Supreme Court wonks, gay rights groups and the public were bemused last month when the Supreme Court declined to review federal appeals court decisions striking down state bans on same-sex marriage. 

More perplexing than the decision not to hear the appeals was the fact that the court allowed the decisions to go into effect,  creating “facts on the ground” as more gays and lesbians tied the knot. Even some admirers of judicial restraint thought the court was ducking the issue.

It won't be able to do so much longer.  On Thursday  the Cincinnati-based  U.S. 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals by a 2-1 vote upheld bans on gay marriage in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. This decision creates the “circuit split” that was lacking when the court passed on appeals from pro-gay-marriage rulings by the 4^th, 7^th and 10^th  Circuit Courts of Appeal. (The 9^th Circuit later struck down bans on same-sex marriage.)

Some had thought that the 6^th Circuit panel might fall into line with the other...

So, back to that immigration mess.

President Obama, frustrated with the quagmire that is Congress, on Wednesday reiterated his intent to address by the end of the year the nation’s failed immigration system through directives and executive actions. The conventional analysis is that taking such steps would destroy any chance that the soon-to-be Republican Congress would work with him on a meaningful legislative overhaul of the immigration laws, which is what really needs to happen. Yet few Republicans have been talking about immigration reform in their post-election speeches and interviews, so it’s unclear whether they intend to address the issue (and does anyone really think compromise is on the GOP agenda?).

If Obama does go it alone, he will need to move carefully, and within the framework of his defined powers. Still, presidential actions can only nibble at the edges, such as creating or revising regulations and protocols under the existing law, ordering deportation deferrals to...

Memo to Lena Dunham: If you don’t want people quoting from your book, don’t write the book.

The 28-year-old actress and writer is Very Upset that conservative outlets have been quoting passages from her bestselling book “Not That Kind of Girl” in which she describes some questionable experiences with her six-years-younger sister, Grace.

Dunham wrote, among other things, about plying her younger sister with candy so that she could kiss her on the lips, and on one occasion when Lena was 7 and Grace age 1, prying open the toddler’s vagina for inspection while the two were playing on the driveway of the family’s Long Island home. Dunham wrote that she tried “anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl.”

In an article last week for National Review that quoted extensively from Dunham’s memoir, Kevin D. Williamson called the incidents “very disturbing behavior that would be considered child abuse in many jurisdictions.” A few days later conservative site Truth Revolt also...

Southern California has always had one of the priciest real estate markets in the United States, but in recent years the gap between what people can afford to pay for rent or mortgage and median housing prices has become a gaping chasm.

Tim Logan of The Times reports about new data that reflect just how bad things have gotten for most Southern Californians:

"Nearly half of all working-age adults in Los Angeles and Orange counties live in a home with another adult who is not their spouse -- a higher percentage than any other big city in the country, according a new report by real estate website Zillow. In second place: the Inland Empire.

"Economists at Zillow crunched U.S. census numbers and found that 47.9% of adults in metro L.A. lived in “doubled-up” households in 2012, a number that has grown rapidly -- up from 41.2% in 2000 -- as the recession and yo-yo-ing housing market have pushed more people to share apartments.

“ 'You’ve got a lot of households that are blending together,'...

President Obama’s post-election news conference was notable for several things, including its length, the asperity with which he responded to tendentious questions and the stream-of-consciousness soliloquy with which he ended his remarks. But I was struck by two tantalizing comments with policy implications.

The first concerned executive action on immigration, which Obama promised “before the end of the year.” Granted, Obama fiddled with an earlier deadline after complaints from Democratic Senate candidates in red or purple states, but this time he seemed to lock himself in to do something by the end of the year. And he portrayed executive action to defer the deportation of some number of immigrants here illegally as a way to goad Republicans in Congress to pass some legislation in response.

“Whatever executive actions I take will be replaced, supplanted” by legislation, Obama said.

Of course, he wouldn’t sign legislation that would lead to the deportation of people he had just acted...

It’s clear here on this post-election Wednesday that the anti-Obama camp won the day Tuesday -- Democratic candidates for whom the president campaigned were shellacked, and Republicans who ran against the president's policies did well.

The oddity, though, is that while the nation has a persistent dislike for how Washington works (or doesn't work), few incumbents were turned out – 12 in the House, three in the Senate (four if Mary Landrieu loses a runoff in Louisiana). So anti-Washington sentiments didn't seem to play out at the ballot box, though you could infer some of that in the dreadful voter disengagement.

Remember, Congress’ disapproval rating among voters is much worse than the president’s low numbers. In a pervasive disconnect, while voters tell pollsters they hate Congress, they often like their own representative (thank you, gerrymandering).

The reality is voters send different messages from within different jurisdictions, and they often are contradictory. Look at the results...