The headlines used this week to report the Prop 8 ruling are a premier example of sloppy reporting.

I read the amendment in question, which the California Supreme Court let stand. It doesn’t “ban” anything, in the sense that, for example, bigamy or polygamy are “banned” (made illegal). 

Nor does it mention sexual orientation. In fact, no marriage law I know of seeks classification of participants by sexual orientation — only by sex.

Here is the wording:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Show me where someone’s rights are being trampled upon by this amendment.

President Obama gave as one of the reasons to close Guantanamo was that it was operating “outside the law.”

That phrase can mean only one of two things: (1) it was illegal; or (2) it was beyond jurisdiction.

Well, if it was illegal, then time to put U.S. prosecutors to work on those in charge. Investigations, indictments, the whole nine yards. He’s the president, he can make it happen. In fact, it’s his duty. Unless he thinks he’s still a senator (or candidate), there comes a time to stop talking and start acting.

But he didn’t.

Okay, maybe he meant it was outside jurisdiction. Say what? With the same pen he signed the executive order to close Guantanamo, he could have signed one to bring its operation back “inside the law,” whatever that might mean to him.

But he didn’t do that either. Instead, he wants to close it, and figure out what to do with the detainees later.

If the Bush administration made the mistake of detaining suspected terrorists at Gitmo before figuring out what to do with them later, Obama is just compounding the problem. Make an easy political decision now, even if it means having to face a tougher one later.

By the way, what about Bagram? Is he going to close that facility too?