Tyranny In Black Robes - The Scotus Approves Gay Marriage

 

The Supreme Court today ruled to impose same sex marriage on the entire United States. Essentially, like the ObamaCare decision, it bypasses the Tenth Amendment and creates fertile ground for further attacks on Christians, Jews and religious freedom.The Court, once again, is writing legislation from the bench.

The grounds, of course, was the ever elastic 14th Amendment which has become a rich hunting ground for justices seeking 'rights' that were never in the Constitution or intended to be.

The 5-4 decision had Justices Kagen, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Breyer and Kennedy ruling in favor. Justice Roberts ruled against, but I have it on reasonably good authority that he and Justice Kennedy arranged this beforehand so that Roberts could avoid even more severe fallout in addition to what he's already getting for rewriting ObamaCare.

Most of the press is making this seem like the majority of the states already allow homosexual marriage. The number cited is '37 states.' What they'd rather not reveal is that only three of those states voted to approve same sex marriage. In 8 states, same sex marriage was imposed by the legislature, often in defiance to the wishes of the electorate. And in the remaining 26, it was imposed by court order pending this decision,also known as lawfare.

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, saying,"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex."

'Define and express their identity?' Where is that in the Constitution?

"These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them. Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples." [...]

Of course, Justice Kennedy didn't actually elaborate on what 'rights' or 'terms and conditions' gay couples in civil unions are excluded from that married heterosexual couples are not, but then, this was never a civil rights issue even though its advocates invariably used that language and that stance. No CEO has ever been fired for being gay, but they've certainly have been fired merely for airing their their opposition to same sex marriage. Remember Mozilla?

Ironically, Justice Roberts based his dissent on the fact that the Court was essentially legislating from the bench!

"Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.

But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be…."

"Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

"Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. "

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?"

Pity he didn't apply that same standard to his ObamaCare decision.

Justice Scalia, of course, went right to the heart of the matter:

"The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. "

"This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy."

And Justice Alito, in his dissent hits out at what this sordid usurpation will actually be used for:

"Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.

It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools."

Actually,this will encompass more than merely being labeled as 'bigots.' We've already seen how bakers, photographers and florists have been heavily fined, forced out of business and deprived of their livelihood merely for politely telling homosexual couples that their religious beliefs preclude their participating in a same sex marriage ceremony.

Now, thanks to another decision the Court sneaked through that no one's writing about, this is going to be expanded to the point of making it open season on Christians, and in areas that have nothing to do with marriage..especially with the Obama Justice Department itching to slap 'dissidents' around.

How long do you think it's going to be before the same activists who hunted down bakers and photographers knock on the door of a church and demands that their wedding be held there? And sues when the clergyman refuses? Watch how those churches, synagogues and other 'bigoted' religious institutions lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to bend to the New Order.

Another effect, one which I've written about before is something same sex marriage activists are not counting on. What the SCOTUS did today was to forcibly change the very definition of marriage.

You might have noticed, and even been puzzled by the fact that while Islam opposes homosexuality more vociferously than any other religion, Muslim groups, especially Islamists been almost completely silent on the gay marriage question. And with good reason.

There is already a substantial movement to legalize polygamy - or to use the new, fashionable term, 'polyamory'. Today's ruling and what it was based on, 'defining and expressing identity' means that there is absolutely no legal basis to continue to ban it, so polygamy will undoubtedly become legal as soon as the first court challenge hits the docket. So will a lot of other things Americans can't even imagine yet.

Islamist groups like CAIR see this as a spear point for their ultimate aim, to make sharia law recognized and enforceable here in America as it already is in Britain.

This is no fantasy, especially since at least one Supreme Court Justice is already quite sharia friendly.

So it's not just judicial tyranny,  the disregarding of the Constitution and the rule of law we're talking about here. We are talking about radical changes in American life that are going to change what was a free society into something very different. ..something unrecognizable.

An attempt at gun confiscation is the next step in the agenda. Just watch.

Burning Down The House Without Thinking

 

The Supreme Court today effectively disenfranchised the overwhelming majority of citizens in 5 states when it refused to hear appeals in cases involving Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana that had defined marriage as between one man and one woman, leaving intact lower-court rulings striking down those laws.

Rather than actually rule on same sex marriage, the Court simply decided not to take a position, just as they cravenly did with California's Proposition 8.The Court did not even  bother explaining why it refused to hear the appeals.

This pretty much means that the remaining 26 states that still prohibit same sex marriage will have their laws struck down one by one as advocates of same sex marriage shop around for a judge likely to rule that the laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman are illegal.

The fact that all of these existing laws were enacted by a majority of the people in these states means nothing.

Is this the Court's new direction, to disenfranchise people based on political correctness? Are we back to the days of Dred Scott?

It's one thing if the people of a given state wish to change the definition of marriage to include gay couples. It's quite  another to ignore their wishes if they choose not to, especially without even the courtesy of hearing arguments and making a ruling.

And make no mistake about it. This is very much about changing the definition of marriage and not a civil rights issue. To prove this to yourself, ask any gay person of your acquaintance who rabidly favors legalized same sex marriage on the grounds of 'equal rights' if they would be satisfied with law that establishes every one of those rights they claim they don't have but refers to civil unions instead of marriages. You'll invariably get an indignant 'no!' in almost all cases.

This was never about equal rights.It was always about redefining marriage.

Is this good for society? We're told that it is, because it supports the doctrine of equal rights for everyone, will extend the stability of marriage to the homosexual community, and won't have any effect on traditional marriage.

Is this true? Let's take a look.

First of all, rather than supporting the doctrine of equal rights, the way this has been done serves to undermine respect for the Constitution, the Supreme Court and the rule of law. What we saw here was the catering to a powerful group politically at the expense of the majority. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel openly voiced this sentiment  when he talked about gays being " the new Jews" in terms of Democrat fund raising.

In California, for instance, we saw the spectacle of Governor Jerry Brown, then the state's Attorney General refusing to enforce state law or defend it in court after politicians in various jurisdictions began illegally issuing same sex marriage licenses.

And it just took one judge, Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker,an open homosexual and gay marriage advocate to rule Proposition 8 'unconstitutional' after the state Supreme Court declared that it was, and send it to the Supreme Court...who refused to rule on the case on the grounds that the people of California 'lacked standing' to argue their case!

 

There are numerous other examples of similar scenarios across the nation. Not only that, but we've seen increased bullying and intimidation of business owners and clergymen who have declined to service homosexual weddings for reasons of faith...or whom even donate to groups whom support traditional marriage.




