Last week, the California Supreme Court struck down that state's statutory ban on gay / same-sex marriage. The court was closely divided, issuing a 4-3 decision. Six out of the seven justices were appointed by Republican governors, interestingly enough.

Here's a potentially more accurate way to explain the result in the marriage cases than party affiliation. From an observant -- and self-confessed elitist -- tipster:

I found this breakdown amusing:

Law schools of judges in the majority: Stanford, USC, Berkeley (Boalt) / GW (first in her class at both schools), Stanford.

Law schools of dissenting judges: Hastings, USF, Hastings.

Correlation or causation? I'm just sayin'....

Correlation or causation is a fair question. Did the four pro-gay-marriage justices reach a "better" decision because they went to "better" law schools? Or did their attending elite (read: liberal) law schools make these justices more sympathetic to what Justice Antonin Scalia has decried as the "homosexual agenda"? Feel free to opine, in the comments.

P.S. Ah, who cares about where these judges went to law school? Which ones are the hottest -- or, to put it more crudely, more "do-able"? For some thoughts on this subject, see 23/6 (which has evaluated these judicial hotties in a manner reminiscent of Underneath Their Robes).

Inappropriate Hottie Rundown: California Supreme Court Justices [236.com]

Earlier: Breaking: California Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriage

In five minutes, at 10 AM Pacific time, the California Supreme Court will hand down its ruling on same-sex marriage. We will update this post -- and fill in the blank in the post's title -- once we have the substance of the ruling.

Update: The opinion is here (PDF -- and thanks, commenters, for the link and excerpts). Reversing the appeals court, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's statutory ban on same-sex marriage. Slip op. at 12:

Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

Slip op. at 120:

[T]he language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union "between a man and a woman" is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and... the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

Further Update: From the AP:

The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation's largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings. The justices' 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion....

The case before the court involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. With the ruling, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

In re Marriage Cases [Supreme Court of California (PDF)]
California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban [AP]
Calif. same-sex marriage ban struck down [CNN]
Pre-Gaming the California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling [WSJ Law Blog]

The day is still young, but we already have our Lawyer of the Day -- and we doubt that anyone we hear about later today can steal this honor away from him. Via the Boston Globe:

A top official in the [Gov. Deval] Patrick administration has been placed on unpaid leave because he was arrested in Florida and charged with sexually assaulting a 15-year-old male in a steam room at a $500-a-night Gulf Coast resort.

Carl Stanley McGee, 38, assistant secretary for policy and planning, is scheduled to be arraigned next week for sexual battery in Lee County, Fla.... According to police reports, McGee was arrested Dec. 28 and accused of performing oral sex on the 15-year-old, who was a guest at The Gasparilla Inn & Club, a 95-year-old hotel and championship golf course in Boca Grande.

As they like to say up in Massachusetts, "Thar he blows."

McGee, a former Rhodes scholar and Harvard Law School graduate, was previously a corporate lawyer at the law firm WilmerHale. He was instrumental in the movement seeking to defeat efforts to overturn legalization of same-sex marriage, serving as director of the civic and business outreach efforts of the advocacy group MassEquality.

A year after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts in May 2004, McGee's wedding to John Finley IV was highlighted in the "Vows" section of The New York Times....

Known for his shock of platinum hair, McGee was named one of The Boston Globe's 25 most stylish Bostonians in November. In the article, he described his style as "traditional, but it's also subversive and ironic."

"Traditional," but "subversive." Sort of like married men engaging in steam-room hook-ups?

Good thing Carl McGee isn't running for office. We're reminded of the famous quotation by former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards, who once boasted that he couldn't lose an upcoming election unless he was "caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."

Update: Just a reminder that these are obviously mere allegations. Sources mentioned in the Globe article said they "were stunned by the news of McGee's arrest and said they do not believe the charges." One colleague of McGee told the paper, "I know it didn't happen."

Further Update: Best comment thus far, from an observant, Spanish-speaking reader: "He was arrested for blowing a 15 year old in... huhuhuh... Boca Grande..."

Key aide to Patrick accused of sex assault [Boston Globe]
John Finley IV and Stan McGee [New York Times]

Yes, yes, LEWW has been a tad neglectful of our wedding-watching duties. Our full-time job has been, well -- full-time. And then there are all our fabulous society engagements.

