International Criminal Court's warrant for the arrest of Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir on charges of war crimes related to the atrocities in Darfur.

On the other side of the fold, writer Joe Queenan tells the investment experts to pipe down about the long-term value of stocks; this is indeed the time to panic. And columnist Joel Stein fantastizes about the up side of unemployment.

Illustration: Randall Enos for the Times

The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments for and against Proposition 8 today, and although the editorial board strongly supports marriage equality, it hopes the court ignores the political and emotional heat on the subject and focuses squarely on whether Prop. 8 amends the Constitution, as its backers maintain, or revises it, as opponents aver. By contrast there was pathetically little public interest in Tuesday's elections. Even though Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa cruised to an easy victory, the board writes, the low turnout and lackluster support he garnered should tell him that voters aren't happy with City Hall:

Against opponents with little political experience, a dearth of funding and no political apparatus to match the machine he has constructed, the mayor ended up with a lower percentage of the vote than he had four years ago...That feeling--that Angelenos are bit players in a politician's personal story or a prize to be bargained for among parties to a political coalition--is back.

But if enthusiasm for the mayor has lessened, support for the Republican Party in California is in danger of disappearing entirely, writes Harold Meyerson over on Op-Ed. Demographic changes are giving a blue-tinge to once staunchly Republican districts, and if the GOP continues to oppose policies that its less conservative voters support then trouble is in the offing. Columnist Rosa Brooks writes that the memos released by the Justice Department  laying out the legal justification for overweening presidential power weren't just savage attacks on the Constitution, but  are also "outrageously bad" legal arguments.

Two other columnists take aim at structural problems with government: Patt Morrison says the California's budget disaster, term limits, redistricting and bad fiscal habits can only be fixed by a constitutional convention. George Kenney, a diplomat during the George H.W. Bush administration, calls for the Senate to change the supermajority rule requiring 60 votes to end a filibuster and force a vote. The nation's urgent business requires the smooth passage of legislation and the Dems shouldn't miss this opportunity.

Cartoon: Rob Rogers/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The final questioning by the justices revolved around what they seemed to see as two fundamental rights: the rights of gays and lesbians to marry the mate of their choice, and the rights of voters to amend their own constitution according to the processes set up in the state Constitution.

The latter fits with Kenneth Starr's statement: "One of the inalienable rights articulated in the Constitution is control over the Constitution."

But lawyers for the other side countered that the Constitution places limits on the voters and on how changes can be made, including by setting up a judiciary to rule on such matters.

The court had given earlier indications that it had a tentative ruling in place, but it offered no outright hint about which way it would ultimately rule. But the justices' questions suggested grave doubts about overriding the will of the voters who had embedded new wording into the constitution. They suggested equal concern about invalidating previous marriages based on an initiative that doesn't say anything specifically about those marriages. 

Photos: Yes on 8, Steve Yeater/AP. No on 8: Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP

Kenneth Starr was challenged by one justice after another on his contention that Proposition 8 not only bans future same-sex marriages, but also undoes the marriages of gay and lesbian couples performed in the few months before the initiative passed.

Justice Carol Corrigan asked whether people don't have a right to expect to be able to rely on the law at the time when they were married? That's when Starr replied with the no-fault divorce argument, since obviously many couples who expected to have a hard time divorcing suddenly saw a change in rules.

But both Justice Joyce Kennard and Chief Justice Ronald George questioned whether voters saw Proposition 8 as retroactive. George asked why a retroactivity clause wasn't built into the initiative, if that was the intention.

Watching Starr, it can be hard to imagine that the man perhaps best known for going so aggressively after--and writing so graphically about--the Clinton-Lewinsky affair had been nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court when Justice William Brennan retired in 1990, but saw his nomination fall in the face of crticism by conservatives that he might be too liberal. Instead, President George H.W. Bush named David Souter--who regularly sides with the court's liberals.

Photo: AP / Doug Mills