 The real motivation of many gay activists in insisting on redefining traditional marriage isn’t equality per se, but forcing the normalization and mainstreaming of their lifestyle by whatever means necessary. The effect of this is already evident, as children in many public schools are already being indoctrinated to believe that LGBT behavior is exactly that, regardless of their religious or ethical beliefs or those of their parents, who are paying for the indoctrination.

 So we're talking about some animals simply being more equal than others, ala' George Orwell's Animal Farm.

There's no way to argue that this sort of tyrannical implementing of the redefinition of marriage strengthens our freedoms or respect for law. Instead, what it has taught people is that lawfare and sleazy tactics matter more than the law, and that is going to set a horrendous precedent.

But will gay marriage affect traditional marriage? Of course it will. And the reasons may surprise you.

The first effect of diluting marriage - for that is exactly what 'expanding' the definition of marriage amounts to - will be to encourage all sorts of variations to dilute it even further. Same sex marriage is certain to lead to a slippery slope of legalized polygamy and mainstreaming of the euphemism favored by a number of well established, mainstream polygamy advocates here in the US, "polyamory" (group marriage).

University of North Carolina Professor Mim Chapman's "What Does Polyamory Look Like" is regarded as one of the 'bibles' of the movement, along with Deborah Anapol's "Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits". And the movement already has a flagship magazine in Loving More...which is actually supported by the taxpayers, believe it or not.

Once you do a little research, you find out that a lot of the advocates for diluting traditional marriage tend to be..wait for it..lawyers, especially family law lawyers,including the late Paula Ettelbrick who taught law at the University of Michigan, New York University, Barnard, and Columbia, and was the executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission as well as New York City's Stonewall Community Foundation; Emory University law professor Martha Fineman, who is also an affilited scholar with the ultra-Left Center For American Progress; University of Maryland Carole Hanan Sibel; Research Professor of Law Martha Ertman; Mary Anne Case, Arnold I. Shure Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School; Judith Stacey, the Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis and Sociology at NYU and the author of "Unhitched" essentially an advocacy book for 'non-traditional marriage' and David Chambers, a professor of law at the University of Michigan.

And surprise! A number of these academics actually champion the radical remaking and even the dissolution of traditional marriage as an institution in favor of a series of 'contractual' relationships, and are quite open about championing same sex marriage as a entryway towards the abolishing of traditional marriage as we now know it.

 

It‘s obvious why a number of the most outspoken advocates of same sex marriage are lawyers. After all, they're the ones who will be pocketing handsome fees for a whole new round of divorces, custody battles and the drawing and redrawing of marital 'contracts' once same sex marriage, polygamy and polyamory become the law of the land.


Another group that has been virtually silent about homosexual marriage even though many of them are violently opposed to it are Islamist organizations like CAIR, The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) And The Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC). They see this as a spear point for legalizing the polygamy Islam allows as well as other aspects of sharia law. They also see it as a selling point to proselytize for Islam to people whom may not be  particularly affiliated religiously, but retain traditional attitudes towards homosexuality.

 Like it or not, traditional monogamous marriage between one man and one woman is one of the foundations of western society, as well as the preferred environment for raising children as all serious research on the subject shows. That's why it's lasted as long as it has. Diluting marriage and diminishing  that foundation  will almost certainly  lead to a number of bad effects on our society, most of which can already be seen in Europe.

  Much of Europe has had same sex marriage for a while now, and de facto legal polygamy is already a fact there because of the huge influx of Muslim immigrants. Parts of Europe even have a problem with bestiality in the form of animal prostitution that they're unable to eliminate because of their existing laws on sex and marriage. And why not? How can one discriminate legally between 'lifestyle choices'?

The clear trend there since same sex marriage became legal is for less marriage, drastically lower birthrates, and a vastly greater amount of out of wedlock births. In order to make a society like that work even slightly, you need a vast and well-funded welfare state. Again looking at Europe as an example, not only doesn't such a state work if you have massive immigration, but it freezes social and financial mobility and eventually topples under its own weight into bankruptcy once you run out of other people's money to spend.While redefining marriage isn't the only thing shoving us in that direction, it's going to be an important part of it.

What consenting adults do sexually in the privacy of their own homes is of no interest to me. But  it's pretty clear to me that redefining marriage like this, especially given the way it's being done  is going to have big picture consequences for Western society that will only become apparent as time passes.If you doubt this, do a little research yourself about what happened to other societies that legalized same sex marriage and normalized such relationships.

We're burning down our house it took centuries to build..without thinking.

Federal Judge declares Texas Law Banning Same Sex Marriage Unconstitutional

Judge Orlando Garcia, a Clinton appointee ruled today that a long standing law limiting marriage to one man and one woman is unconstitutional.

“Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution,” Garcia wrote. “These Texas laws deny plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex.”

Of course Texas, like most other states allows domestic partnerships, and Judge Garcia would be hard pressed to name a right or privilege that domestic partnerships are denied, but it doesn't matter.

Nor do the rights of the people of Texas, who passed this law overwhelmingly in a popular referendum.Their rights only matter when they 'vote properly'.

Unlike California, the State of Texas has an attorney general who actually abides by his sworn oath. Greg Abbott, who also is the leading Republican candidate to succeed Gov. Rick Perry, is going to appeal the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans.

“This is an issue on which there are good, well-meaning people on both sides,” Abbott said in a statement. “The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that States have the authority to define and regulate marriage.”

I would disagree with Mr. Abbot here. Actually, what the Supreme Court has ruled is that law and the will of the people can be subverted fairly easily.

The most recent SCOTUS decision on the issue are amazing in their disregard for law. In the one on California's Proposition 8, they simply decided that the people of California had no right to amend their own state constitution or to be represented in court if their state officials simply chose not to be bothered to enforce whatever laws they individually decided were politically inconvenient. The SCOTUS didn't even bother to declare Prop 8 unconstitutional, but punted and decided to take the cowardly way out and simply deny the people of California standing to appeal, which meant that the former attorney general Jerry Brown, now governor, could simply pretend the law doesn't exist and order it to be violated at will to curry favor with an important new constituency and source of fund raising.

Homosexual marriage activists understood this message quite well, and their tactics have changed accordingly. In states where they could count on friendly politicians to push same sex marriage over the line whether people wanted it or not like Massachusetts and California, they did so. In other states, rather than bother with state legislators or respecting existing law, they conducted what amounts to lawfare..shopping for Democrat appointed judges,filing suit and getting court orders to overturn long standing law and the will of the people.

It's worked pretty well in several states,making a mockery of the Supreme Court decision on prop 8 that called for existing laws against same sex marriage in states that already had them to be respected. It remains to be seen how well this tactic works.