Anyway, let's face it: High wedding season ended in mid-October. You know people aren't focusing on weddings when the Times hauls out the perennial "Is the Bride Changing her Name?" article. Yawn. But fear not -- while you're focusing on Christmas shopping and year-end bonuses, LEWW will be watching the weddings.

And here's the latest bunch:

1.) Matthew Morningstar and Alan Van Capelle

2.) Elizabeth Hack and Richard Larach

3.) Allison Hersh and Daniel London

4.) Hayley Lattman and Ryan Geftman

More about these couples, after the jump.

Rapidly climbing the Most Emailed Articles list over at the New York Times is an op-ed entitled Taking Marriage Private, by Professor Stephanie Coontz. It includes an interesting history of the legal regulation of marriage (which Coontz observes is a fairly recent phenomenon):

Why do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families....

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos.

A prohibition on marrying fabulous Filipinos? Your loss. Everyone knows Filipinos are great lovers.

More after the jump.

First the case of the $54 million pants was dismissed. And now another ridiculous but amusing lawsuit, previously covered here and here, bites the dust.

From a piece by Sheri Qualters for the National Law Journal:

The federal court battle over a Massachusetts bar examination question about homosexual marriage has ended with the court accepting the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the case.

On Oct. 9, a Massachusetts federal judge granted Stephen Dunne's request to dismiss his case against the bar examination testing agency, the state Supreme Judicial Court and four individual justices over a question on the state's bar exam concerning homosexual marriage.

In a lawsuit filed in June, Dunne claimed he failed the Massachusetts bar examination because he didn't answer a question about homosexual marriage.

The website Stephen Dunne launched to help fund the case, www.christianlawsuit.com, has been taken down. Will refunds be issued to the people who donated money to the cause -- all three of them?

P.S. You can view the court's fascinating dismissal order here (PDF, via Keeping Up With Jonas).

Plaintiff withdraws complaint over bar exam's gay-marriage question [National Law Journal]
Stephen Dunne's Long Legal Nightmare Is Finally Over [Keeping Up With Jonas]
Dunne Wishes He Could Quit His Lawsuit [Keeping Up With Jonas]

Earlier: Fail the Bar, Blame the Gays, Sue for Millions!
Update: Fail the Bar, Blame the Gays, Solicit Donations for Lawsuit!

That's right -- this is a combined edition of LEWW. Weep with joy, wedding-watchers!

Before we serve up this double shot, a request for input. In response to prompting from readers, when we've chosen the week's top three couples lately, we've been giving a big edge to lawyer-lawyer couples. The result is that we've often found ourselves writing about double-JD weddings even when there are other couples with more impressive credentials (but only one JD).

To be honest, we're not sure this is the right approach. It just feels wrong to pass over a dripping-with-prestige couple like this simply because a couple of unremarkable associates are getting hitched. Particularly during the height of the wedding season, there are often at least three lawyer-lawyer couples, so under our current system you're basically out of contention if you marry outside the profession.

We're considering lifting the heavy thumb we've put on the scales in favor of dual-lawyer couples, but before we do anything rash, we need to know what our readers think. What's more interesting to you, ATL fans: lawyers marrying lawyers, or prestigious lawyers marrying other prestigious (and often more interesting) people? Make your opinion known, either in the comments or by e-mail.

Here are this week's featured couples:

1.) Elaine Ewing and Christopher Viapiano
2.) Carl Roller and Daniel Weiner
3.) Deborah Lipman, Matthew Fox
4.) Katherine Downs, Peter Oppenheim

Read on for more about these three brides and five bridegrooms.

Last week we brought you news of Stephen Dunne, the would-be Massachusetts lawyer who's suing the state Board of Bar Examiners, claiming that he failed the bar exam because one of the questions violated his First Amendment rights by requiring him to approve of gay marriage.

As was noted here in Non Sequiturs yesterday, another blog reported that Dunne has amended his complaint to reduce damages claim from $9,750,000.00 to $9.75. Dunne told the Boston Herald:

"[t]he lawsuit is not about money ... It's about equity and justice, and I wanted to be very clear about that."

Now we hear from the same site that Dunne has created a website that solicits donations to fund his lawsuit: www.christianlawsuit.com.

Here's Dunne himself:

I plan on hiring America’s #1 Law Firm to help me win this case. Justice is expensive in America, but with your support it can be realized. Litigation expenses, expert witnesses, court costs and legal fees associated with legal research are only a sampling of the costs that must be paid to guarantee victory and protect the faith of the Founding Fathers of this beautiful Country. I humbly solicit your support and will gladly offer an accounting of the funds received by a Tax Attorney/CPA. The majority of donations will be utilized exclusively to fund the incredible expenses of this Federal Lawsuit. This case is about the protection and defense of Christianity.

