The wedding was very nice this weekend. Very reflective of who Andy and Annie are, even if it was in a small town in the middle of bumble-butt nowhere.

Yesterday’s ruling in New Jersey, and the subsequent strategizing on both sides, raises my concern for victory in Wisconsin against the marriage ban in November. On one hand, it’s a victory for equality. On the other hand… it’s still a victory for equality, just less so.

The New Jersey court did exactly what the conservatives insist courts don’t do. They deflected the issue out of their realm back to the hands of the lawmakers. While they established the position that gay and lesbian couples have the right to all of the privileges of marriage, they stopped short of legalizing same-sex marriage. That’s a big catch: the legislature now has the responsibility to frame what the institution will look like.

New Jersey already affords “domestic partnerships,” which offer only a fraction of the protections, rights and responsibilities of civil marriage. One option would be to expand those domestic partnerships, still creating a different term for the same thing. Another option, of course, is to fully extend the term marriage. Yet another option — a remote one — would be to disband civil marriage altogether, call the whole institution something else, or do something that fully equalizes the status across societal boundaries and removes the inherent connection of church and state.

But what does this mean for states, like Wisconsin, that have ballot measures this fall? We can only wait and see, but I’m not expecting much sleep between now and Nov. 7.

Funny how quickly America forgets. Not so funny is how easily America is bought and deceived.

There’s a new Web site on the block, TheChurchYouKnow.com, with parodies of the familiar public service advertisements on NBC.

While I might not agree with some of the perspectives therein, staunch traditionalism and all, I think there’s a good place there for discussion. Like whether or not Jesus would buy a Hummer instead of ministering to the poor.

There are walking tours through the skywalk system. I found one good thing about Milwaukee. (Oh, and Betsy is the biggest Milwaukee expert there is lately!)

…how long until I get a comment on this. I’m seeking applications for a new best friend. You need to not own a 24″ iMac purchased on impulse and then tell me I can’t buy a Jeep. All other inquiries welcome.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t blog on Google’s purchase of YouTube for more than $1 billion.

Google is ubiquitous in culture. The name has been verbed. No longer do you look for something on the Internet, you google it. Not so much YouTube.

But I do think it says yet more about the emergence of Web 2.0 on the scene. And it’s yet another tool for Google in its arsenal as it becomes the Web-based operating system. And, surprisingly enough, I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

The Google brand is hot. Their applications are clean, crisp, and functional, without all the “extras” in other services. Their policies and practices are socially responsible, progressive, and from what I hear, they’re a stellar company to work for. But now what happens?

The YouTube brand is growing, but as yet mostly unknown. The Google Video service continues Google’s straight forward, function-right approach to software development, while the YouTube service is… well… less than that.

No one can argue the massive strength this is for Web communication. Professionally, I use Google Video for various projects. (See the ELCA’s Google Video search result.) Personally, I use YouTube for quick-and-dirty embeds in MySpace and blog postings. While the assumption that broadcast television is on the path of the dodo is a bit errant, there is definitely a demand for personal broadcasting.

Occasionally, a corporation buyout comes along that I’m not 100 percent opposed to. At least for now, this appears to be one of them.

Excuse my lack of updates. I was away for the weekend, and now am catching up on the work that pays the bills. Look for my comments on life soon.

A man stormed a one-room Amish schoolhouse outside of Lancaster, PA today, killing three young girls execution-style. In an unrelated incident, two Las Vegas schools locked down their campuses today on reports of a gun-toting teenager.

Oh, but the answer to violence in America… more violence.

Here in Wisconsin, we’ve had two school violence incidents already this year; a foiled plot in Green Bay, and the senseless killing of a principal outside of Madison. The rhetoric is back: save the children. Let teachers carry guns. Put metal detectors in place.

But who is going to protect the children from the same rhetoric? Or touchy congressmen in Washington? Or school buildings in such poor physical condition if they were used for any other purpose they would be condemned? Or textbooks and materials that still refer to the Soviet Union?

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has been emerging as the key swing vote on the bench as the first term of the Roberts court. An article today in the Christian Science Monitor, specifically addressing the constitutionality of the partial-birth abortion ban, had this to say:

With the possibility of the court divided 4-4 on the issue, Kennedy may wield the decisive vote. If he sticks to the analysis in his dissent in the Nebraska case, court watchers say the law will be upheld. If he adheres to his strongly held belief in stare decisis - affirming precedent even when a justice disagrees with it - the federal law will be struck down.

Kennedy wields extreme, unimaginable power in this court’s composition. Will over 30 years of women’s rights and progressive ideology be nothing more than a numb memory? How about the past century of civil rights and racial equality? Or the few federal protections afforded to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered persons?

With the religious right and conservatives set out to quite effectively unravel the progress that has been made in this country, I can only hope Kennedy continues to walk that line of stare decisis and uphold legal precedent. The bench ought to be apolitical: equal justice under law. Sometimes, I wonder if English civil law had it right all along — after all, if all one has is precedent, it’s awfully difficult to make sweeping, dramatic changes.