One thing is certain. This is establishing a precedent for judicial tyranny. The balance of power changes, and just like Harry Reid's elimination of the filibuster, this is going to turn into something the Left is going to be quite sorry for in the future when it does.

Legalized Gay Marriage To Start in Britain March , 2014

 

Homosexual marriage will officially become legal in Britain in March of 2014.

The Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat leaderships all backed the proposals.

MPs approved the principle of same-sex marriage despite opposition from many Conservatives, which caused tensions in the party. Most Lib Dem and Labour MPs supported the move.

The Church of England, the Church in Wales and other faith groups stated their opposition.

Following the passing of the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act, the government has been able to put in place the necessary arrangements much faster than previously thought.

Equalities Minister Maria Miller (no relation) says that this was t was "just another step in the evolution of marriage", and that she is "working hard" to so that gay couples who want to convert civil partnerships into marriages, and married people wanting to change their legal would be able to do so before the end of 2014.

Unlike here in the US, the law respects religious objections. The terms of the bill specify that religious organizations will have to "opt in" to offer homosexual weddings, with specific language in the law to prevent the Church of England and Church in Wales from doing so.

The Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, the Muslim Council of Great Britain and the Network of Sikh Organizations all publicly oppose gay marriage.

Jewish Liberal and Reform synagogues support it while the United Synagogues Orthodox) opposes it.

Gay Marriage To Remain Legal In California As The Rule Of Law Collapses

 

As expected, in a one-line order, the California Supreme Court declined to hear a case brought last month by backers of Proposition 8 challenging the legality of same sex marriage in California.

This is the same judicial body that previously ruled that Prop 8, which amended the state constitution to state that marriage would only be between one man and one woman was both legal and constitutional and could appear on the state's ballot.

Although Prop 8 was passed by a large majority of the state's voters, it was challenged in court by gay marriage activists. When state attorney general Jerry Brown refused to defend it in court as he was legally bound to do, a group of private citizens stepped in to defend Prop 8 before Judge Vaughn Walker in Ninth Circuit, a homosexual and a proponent of same sex marriage who predictably ruled against it.

When the case came to the U.S. Supreme Court, it refused to hear the case on the ridiculous grounds that the plaintiffs, the group of private citizens, 'lacked standing'.

Jerry Brown, now California's governor ordered the state to immediately allow same sex marriage on that basis.

"When politicians disregard the law, and the courts refuse to get involved, what are we left with?" said Andy Pugno, counsel for ProtectMarriage.com.

The answer of course, is nothing. The rule of law simply no longer matters.

Here we have a law passed by a clear majority of the voters that was simply ignored by the government officials charged with defending it because they felt like it. And when one obviously biased judge ruled against that law after the State Supreme Court ruled that it was both legal and constitutional, citizens attempting to fill the breach and honor the will of the people of California are simply told they have no rights in the matter and just to lay back and take it.

While supporters of same sex marriage may applaud this win, it establishes a dangerous precedent, with consequences they may not like in the future.

The people in power change, and what was done to the rule of law by judicial and political tyranny here can be done again in another time and place.

A Few Words On The DOMA And Prop 8 Supreme Court Decisions

Today the Supreme Court issued two rulings on gay marriage with interesting implications.

In the first one, by a 5-4 ruling the Court struck down certain provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)signed into law by President Clinton.

In Windsor v. United States, it declared provisions of the law invalid that prohibit homosexual couples from sharing government health care benefits, filing taxes jointly, and similar items under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

Justice Kennedy was the swing vote.

You'll note two things..first, that this simple and essentially fair fix could have been done in Congress long ago with reference to civil unions without even touching the definition of marriage, as it essentially amends the law without rescinding it.

And second, that is does not make gay marriage 'legal' except in those states that want to make it so. Although it does signal (but not implicitly state) that such unions should be recognized nationwide.What the Court essentially did was to punt, just as they did in the other ruling on this subject they made, which we'll discuss shortly.

DOMA was always a queer piece of law (no pun intended). Like Don't Ask Don't Tell, it was a compromise based on the assurances of gay activists and their congressional supporters that they would never seek to overturn it judicially - which of course is exactly what they did afterwards. And in fact it was mostly same sex marriage advocates in congress who mostly kept DOMA from being amended, precisely because they were after the bigger goal of redefining marriage itself.

To prove this to yourself, ask any gay person of your acquaintance who rabidly favors legalized same sex marriage on the grounds of 'equal rights' if they would be satisfied with law that establishes every one of those rights they claim they want  but legally refers to civil unions instead of marriages. You'll invariably get an indignant 'no!' in almost all cases.

This was never about equal rights.It was always about redefining marriage. And once you do that, literally anything can become a marriage.

The second Supreme Court decision rendered today concerned California's Proposition 8, voted for by almost a two to one majority in that state to change California's constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

At the time, California had legalized civil unions which even the state's own Supreme Court justices admitted gave same sex couples in a civil union the exact same rights as a heterosexual married couple. But a ruling by openly gay Judge Vernon Walker that the new law was unconstitutional sent Proposition 8 on the road to the Supreme Court.

What the SCOTUS did was simply to emphasize their earlier decision on DOMA by refusing to hear the case based on - wait for it - a lack of standing. Here we have the votes of an entire state dismissed, as the case goes back to the lower court whom will likewise do the same. So California will have gay marriage regardless of what the residents want, and Governor Jerry Brown (who as attorney general made a unilateral decision to ignore his oath of office and not defend the new law in court) has ordered the state to resume issuing licenses for same sex marriages within 30 days.

The rationale for this is particularly revealing. Here's Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion explaining the decision to dismiss the case:

For there to be such a case or controversy, it is not enough that the party invoking the power of the court have a keen interest in the issue. That party must also have "standing," which requires, among other things, that it have suffered a concrete and particularized injury. Because we find that petitioners do not have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit.

Once Proposition 8, which limited marriage in California to heterosexual couples, was approved by the voters, the measure became "a duly enacted constitutional amendment or statute." Petitioners have no role—special or otherwise—in the enforcement of Proposition 8. They therefore have no "personal stake" in defending its enforcement that is distinguishable from the general interest of every citizen of California.

No standing? What exactly are the people of California supposed to do if their own elected officials pick and choose which laws they like and which ones they will enforce and defend in court? Is that what we've come to?

In his dissent, Justice Kennedy at least tried to be honest about the matter, arguing that the SCOTUS should have made a ruling in this case:

The Court today unsettles its longtime understanding of the basis for jurisdiction in representative-party litigation, leaving the law unclear and the District Court's judgment, and its accompanying statewide injunction, effectively immune from appellate review.