Stay tuned for word on which lucky shop Dunne considers to be "America's #1 Law Firm."

Memo to all the recent law school grads studying for the bar exam: July Fourth means it's crunch time. If you need extra motivation, just think how excruciating it would be to fail. Especially by only 1.134 points!

That's what happened to Stephen Dunne, who narrowly failed the Massachusetts bar exam and is now suing the Board of Bar Examiners, claiming that one of the questions he missed violated his First Amendment rights because it required him to accept gay marriage. He's also asking for a cool $9,750,000.

Lavi Soloway has the scoop:

Dunne claims his score of 268.866 on the November 2006 bar exam just missed the passing score of 270 points because he didn't follow the proscribed format for an unlawful question about gay marriage. Dunne said the question required applicants to "affirmatively accept, support and promote homosexual marriage and homosexual parenting." Dunne claims the defendants violated his First Amendment right to exercise his religion and violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. He also claims their actions impose illegal state regulations on interstate commerce.

We applaud Dunne's creativity, but might we suggest that next time he just study a bit harder?

Surely you can pad your score enough that you could draw frowny faces all over the questions that violate your First Amendment rights and still pass!

Not all ATL readers live in big coastal cities. Check out this comment, by "Leona" (which we kinda loved):

I really enjoy reading Althouse, she is conversative [sic] definitely but I would like her to be more christian friendly.

She supports gay marriage which I find disgusting.

But she loves our president which is great.

Hands down, K Lo is the best though. She is the real christian that speaks the words that are in my heart. K Lo is also so smart and witty. I love some of her comments in the corner [NRO blog]. She always hits some zingers at the secular, progressives that hate America. She also has so much courage to live in NYC, which is full of all of the gays, and still be able to be strong and continue to speak her mind. I love that about her. Go K Lo.

We don't know where "Leona" lives (except NOT New York); but we suspect she's from the heartland. Maybe she's a constituent of Senator Brownback?

(Or might she be this lady?)

Earlier: Vote Ann Althouse for Grande Conservative Blogress Diva

We're obsessed with federal judges. And we're fascinated by lesbians (in a strange, quasi-sociological way). So of course we must weigh in on the whole Senator Sam Brownback/Judge Janet Neff controversy.

The uber-conservative Senator Brownback (R-KS), a likely standard-bearer for social conservatives in 2008, had been blocking Judge Neff's nomination to the federal bench -- currently she's a Michigan state-court judge -- because she once attended a same-sex commitment ceremony. For lesbians.

But earlier this week, Sen. Brownback announced that he would permit a vote on Janet Neff's nomination. We see this as good news.

Call us libertine (or libertarian), but Senator Brownback's original position was a bit much. We agree with Dan Markel's characterization of it as "asinine" and "obtuse." Regardless of your views on gay marriage, it seems unwarranted to hold up a judicial nomination because the nominee once went to a party. Back in 2002. For lesbians.

(And we'd add that Judge Neff is merely a District Court nominee. How much damage can she do there? If she issues an opinion holding that the U.S. Constitution guarantees lesbians the right to marry, she'll be reversed faster than you can say "power tools." And if Brownback is worried that she'd use her judicial authority to go around marrying Sapphists left and right, it's too late -- she's already a state court judge.)

Here's a little more background (and commentary):

Janet T. Neff -- the judicial nominee whose nomination to the federal bench is being delayed while Sen. Sam Brownback investigates what, exactly, she did at a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony -- says that she attended the event merely as a friend and did not act out of line. In a letter to Brownback that was quoted today by the AP, Neff wrote:

"The ceremony, which was entirely private, took place in Massachusetts, where I had no authority to act in any official capacity and where, in any event, the ceremony had no legal effect..."

"When Mary and her partner, Karen Adelman, asked me to participate in their commitment ceremony by delivering a homily, it was not different from being asked by my own daughters to be part of an important event in their lives."

And we think we speak for everyone when we say: BURN HER!!!!!! SHE'S A....COMMITMENT CEREMONY ATTENDEE?!?!?!?!

It's unclear what Brownback will do next to try and stop Neff's nomination. However, rumor has it he is currently in his lab testing hairs that he plucked from Neff's head to see if any of "the gay" happened to seep in through her scalp and penetrate her soul.

