Gay Bourgeoisie?

I thought this was an interesting argument regarding the trend of liberal avant garde becoming ho-hum normal.

Two decades ago, the gay left wanted to smash the bourgeois prisons of monogamy, capitalistic enterprise and patriotic values and bask in the warm sun of bohemian "free love." And avant-garde values. In this, they were simply picking up the torch from the straight left of the 1960s and 1970s, who had sought to throw off the sexual hang-ups of their parents' generation along with their gray flannel suits.

As a sexual lifestyle experiment, that failed pretty miserably, the greatest proof being that the affluent and educated children (and grandchildren) of the baby boomers have reembraced bourgeois notions of marriage as an essential part of life. Sadly, it's the have-nots who are now struggling as marriage is increasingly seen as an unaffordable luxury. The irony is that such bourgeois values — monogamy, hard work, etc. — are the best guarantors of success and happiness.

That homosexuals would want the same things heterosexuals do--love, family, stability--shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone in the 21st Century. I'm sure there was a time when those identifying themselves as gay were doing so in an in-your-face f-u gesture, but I've met few gay people who felt that way. I would say that's a tiny fraction of the population. I have to agree with Goldberg on this part:

Personally, I have always felt that gay marriage was an inevitability, for good or ill (most likely both). I do not think that the arguments against gay marriage are all grounded in bigotry, and I find some of the arguments persuasive. But I also find it cruel and absurd to tell gays that living the free-love lifestyle is abominable while at the same time telling them that their committed relationships are illegitimate too.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Buh-Bye

The military's ridiculous Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is now history and that's only 15 years too late, IMO.

Call it a leftover from my more liberal days, but the military policy regarding homosexuals never made a lot of sense to me, especially once we weren't kicking people out for being homosexual (just for answering someone who asked if one were). I understand that Don't Ask, Don't Tell was just a compromise to force the government to stop punishing people for being in the military and being gay, but this policy always left me scratching my head.

These days, I'd just as soon everybody kept this information to themselves. You're gay? Fine. You can talk about your boyfriend, your girlfriend, your spouse and what y'all had for dinner. But I don't want a lecture about gay rights on Dancing With the Stars or any other television show I bother watching. That's about as equal as it gets around here.

UPDATE: I won't link to the stupid American Family Association which takes a "teh sky is falling!!1!!" approach to the subject of gay people in the military not hiding it anymore, but Confederate Yankee discusses the whole thing.

Why Marriage?

Interesting discussion about Prop 8 on Hugh Hewitt's show, highlighting the unintended consequences and unprecedented attack on religion inherent in the decision. Judge Walker's decision hinged on the idea that religion and religious views are inherently irrational and no basis for law. This is offensive at least and a blatant attack on Constitutional rights at worst.

Disagreeing with Conservative Majority Opinions

It's been one of those weeks for me, where I've spent a lot of time disagreeing with folks I normally agree with and agreeing with folks I usually don't. Here's the list:

1. I don't like building a mosque at Ground Zero for all the dhimmitude reasons around, but I don't oppose it, since I happen to think freedom of religion (even when I disagree with it) is pretty important.

2. I'm pretty unhappy with the way anti-Prop 8 advocates (like liberals in general since the 1960s) are hellbent on cramming gay marriage down the collective gullet of an unwilling public through the court systems rather than going the Constitutional route. But having said that, the thread at this post on Volokh Conspiracy provided (for me) the best arguments I've heard for gay marriage, and it's got me thinking it may be time. Granted, a lot of it is still anecdotal, and we won't know for decades how this affects other family relationships, but still.

3. Calls to alter birthright citizenship is nuts. And a sure loser at the polls. Do Republicans just want permanent minority status?

Ok, flog me.

Drop the Constitutional Amendment Process

After all, with judges making findings of facts like these, there won't ever be a need to actually pursuade the electorate of anything.

He’s emphasizing the factual findings in the case here, not the ostensibly more important legal conclusions about due process and equal protection. That’s smart as a legal strategy insofar as the facts, not the law, are binding on the appellate courts that’ll hear this case, and it’s smart as a political strategy insofar as the average joe will likely be interested in the sociological testimony from the trial but not so much the tedium of due process analysis. If you’re going to use your limited time on camera to push gay marriage to the public, this is precisely the sort of thing you’d want to emphasize.

The problem, of course, is the legal part of the decision:

The optics are uniquely bad — a federal judge imperiously tossing out a public referendum enacted by citizens of one of the bluest states in America on the shoulders of a multi-racial coalition. If the goal of gay-rights activists is to make same-sex marriage palatable to the public, then embittering opponents by torpedoing a hard-fought democratic victory seems like … an odd way to go about it. The response to that will be that equality can’t wait, just as it couldn’t wait vis-a-vis school desegregation in the 1950s. Except that (a) no one, including gay-marriage supporters, seriously believes that the harm here is as egregious as the harm to blacks under Jim Crow, and (b) there was no assurance of a legislative solution to racial injustice in the 1950s the way there currently is for gay marriage.

This is one of those situations which will simply further enrage the electorate. If you don't get your way after following the process, when do the People get to do what they want? According to liberals, only when they decide it's best for you.