Kennedy also smacked state officials for opposing Prop 8 in the manner they did as another reason the SCOTUS should have taken this on:

In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government. The California initiative process embodies these principles and has done so for over a century.


Eh, but not in California so much any more. Or a lot of other places either, where same sex marriage was pushed through without bothering to actually consult the voters. So in today's decisions, the SCOTUS is simply saying to the activists on both sides that if you can get a state to allow same sex marriage or to disallow it by any means necessary, so be it.

Right now, same sex marriage is legal in 15 states. The only one where voters actually had a say in the matter and voted for it are Maine, Maryland, and Washington. In most of the others, including California, the voters feelings on the matter were studiously ignored.

That's not how a democratic republic operates, or at least that used to be the case.

GOP Rep's Gay Son "CNN and MSNBC canceled my interviews when I refused to bash my dad"

Matt J. Salmon is a Republican congressman from Arizona, a social conservative who opposes same sex marriage - and the father of a gay son, Matt R. Salmon, a former president of Arizona Log Cabin Republicans.

So of course, Piers Morgan and Larry O'Donnell's bookers hit on him for interviews, figuring they could get the son to trash his father for some easy ratings.

But once they found out that Matt R. loves and respects his dad and refused to attack his father on the air, they quickly decided not to have him on.Apparently they didn't do their research. Because here's what Matt Salmon the congressman and his son had to say about the matter:

Matt J. Salmon defended his father against criticism from those within the LGBT community whom he describes as “incredibly intolerant.” He said the congressman received “a lot of hateful comments” on his Facebook page after the interview aired.

“People seem to be trying so hard to analyze where it’s coming from, but really he was quite straight-forward,” Matt R. Salmon said. “My father loves me very much and he supports me and he respects me. He’s very much there for me as one of my closest friends. I think that was obvious in everything that he had to say.”

He further discussed his father’s position on marriage.

“He doesn’t see it as not allowing his son to be with the person he loves because he knows that regardless of where marriage is, I’m going to be with the person that I love,” he said. “Whether I can legally marry in Arizona or not, it’s not going to change that fact and my father knows that and he accepts my desire to be with the man that I love. As far as it goes with marriage for him it’s a matter of what marriage means to him — to him marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with the way he views a person’s relationship, and that’s the thing that I think is hard for people to understand.”

It is hard for some people to understand...but it shouldn't be.

NY Appeals Court Strikes Down Defense Of Marriage Act

 

Well, there's no doubt this was coming:

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined Thursday that the federal law violates the Constitution's equal protection clause, ruling in favor of widow Edith Windsor, an 83-year-old lesbian who sued the federal government for charging her more than $363,000 in estate taxes after being denied the benefit of spousal deductions.

The court upheld a lower court's decision in a 2-1 majority ruling and determined that America's gay population "has suffered a history of discrimination" similar to that faced by women in years past.

In this particular case I agree with the ruling in a narrow sense. The plaintiff suffered financial damages, and on that basis the law was discriminatory. Far better to abolish estate taxes altogether, since the estate's money comes from income that has already been taxed once.

But that's not the way this game was going to be played.It was designed to be a precedent to influence a coming Supreme Court ruling.

There are seven states that have legalized same sex marriages, California, New York,  Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire, plus the District of Columbia.

 In every case, this was achieved through judicial or legislative action. In fact, when it comes to direct referendums to legalize same sex marriage, the record is 31-0 against, and in several cases, California, Massachusetts, and Iowa among them, laws permitting same sex marriage were implemented in spite of the very clear wishes of substantial public majorities.

 The tactics being used to promote same sex marriage are almost exactly the ones its advocates swore would never be used to force same sex marriage on the states back when they were arguing against the need for a Constitutional Marriage Amendment. They claimed that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would prevent states from having same sex marriage forced upon them by lawsuit.

They knew, of course, that DOMA, if it couldn't be destroyed legislatively, could be destroyed in the courts. That's exactly what's happening.

Even worse, the U.S. attorney general, who swore an oath to defend America's laws in court has stated publicly that his office will not defend DOMA.

That, of course, is one of the  arguments against same sex marriage. The method by which it is being implemented sets a precedent for the Nanny State to force anything else it deems necessary  on an unwilling populace.

Today's ruling is largely a formality, since the question of same sex marriage is going to be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the form of a case concerning California's Proposition 8, an amendment to the state's constitution banning same sex marriage that passed overwhelmingly in a referendum but was overruled by one judge on the state supreme court who happened to be a homosexual after the same court had previously ruled that Prop 8 was constitutional prior to the election.

It will be interesting to see how the High Court rules.

Boston Mayor Menino: Chick-fil-A No Way! Radical Imam Who Wants Gays Killed? No Problem!

Like Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Boston's Mayor Tom Menino wants to deny building permits to the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain simply because the Christian owner, Dan Cathy, was open about the fact that he favors traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

They have another thing in common as well. Just like Rahm Emanuel, Mayor Menino is more than willing to favor and assist entities in 'his' city that endorse violently anti-gay sentiments that make anything Dan Cathy said look positively benign in comparison.

In Boston, there's a mosque I know by repute, run by the Islamic Society of Boston. The mosque is very much Muslim Brotherhood oriented, and claims the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader imam Yusef al-Qaradawi as it's major influence and spiritual guide. One of its eight founding members was Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was jailed for 23 years in 2004 for material support of Islamist terrorism and money laundering.

In fact, the Society used Qaradiwi's name in their fundraising, and are suspected of receiving Muslim Brotherhood funds to help build the mosque. In fact he was actually an honorary member of the board.

Qaradiwi, one of the most popular figures in the Muslim world has some interesting views.

He favors a world-wide Islamist caliphate under sharia law, including the beating of 'disobediant' women, female genital mutilation , and death for homosexuals and apostates, just as it says in the Qu'ran.

He's also called for a second Holocaust against Jews, saying, "Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by [Adolf] Hitler. G-d willing, this time it will be the believers."

Yes, this is the Muslim Brotherhood's real face, despite the white wash going on in the Obama Administration these days. And while the Islamic Society of Boston found it convenient to distance themselves a bit from Qaradiwi personally a few years after the mosque was built and established, but they have never distanced themselves from his theology. Literature found in the mosque, speakers who've been invited guests , writings and speeches of people intimately associated with the mosque and transcripts of a number of sermons preached there confirms exactly how the Islamic Society of Boston views these matters.

And Mayor Menino's connection? He gifted the Islamic Society of Boston land worth $1.2 million at the time in order to establish the mosque.Not only that, he he gave a speech at its ribbon-cutting ceremony.