Even more dubious than Senator Brownback's original position was this idea:

Mr. Brownback... said he would also no longer press a proposed solution he offered on Dec. 8 that garnered even more criticism: that he would remove his block if Judge Neff agreed to recuse herself from all cases involving same-sex unions.

In an interview with the Times, Professor Charles Fried, the prominent conservative legal scholar, explained why this proposal would be problematic. For lesbians. And the judiciary, too.

But wait -- it's not over yet. Senator Brownback will allow a vote on Janet Neff, but he wants more hearings, so he can question her further about her participation in the lesbianic rituals. (Read: grandstand for Republican primary voters.)

We've rambled on long enough; now it's your turn. After all, YOU are Time's Person of the Year.

Please help out Senator Brownback. In the comments, please suggest questions for Brownback to propose to Judge Neff if supplemental hearings take place. Thanks.

Update: Some well-expressed views on this from Captain Ed (via Instapundit).

Brownback Wants to Re-Question Nominee [Associated Press via How Appealing]
Senator Removes His Block on Federal Court Nominee [New York Times]
This time of year, however, it's usually the free booze, Ecstasy, and mistletoe [PrawfsBlawg]
Yes, Ms. Neff, but when the women kissed -- did you look at them for a period extending three seconds? [Good As You]

* Solitary confinement, cruel and unusual? Cruel, perhaps, but not that unusual. [St. Petersburg Times via How Appealing]

* Florida and California decide to take a little break on the whole lethal injection thing. [CNN]

* New Jersey Legislature does what New Jersey's Supreme Court told them to. [FindLaw]

* Mariah Carey is concerned that people might be confused and think that she is someone who uses sex to make money....oh, wait a minute... [FOX News]

* Global warming is such a nuisance. [Jurist]

This is a continuation of our prior post about an event we recently attended at Georgetown Law School, "On Liberty: A conversation between Justice Stephen Breyer and Professor Charles Fried." For more background about the event, click here.

For the conclusion to our write-up, keep on reading. We bring you a "true confession" from Justice Breyer, as well as Professor Fried's interesting views on gay marriage.

(Before returning to Harvard Law School, Professor Fried was a justice on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court. But he was back in academia when they decided the gay marriage case, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.)

Our coverage continues, after the jump.

* Thou shalt not kidnap your child to keep her from getting married. [CNN]

* This really happened? [CNN]

* Supreme Court takes antitrust case involving investment banks. [New York Times]

* Specter introduces legislation designed to blunt the effects of the Thompson memo. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Same-sex marriage still legal, eh? [Reuters via Yahoo!]

Social conservatives are constantly carping about the threat that gay marriage allegedly poses to the institution of marriage. In response, proponents of gay marriage reflexively bring up the (rather tired) example of Britney Spears, and her joke of a marriage to Jason Alexander.* The debate gets pretty old, pretty fast.

Here's what we want to know:

What about those Columbia graduate students? Why isn't anyone talking about the threat that THEY pose to marriage?

* Jason Allen Alexander, Britney's pretty cute childhood friend -- not that other Jason Alexander. And now that K-Fed is history, might Jason and Britney get back together?

Columbia Grad Student Marries Friend to Get Bigger Financial Aid Package [TaxProf Blog]
Feigned Marriage Helps to Prove Financial Independence [Columbia Spectator]
How a Marriage of Convenience Saved $11,000 in Student Aid [News Blog/Chronicle of Higher Education]

* How crazy are bedbugs, exactly? [CNN]

* Which of your personalities is the arsonist?. [CNN]

* Yo quiero to sue Taco Bell. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Chinese Gitmo detainees say the same evidence being used to detain them was used to clear five others. [Jurist]

* Maryland Court of Appeals considers same-sex marriage. [Jurist]

* Woo-hoo!!! Good news for online rumor-mongerers like ourselves. [Volokh Conspiracy; Instapundit]

* And a bit of bad news, too. [Concurring Opinions]

* We weren't the only ones who had fun at Federalistapalooza. [Southern Appeal]

* "Conservative civil war": Not just at the Federalist Society. [Andrew Sullivan; Instapundit; Ryan Sager]

* When the subject of gay marriage comes up, social conservatives bring out a parade of horribles -- including polygamy. Now Ann Althouse wonders: Is it really so horrible? [Althouse]

