Chalk up another victory for civil rights. The California Supreme Court today upheld the right of same-sex couples to marry. You can view the full decision here, but for now here's an excerpt:

In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the
right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to
live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the
California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil
right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.

It is true, of course, that as an historical matter in this state marriage always
has been limited to a union between a man and a woman. Tradition alone,
however, generally has not been viewed as a sufficient justification for
perpetuating, without examination, the restriction or denial of a fundamental
constitutional right. (Cf. Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 727; Sail’er Inn, Inc. v.
Kirby (1971) 5 Cal.3d 1, 17-19 (Sail’er Inn).)45
In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the
right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to
live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the
California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil
right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.

It is true, of course, that as an historical matter in this state marriage always
has been limited to a union between a man and a woman. Tradition alone,
however, generally has not been viewed as a sufficient justification for
perpetuating, without examination, the restriction or denial of a fundamental
constitutional right. (Cf. Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 727; Sail’er Inn, Inc. v.
Kirby (1971) 5 Cal.3d 1, 17-19 (Sail’er Inn).)45

It's a good day to live in California.

By the way, apparently there's a ballot initiative in CA this November to ban same-sex marriage in the state constitution. I watched this happen in Ohio a few years back, and this type of initiative is horrendous, not just because it's bigoted and hateful, but it also weakens domestic violence laws. If you live in California (or any other state with similar initiatives) check out Equality for All and get involved.

This artwork, designed for the Divest for Darfur campaign by Nadia Plesner, has drawn the ire of Louis Vuitton's lawyers.

I'll say this much right off the bat... It's going to take a massive investment in charitable organizations for me to ever promote Louis Vuitton on this site. After reading about their lawsuit against an artist trying to raise funds for Darfur refugees, I'm pretty certain I won't have anything worthwhile to say about them.

The story goes like this.. Nadia Plesner is an artist who created the design you see to the left. Her goal is best stated in her own words, so I'll let her speak for herself:

"I wanted to try to portray how distorted it is, how parts of the media prioritize between small and big world news. Even with the terrible genocide going on in Darfur, Paris Hilton is getting most of the attention," she said. "If all it takes to make the front page is a designer bag and a small dog, maybe it's worth trying that for the people who really need attention.

"Everyone knows the image of starving black child, but we've seen it so many times that we don't really respond to it anymore," she said. "It was a test to see how the media reacts if you 'pimp the victim.' I think it worked."

But then come along the lawyers for Louis Vuitton, and suddenly they're sending her a cease and desist letter which, while polite, basically tells her to stop using her own artwork. Now that she's decided to fight them, they're raising the stakes and want more. Lots more.

"Originally, they wanted $7,500," said Designers for Darfur founder Malcom Harris, who's defending Plesner's project. "After she placed the cease-and-desist letter on her Web site, that went up. Every time she uses their name on her Web site she's charged an additional $7,500 a day. So at the current rate, she's being charged $20,000 a day."

What the lawyers for Louis Vuitton are thinking is beyond me. Hopefully, though, Ms. Plesner will win out and Louis Vuitton will see that this accomplishes nothing for them but bad publicity. That's certainly all they're going to get from me.