Just like Rahm Amanuel's endorsement of Louis Farrakhan in Chicago, Mayor Menino's assistance to the establishment of a Muslim Brotherhood oriented mosque makes you wonder exactly where he really stands on gay rights.

Of course, the big difference is obviously who's talking. Apparently a Christian voicing opposition to same sex marriage is to be publicly opposed, but Muslims whose theology is virulently opposed to homosexuals is a very different matter for the likes of Rahm Emanuel and Tom Menino.Or perhaps, it's just that Christians are a safer target.

If you were gay, which would you rather have in your town? A restaurant that provides jobs, serves homosexuals and doesn't discriminate against them but whose president exercises his First Amendment rights by merely stating he's against same sex marriage? Or a Muslim Brotherhood mosque that promotes the views on homosexuals I've outlined here?

Rahm Emanuel - Opposing Gay Marriage Isn't Chicago Values, But Anti-Semitism Is Just Fine

As I mentioned yesterday, the popular restaurant chain known as Chick-fil-A is being denied building permits in Chicago and other cities solely because the company's president is on record as opposing homosexual marriage.

Chick-fil-A's president Dan Cathy never said he would bar or refuse to serve same sex couples, merely that he is against legalizing such unions as marriages, which actually conforms to Illinois law at the time of writing.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel let it be known that he fully supports this:

"Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values," the mayor said in a statement when asked about [Alderman] Moreno's decision. "They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty."

Of course, unless the City of Chicago is planning on subsidizing the proposed restaurant and paying all of the costs and fees involved, they're not 'investing' in anything, and this is yet another example of how Obama's attitude towards business resonates with many Democrats.

But that aside, let's take a look at what Mayor Emanuel feels are Chicago values:

Ignoring Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s history of anti-Semitic remarks, Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday welcomed the army of men dispatched to the streets by Farrakhan to stop the violence in Chicago neighborhoods.

“People of faith have a role to play and community leaders have a role to play in helping to protect our neighborhoods and our citizens. You cannot get there on just one piece of an anti-crime strategy,” the mayor said.

“The police have a role to play. Tearing down abandoned buildings has a role to play. Shutting liquor stores that are a cancer in the community have a role to play. Community leaders have a role to play. Pastors have a role to play. Principals have a role to play. And most importantly, parents have roles to play. They have decided, the Nation of Islam, to help protect the community. And that’s an important ingredient, like all the other aspects of protecting a neighborhood.”

For the last two Mondays, black men in dress suits and bow ties fanned out across violence-plagued Chicago neighborhoods — first Auburn-Gresham, then South Shore — to form a human wall of protection against any sudden outbreak of gunfire.

The army of men, know as the Fruit of Islam, were led by Farrakhan, who ordered the show of force in response to last month’s brutal murder of seven-year-old Heaven Sutton.

Emanuel’s decision to steer clear of Farrakhan’s history of anti-Semitic remarks is a far cry from the 1994 controversy that followed former Mayor Richard M. Daley’s private meeting with Farrkakhan.

During the meeting, Daley prodded Farrakhan to work out his differences with Jewish leaders in talks arranged by the Commission on Human Relations. Daley even hinted that if those conversations did not take place, the Nation of Islam would have trouble winning the city approval needed for its planned development along the 79th Street commercial strip.

So, let's parse this...by definition, according to Chicago values, a Christian who merely supports the traditional definition of marriage is unwelcome to do business there. But the racist, anti-semitic leader of the Nation of Islam is a valued partner and is legitimized by the mayor's support in having the NOI's personal security thugs acting as police.

Not only that, but rest assured that the Nation is going to use this to increase their street cred and as an excuse to proselytize with every gang banger they come into contact with.

By the way, I wonder if the mayor realizes how Louis Farrakhan and the NOI feel about homosexuals, let along same sex marriage?

If he does, is he going to call for the revocation of business licenses and permits for all the fish houses, markets, bakeries, laundromats and other businesses the Nation owns in Chicago?

You bet he won't.

So let's recap. Christian people of faith, not part of Chicago values. Anti-Semitic, racist and anti-gay Muslim people of faith, just fine.

Chicago values, you understand.Everything depends on who you are and who you know.

'You Aren't Allowed To Open A Business In My Town Unless You Agree with My Politics'

There's a popular restaurant chain known as Chick-fil-A, which specializes in southern-style food. Like many restaurant chains, they're looking to expand in various locations.

But apparently they're going to be blocked from doing business in some locations simply because of the owner's personal views on same sex marriage:

A Chicago alderman wants to kill Chick-fil-A's plans to build a restaurant in his increasingly trendy Northwest Side ward because the fast-food chain's top executive vocally opposes gay marriage.

Ald.Proco "Joe" Moreno announced this week that he will block Chick-fil-A's effort to build its second Chicago store, which would be in the Logan Square neighborhood, following company President Dan Cathy's remarks last week that he was "guilty as charged" for supporting the biblical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.

"If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don't want you in the 1st Ward," Moreno told the Tribune on Tuesday.

Moreno stated his position in strong terms, referring to Cathy's "bigoted, homophobic comments" in a proposed opinion page piece that an aide also sent to Tribune reporters. "Because of this man's ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward."

The alderman has the full support of Mayor Rahm Emanuel:

"Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values," the mayor said in a statement when asked about Moreno's decision. "They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty."

Leaving aside a discussion of what constitutes Chicago values (entertaining though it might be),let's look at this strictly along legal and constitutional lines.

An owner of a legitimate, legal business is being denied business permits for one reason and one reason only..his political beliefs. As a matter of fact, homosexual marriage per se is not even legal as of today in Illinois!

Moreover, the comments by Alderman Moreno and Mayor Emanuel are curious.

There's no discrimination involved, since Chick-fil-A's owners have not said or even intimated that they will refuse to serve gay couples. And Mayor Emanuel's comment about an empty investment is another variation on the theme President Obama sounded so recently, about how a businesses success wasn't built by those who created it.

Unless the City of Chicago is planning on buying the land, building the restaurant,paying all the government fees involved, paying the taxes, paying the employees,and buying the food and restaurant supplies involved I fail to see what the City government of Chicago is 'investing' in.

And it's not just Chicago.In Boston, Mayor Thomas Menino jumped on the same politically correct trolley:

Mayor Thomas M. Menino is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from bringing its Southern-fried fast-food empire to Boston … after the family-owned firm’s president suggested gay marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.”

Note that these politicians are all Democrats.

What comes next? Stopping someone from doing business because they donated to the wrong people? It's perilously close to that already as far as the Obama Administration is concerned.