* While we're linking to contrarian thinking, here's a different take on L'Affaire OJ.: "Rupert Murdoch's relevant anatomy shrunk to the size of two shriveled peas." [Crime & Federalism]

* Some food for thought: "If the [anti-burqa] legislation is enacted, a Dutch woman could marry her lesbian partner, spend her life smoking a little hashish now and then -- and when the time comes, get a doctor's assistance in pulling the plug -- all well within Dutch law. But she couldn't ride the subway with a veil over her face. What an odd country." [PrawfsBlawg]

* Actually, Will, we think this is really cool. Who wants to tour Civil War battlefields when you can visit these instead? [Crescat Sententia]

Apperances can be deceiving. The smiling woman above looks like a sweet old lady (or perhaps she's middle-aged).

But don't be fooled. This pleasant-looking woman opened a can of whoop-ass at the final panel discussion of the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention. She rained hellfire and brimstone upon the audience, and placed at least two of the panelists on an express train to Hell.

As we mentioned earlier, that last panel "discussion" was insane. It was a no-holds-barred fight between the Federalist Society's two major constituencies: the social conservatives and the libertarians. It was a smart move to save this intra-societal slugfest until the end of the weekend.

The nominal title of the panel: "The Role of Government in Defining Our Culture." A more appropriate title for the panel: "Watch Libertarians and Social Conservatives Rant at Each Other About Gay Marriage."

The combatants participants:

Moderator cum lion tamer: Hon. Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General
For the libertarians: Dr. Charles Murray, AEI; Mr. Anthony Romero, ACLU
For the social conservatives: Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum; Professor Hadley Arkes, Amherst College
Kinda in between: Professor William Eskridge, Yale Law School
Kinda irrelevant: Hon. Walter Dellinger, currently of O'Melveny & Myers and Duke Law School (and former acting Solicitor General)

A blow-by-blow account of this intellectual battle royal, after the jump.

* Let's see. Romney wants the Massachusetts Supreme Court to force an anti-gay marriage amendment onto the ballot if the legislature fails to act on the issue before the session ends January 2. Wouldn't that be, um, I dunno, activist? [Associated Press via How Appealing]

* It's important to find something to occupy your time and stimulate your mind once you retire. It shouldn't be anything like this, though. [CNN]

* Global warming: the new tobacco? [WSJ Law Blog]

* If he did it, you're not gonna find out about it on these stations. [AP via Online Athens]

* Suit by stinky man kicked off flight fails to take off in Germany. [AP via Yahoo!]

Late last month, the New Jersey Supreme Court gave the gays a big gift. In Lewis v. Harris, the court held that New Jersey must provide same-sex couples with "the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes."*

Well, maybe the gays can return the favor -- by giving makeovers to all seven justices, and by taking some high-quality photographs of the court.**

Because THIS has got to be one of the most craptacular judicial portraits ever:

In the words of our tipster:

Check out the brand new "portrait" of the NJ Supremes. First, it looks like it was taken with a camera phone. Second, is it just me, or does Chief Justice Zazzali look like he wants to strangle the photographer?

Yes, he does. And if our portrait ended up looking this awful, we'd want to strangle the photographer too.

If you think that we've distorted the photo in any way, click here, and view the original. It arguably looks even worse than our screencap -- it's bigger, which highlights the poor image quality. The picture is fuzzy and unfocused; the colors are washed-out; and the composition is terrible. In short, it's a photographic disaster. Dreadful!

* Speaking of the ruling in Lewis v. Harris, the New Jersey and Seton Hall chapters of the Federalist Society are sponsoring what should be a very interesting panel discussion on the decision. It's taking place at Seton Hall Law School this Monday, November 6, at 5:30 PM. If you might be interested in attending, details are available here (PDF).

** Some of the most celebrated contemporary photographers have been gays or lesbians. E.g., Herb Ritts, Bruce Weber, Robert Mapplethorpe, and Annie Liebovitz (maybe -- her relationship with Susan Sontag was ambiguous).

If the New Jersey Supreme Court can't find a top gay or lesbian photographer to take their portrait, we recommend Ann Althouse. She takes beautiful photographs! See, e.g.., here and here.

(Granted, these are landscapes; we don't know whether Professor Althouse excels at portraiture. But at least she can take pictures that are clear and crisp -- unlike this court "portrait.")

Official Portrait: Supreme Court of New Jersey [official website]

Earlier: BREAKING: New Jersey Supreme Court Upholds Gay Unions