I realize the Contitution doesn't mean much to these folks unless they can use it for their own partisan purposes, but this is a clear violation of Dan Cathy's First Amendment rights, and there are numerous precedents that support that.

Not patronizing someone's establishment because you don't like their politics, personal conections or hairstyle is one thing. Using your political office to demonize them and engage in what amounts to restraint of trade is something very different, and I think Mr.Cathy has the basis of a very lucrative lawsuit.

Obama Refuses To Sign Anti-Gay Discrimination Order..And Won't Push for Gay Marriage Plank In Party Platform!

Amid all of the hoopla over President Obama's evolution-for-campaign-cash on same sex marriage, a couple of unfortunate facts have come to light.

As I write this,there's an already drafted executive order that would prohibit discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity that's been heavily pushed by gay rights activists. Seems like a no-brainer to me...but the letter has been sitting in the president's office, unsigned, for months.

Gutsy!

Even more to the point, President Obama has decided that the White House will NOT push for a pro same sex marriage plank in the Democrat's party platform to be adopted at the party's convention in Charlotte, North Carolina this year.

Yes, chew that one over for a minute..the Democrats are going to spend over $35 million to have a convention in North Carolina...which just voted overwhelmingly to ban same sex marriage.

For all of those gays who sent money to the Obama campaign yesterday and today, well, I'll let Johnny Rotten have the last word:

More on Obama's About Turn On Gay Marriage..

Dan over at Gay Patriot asks the obvious questions and provides some even more obvious answers:

This swoon, to borrow an expression from Jennifer Rubin, “will take up the political oxygen for a while.” What exactly will this accomplish save to give gay Democrats, already eager to support Obama, a reason to really ’round the Democrat? Will Obama do what he didn’t do when his party had majorities in both houses of Congress, work the phones and otherwise buttonhole legislators to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – as LBJ did in 1964 on behalf of the Civil Rights Act? {...}

Wonder if this sudden change of heart had something to do with money. A few weeks ago, Ed Morrissey noted that “Obama remains significantly off of his own 2008 pace of fundraising, and way under the Democratic donation performance of that cycle.” And as Dan Eggen reports in the Washington Post:

Many of Obama’s key financial supporters are gay–including finance director Rufus Gifford and Democratic National Committee treasurer Andrew Tobias–and the campaign has regularly held fundraisers focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender donors.

A review of Obama’s top bundlers, who have brought in $500,000 or more for the campaign, shows that about one in six publicly identify themselves as gay.

Obama’s self-referential statement included no specifics about what he means to do. It, Philip Klein writes, “has no tangible policy impact — [Obama] still thinks the issue should be left to the states” — pretty much the same position Dick Cheney articulated in the Vice Presidential Debate twelve years ago. And I didn’t hear my gay friends singing hosannas then.

Some gay Democrats just need a token gesture to get all googly-eyed about a Democrat. And the White House’s waffling words on gay marriage caused much consternation among his gay supporters. Simply put, the president moved to quiet a political firestorm in order to raise some much needed campaign cash.

Even more contemptuously,President Obama's statement was carefully crafted to straddle the line and vote present, emphasizing that this is his personal belief and that he believes that states voting to not allow same sex marriages have the right to prohibit them. This such a transparent attempt to massage a special interest group with empty rhetoric, it astonishes me that any gay voters would actually fall for it - unless they're on the bus already.

UPDATE: Yep...it was definitely for the money.

Obama: 'Gay Marriage Should Be Legal'

It must be sheer Democrat hell to have to constantly be massaging all those special interest groups. In this case, apparently Joe Biden's remarks the other day put the president in a corner he'd rather not have been in.

Of the states he carried in 2008, the president has already lost Indiana. After the vote in North Carolina yesterday, you can add that state and its electoral votes to the GOP column as well.

North Carolina Passes Initiative Banning Same Sex Marriage

North Carolina has become the 31st state to vote to amend its constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

As is the norm in places where the people have actually been permitted to vote on this matter, it passed by something like a two to one margin.In every one of the seven states where same sex marriage is legal, it has been down by state legislatures in Blue states or by judicial diktat.

Two other states will be voting on legalizing same sex marriage this November. Minnesota has a constitutional amendment on its ballot and Maine has a referendum to allow same-sex marriage. In Maryland and Washington state, there is a push to bring new laws allowing same-sex marriage before the voters...which I personally would be surprised to see happen.

9th Circuit Panel Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Exactly as I predicted, the three judge 9th Circuit panel ruled in a 2-1 decision that:

(a) Prop 8 violates the US Constitution

(B) Judge Vaughn Walker had no reason to recuse himself from hearing the case, even that he happened to be gay, had a long-time partner with whom he was not married and thus would seem to have had a personal interest in the case and

(C) that the plaintiffs have standing to continue their appeals.

The next step will undoubtedly be an appeal before the full 11-judge 9th Circuit,followed by an appeal to the Supreme Court if the 9th Circuit backs today's ruling by the 3 judge panel.

9th Circuit Ruling On California's Prop 8 Expected Tomorrow

An important 9th Circuit Appeals Court Ruling On Perry v. Brown, which concerns California's Proposition 8 repealing same sex marriage is expected tomorrow.

There are three important points at issue: First, whether former U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from hearing the case, seeing that he happens to be gay, has a long-time partner with whom he was not married and thus would seem to have a personal interest in the case.

Second, whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to appeal Walker's decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional when none of the State of California's officials who normally defend the state's laws from legal challenges decided to do so, including then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General and now Governor Jerry Brown Attorney General declined to appeal th ejudge's decision.

And finally, if Walker did not need to recuse himself and the proponents do have the right to appeal, was Judge Walker was correct that Proposition 8 violates Californians' due process and the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution.

My guess is that the 9th Circuit will punt, especially as this is a ruling by the public information office rather than an actual judicial panel. In other words, they will rule that the plaintiffs have standing, but that Judge Walker did not need to recuse himself. And the full 9th Circuit can then go about its business of ruling Prop 8 unconstitutional and handing it off to the Supreme Court, if they decide to hear the case.

This is yet another example of same sex marriage proponents imposing their will via judicial or legislative action rather than by referendums. As a matter of fact, when it comes to direct referendums to legalize same sex marriage, the record is 31-0 against, and in several cases, California, Massachusetts, and Iowa among them, laws permitting same sex marriage were implemented in spite of the very clear wishes of substantial public majorities.

Oddly enough, the California Supreme Court admitted when it originally legalized same sex marriage back in 2008 that the state's domestic partner laws saw to it that partners in a civil union were deprived of no rights that couples in heterosexual marriages enjoyed, but decided to enact what amounted to an ipse dixit( legalese for 'because I said so') decision that went far beyond citing any existing law.

Prop 8's passage as an amendment to California's constitution by a 2 to 1 majority, the well funded and high profile legal challenge, the governor and the attorney's general's failure to abide by their sworn oaths and defend California's constitution and the questionable ruling by Judge Walker followed.

The question of whether Prop 8 violated the Constitutional is an interesting one. It's obviously a severe stretch of the Equal protection clause, easily seen by the fact that proponents of same sex marriage always need to coflate it with the Civil Rights struggle when no such equivalence exists, but that's for judges to decide.

More important is whether the concept of same sex marriage is a bad idea for society as a whole, and whether imposing these kind of institutions on people by legislative and judicial diktat is a good precedent to establish.

Those are the bigger issues no one seems to want to discuss at all.

Love n' Hate And The Gay Marriage Debate

New York just became the latest state to legalize same sex marriage, when several Republicans decided to support it after some money and quid pro quos changed hands.

That makes six states, ( Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire) plus the District of Columbia that now will issue licenses for same sex marriages.

In every case, this was achieved through judicial or legislative action. In fact, when it comes to direct referendums to legalize same sex marriage, the record is 31-0 against, and in several cases, California, Massachusetts, and Iowa among them, laws permitting same sex marriage were implemented in spite of the very clear wishes of substantial public majorities.

The tactics being used to promote same sex marriage are almost exactly the ones its advocates swore would never be used to force same sex marriage on the states back when they were arguing against the need for a Constitutional Marriage Amendment. They claimed that the Defense of Marriage Act ( DOMA) would prevent states from having same sex marriage forced upon them by lawsuit.

They knew, of course, that DOMA, if it couldn't be destroyed legislatively could be destroyed in the courts.

Now, what we're seeing is one of two scenarios. In the first one, as evidenced by New York, the public isn't allowed to actually vote on the matter, but their state legislature simply imposes it. In the second, you normally have a scenario where a homosexual couple gets married, moves to a jurisdiction where same sex marriage doesn't exist and then sues the state based on the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause, which demands that one state respect the marriages of another.

In California, you had the interesting spectacle of the politicians in several jurisdictions declaring same sex marriage legal and issuing licenses in defiance of state law, the State Supreme Court concurring, the people of California subsequently passing Proposition 8 in 2008 by an overwhelming majority to say that marriage was between one man and one woman and the California Supreme Court ruling that Prop 8 was both legal and constitutional. Another ruling by Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker, a homosexual, said that Prop 8 was in fact unconstitutional. So Perry v. Schwarzenegger is now likely headed to the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, President Obama has instructed his Department of Justice not to defend DOMA in the courts, and is actually talking about repealing parts of the measure that was supposed to be a 'defense' against imposition of same sex marriage by lawsuit.

Dishonest tactics aside, is this a positive development?

To answer that question, let's first examine the three main arguments one always hears advanced by same sex marriage activists. They're illuminating in showing us what's actually at stake here so we can look at this from a big picture standpoint.

The first argument is that homosexual couples are denied the same rights married couples are. This one is almost completely untrue, and the small amount of truth it contains is something easily repaired.

In the jurisdictions where most homosexuals live that still are without legalized same sex marriage, domestic partnership laws quite properly make sure that same sex couples and heterosexual unmarried couples in civil unions have virtually the same rights married couples do. In California, for instance,the Supreme Court Justices themselves admitted that California law eliminates any difference in rights between same sex partners and heterosexual married couples when they initially decided to ignore state law and legal precedents and rule that same sex marriage was 'a fundamental right'.

Non-married couples of any sexual orientation can assign benefits and pensions to each other, appoint a significant other to make medical decisions for them in the event they're incapacitated, co-parent, enter joint contracts, jointly own real and personal property, and become each others' beneficiaries when it comes to life insurance or probate.

The two main differences are federal and involve the right to assign Social Security benefits to a surviving partner and to file joint tax returns. While there are perfectly valid reasons against extending these rights to same sex or unmarried couples, if equality was really the issue a legislative solution could be easily adopted without disrupting society or trampling of the rights and wishes of the majority of Americans.

The second argument same sex marriage advocates invariably use is the comparison of same sex marriage with the civil rights struggle of the 1960's and the use of laws that were enacted in some states against mixed race marriage as a talking point.

The situations couldn't be more different. The last time I looked, I didn't see water fountains or bathrooms that said 'gay only’, homosexual sections in restaurants and public buildings or a state or municipality using legal restrictions or de facto pressure to keep homosexuals from voting. I somehow seem to have missed the ads for employment stating 'we don't use gays', the people seriously defending segregated and inferior schools and facilities for homosexuals, or the property deeds with restrictions written into them preventing the sale or rental of the property to homosexuals.

The miscegenation laws are likewise a ridiculous argument for same sex marriage. The chief rationale defenders of those deplorable laws cited was always the effect on the children from such unions. And that couldn't apply less to same sex marriage, since, as we all know, it still takes a man and a women to produce children, even if it's via a test tube. While some gay couples adopt or use techniques like in-vitro fertilization, the number is small and the children involved unaffected by whether the adults parenting them are joined by a civil union or a marriage.

The final argument advocates of same sex marriage invariably use is that it's good for society, will extend the stability of marriage to the homosexual community, and won't have any effect on traditional marriage. Examining this argument in detail not only gives us the big picture look at the effect same sex marriage will have on traditional marriage and society but a peek at the real agenda of its most passionate advocates.

The first result of diluting marriage - for that is exactly what 'expanding' the definition of marriage amounts to - will be to encourage all sorts of variations to dilute it further. Same sex marriage is certain to lead to a slippery slope of legalized polygamy and the euphemism favored by a number of polygamy advocates here in the US, "polyamory" (group marriage).

Much of Europe has had same sex marriage for a while now, and de facto legal polygamy is already a fact there because of the huge influx of Muslim immigrants. Parts of Europe even have a problem with bestiality in the form of animal prostitution that they're unable to eliminate because of their existing laws on sex and marriage. And why not? How can one discriminate legally between lifestyle choices?

If same sex marriage becomes the law here, expect the same result. And expect polyamory, which already has a well-organized lobby here to take root as well, with marriage being redefined as a connection between two, three, or more individuals in every conceivable combination of male and female.

There are two major books out right now promoting polyamory, Deborah Anapol's "Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits," and University of North Carolina Professor Mim Chapman's "What Does Polyamory Look Like" that are regarded as major guides for the movement, and it already has a flagship magazine in Loving More.

The cause is also being championed by a group of influential family law specialists, including Paula Ettelbrick who teaches law at the University of Michigan, New York University, Barnard, and Columbia, and is the executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission and New York City's Stonewall Community Foundation; Emory University law professor Martha Fineman; University of Maryland Carole & Hanan Sibel Research Professor of Law Martha Ertman; Judith Stacey, the Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis and Sociology at NYU; and David Chambers, a professor of law at the University of Michigan.

A little research makes it quite clear that a number of these academics actually champion the radical remaking and even the dissolution of marriage as an institution in favor of a series of 'contractual relationships, and are quite open about championing same sex marriage as a entryway towards the abolishing of traditional marriage as we now know it in favor of loose, contractual and even non-monogamous relationships in any sexual combination you can imagine.

It ‘s obvious why a number of the most outspoken advocates of same sex marriage belong to the legal profession. After all, they're the ones who will be pocketing handsome fees for a whole new round of divorces, custody battles and the drawing and redrawing of marital 'contracts' if same sex marriage, polygamy and polyamory become the law of the land.

This is far more important than it seems. Like it or not, traditional monogamous marriage between one man and one woman is one of the foundations of western society, as well as the ideal environment for raising children as all serious research on the subject shows. That's why it's lasted as long as it has. Diluting marriage by 'redefining ' it is likely to lead to a number of bad effects on our society, most of which can already be seen in Europe. The clear trend there since same sex marriage is for less marriage, drastically lower birthrates, and a vastly greater amount of out of wedlock births. In order to make a society like that work even slightly, you need a vast and well-funded welfare state. Again, looking at Europe as an example, not only doesn't such a state work if you have massive immigration, but it freezes social and financial mobility and eventually topples under its own weight into bankruptcy once you run out of other people's money to spend.

Ironically, another side effect of same sex marriage is a clear dilution of freedom. Same sex marriage has literally become a sacrament of the Left, and any criticism of it, let alone the right of Americans to have a voice in the matter be damned.

The real motivation of many gay activists in insisting on redefining traditional marriage isn’t equality per se, but forcing the normalization and mainstreaming of their lifestyle by whatever means necessary. The effect of this is already evident, as children in many public schools are already being indoctrinated to believe that GLBT behavior is exactly that, regardless of their religious or ethical beliefs or those of their parents, who are paying for the indoctrination.

The same intolerance is now in the process of being extended to business owners, clergymen, foster parents, religious institutions, and anyone else who might feel perfectly fine with exhibiting tolerance but might take exception on religious or ethical grounds to normalization and mainstreaming. The recent New York State law is rare among same sex marriage statutes in that it allows for religious exemptions. See how long it takes before another round of lawsuits trashes that part of the law.

This sort of tyranny of the minority is simply unjust on its face. It’s establishing a legal and legislative precedent that will be used many times over to change anything the Nanny State deems necessary and establish thought control to keep it that way. When Perry v. Schwarzenegger hits the Supreme Court, the result will affect not just marriage, but the entire direction of our society.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Weekend Monkey On Politics: The Prop 8 Ruling - Monkey See, Monkey Do

Hidey Ho, Primates! Welcome to the one and only Real Banana, your source for the real poop on politics.

Let's do it and get to it..

This week's Big Nooze was the Prop 8 ruling on gay marriage by Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco (where else).

I was glad to see that this judge ruled in favor, especially since this Monkey won a few shekels on it. I mean, did any of the primates expect anything else? If Walker had ruled any other way, would his pals down at the bath house or over in the Castro have ever talked to him again?

Frankly, I think the primates are entirely too stirred up over this.I mean, who cares who's boinking who and what they call it, as long as there are consenting bodies involved? And who cares how many bodies or what age or gender? It's not the government's business.

This ruling basically ended years - centuries - of prejudice by saying that limiting the definition of marriage to being between a man and a woman is unconstitutional,not to mention immoral. I support that, because it opens up a new era of freedom and sets an important precedent, one that affects this Monkey directly.

For years, the inter-species love between humans and their primate cousins has been the love that dare not speak its name, to borrow a phrase from some antiquated porn novel.

Think I'm exaggerating? Watch the relationship between Gloria Swanson and her beloved chimp in Sunset Boulevard and read between the lines. Or that of the late Michael Jackson and Chatter, or Travis and his long time lover Sandra Herold.

Who knows how much the tension and stress of Travis and Sandra having to live a lie contributed to that tragedy? What about their rights, their happiness?

Now, with this new found freedom, couples like Travis and Sandra no longer have to live in the closet - they can be free to live their lives as they see fit. That's exactly what happened in a lot of countries in Europe after they finally decided to legalize same sex marriages.The laws against what we still refer to here in America as bestiality fell apart, and there was a lot more love in this world,lemme tell ya..

Now, once the lawyers and judges do their thing, we can experience the same thing here. Climb the tree with me and envision an America where marriage is whatever you want to make it, with who ever you want to make it with and mean whatever you want it to. No limits.

I don't make a habit of quoting ReThugs, but Dick Cheney was more right than he knew when he said "Freedom means freedom for everybody."

The political angle? Yeah, my Democrats may lose some votes in the short run. But as we see more inter-species relationships it's going to open up a whole new constituency for them. And probably for me. And that can only be a good thing.

Later, primates!

Weekend Monkey was a Democratic candidate for president in 2008 and is JoshuaPundit's> political Guru. He can be reached for personal appearances,freebies and interesting offers at wendmonkey@yahoo.com

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

California's Prop 8 On Gay Marriage Ruled Unconstitutional

Well, with this judge what did you expect?

Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco ( who is an open homosexual) basically made his ruling based on the foggy grounds that there is a moral stigma to civil unions, basically an ipse dixit (legalese for 'because I said so') decision rather than any actual harm or existing precedent:

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples." Walker wrote.

Is this judge trying to legislate thought crime from the bench?

This is particularly interesting in California, where the domestic partnership laws were deliberately formulated to eliminate any differentiation in rights and privileges between heterosexual marriages and civil unions.

And since Judge Walker's scope was only supposed to be the legality of Prop 8 according to the California State constitution, I get the feeling that this was an effort to simply kick this upstairs...and it will undoubtedly hit the US Supreme Court.

The supporters of gay marriage are essentially risking all the marbles as they seek to impose this by judicial fiat.I have a feeling they may have over reached.

From a political standpoint, this is yet another disaster for the Democrats, as there is very little actual voter support for same sex marriage, even in a Blue state like California. I'd say it's worth at least five points at the polls.

It will be seen as yet another instance of activist judges attempting to invent whatever rights it wants to in the Constitution and to force the public to accept it.

UPDATE: Wolf Howling considers this decision the new Roe V. Wade. He's also got a number of other reactions....

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!