High Court Rejects Effort to Keep Names of Petition Signers Secret

This seems about right to me. In general, transparency is necessary to keep elections free and open. The justices held open the idea that plaintiffs might be able to win on a narrower argument, namely, that, in their case, disclosing the names and addresses would leave them subject to harassment and threats.

Judge Tries to Help Prop 8 Plaintiffs

If this doesn't qualify as judicial misconduct during a trial, I'm not sure what does.

Charles Cooper, the attorney defending a federal challenge to Proposition 8, came to San Francisco to deliver his closing argument on same-sex marriage Wednesday. But Chief Judge Vaughn Walker made it feel much more like a cross-examination.

Walker closely questioned Cooper about his trial presentation, including why his side called only one witness to testify about the institution of marriage. Where Cooper's counterpart, Theodore Olson of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, was able to deploy lofty rhetoric with less interruption, Cooper was stuck parrying Walker for about two hours.

At one point, Walker asked Cooper to recount the trial evidence showing that marriage is designed to encourage procreation. That's the central reason Prop 8 supporters cite as why voters have a rational basis to ban gay marriage. But as Cooper named different expert authorities, Walker interrupted.

"I don't mean to be flip," Walker said, but the people Cooper named didn't actually come to testify.

"Your honor, you don't have to have evidence of this from the authorities," Cooper said, adding that case law is enough.

"You don't have to have evidence?" Walker asked quietly.

The exchange pointed up a key fault line running through the case, in which four gay plaintiffs are seeking to have California's Prop 8 invalidated. From the beginning, Cooper and other conservative legal thinkers argued against the need for a trial, saying case law alone dooms the complaint to fail. Even Olson was skeptical of Walker's plan at first.

Case law--and the voters--support traditional marriage. Gay marriage supporters have emotion but not facts on their side, which is why they continue to argue that gay marriage is like interracial marriage. The truth is that interracial marriage discriminated against race which is strictly barred by the 14th Amendment. There's no such prescription against homosexuals, who have the same marriage rights regardless of color. The fact that they dislike the choices doesn't make it discrimination.

Have your relationship if you want it but don't force me to call it marriage. If you want people to call it marriage, then convince them of it at the ballot box, a task you haven't been able to do yet.

Preacher Arrested for Calling Homosexuality a Sin

My good friend Dana over at Common Sense Political Thought has often argued that once homosexual marriage is permitted throughout the U.S., the Catholic church (among others) will then be targeted if they won't perform weddings for gay couples in their churches. Leftwingers, naturally, pooh-pooh this as just so much fear-mongering, but when you read stories about what is happening elsewhere, you have to ask yourself if it wouldn't happen here, too.

Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin

Dale McAlpine was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships.

The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Wokington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God.

Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.

Regardless of how you feel about Christians quoting the Bible selectively, it seems to me that free speech allows a street preacher to, well, preach the Bible as he interprets it and let the listener make up his/her mind about the subject.

Couldn't happen here, right?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell If You're a Supreme Court Nominee?

The left is flipping out because Elena Kagan, a possible Supreme Court pick, might be gay. No, I'm not kidding. In fact, the White House is is in full harrumph mode over the incident, which makes it that much funnier.

The White House ripped CBS News on Thursday for publishing an online column by a blogger who made assertions about the sexual orientation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, widely viewed as a leading candidate for the Supreme Court.

Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration aide and Republican Senate staffer, wrote that President Obama would "please" much of his base by picking the "first openly gay justice." An administration official, who asked not to be identified discussing personal matters, said Kagan is not a lesbian.

Domenech responds:

Look, it's 2010 -- no one should care if a nominee to any position is gay. The fact that conservative Senators John Cornyn and Jeff Sessions have recently expressed openness to confirming an openly gay nominee to the Court is a good thing. Senators should look at things that actually matter -- evaluating a nominee's decisions, approach to the law, their judgment and ability -- to see whether there are actually good and relevant reasons to oppose the nomination. That's all.

As Allahpundit notes, this is a stupid move on the White House's part over something that most Americans don't care about. Having a Supreme Court justice who is gay doesn't leave most people crying at night, and given the large number of Democrats who support gay rights, you'd think Teh One would be happy about it. But no, they have problems of their own with such a move:

Given the November cyclone that’s on the horizon, the last thing Obama wants to do is give some Dems an extra reason to stay home.

Personally, I would see such a move as tokenism and nothing more, which is to say, typicaly Democrat identity politics. I'm not particularly concerned if a gay person serves as a Justice.

William Jacobson points out that liberals don't mind outing people...if they're Republicans.

Gay Teen Goes to Prom Then Complains She Wasn't Invited to Other Party

Well, that's what should be the headline. Instead, Constance McMillen is complaining that she went to a "fake prom" while the "real" one was held elsewhere.

To avoid Constance McMillen bringing a female date to her prom, the teen was sent to a "fake prom" while the rest of her class partied at a secret location at an event organized by parents.

McMillen tells The Advocate that a parent-organized prom happened behind her back — she and her date were sent to a Friday night event at a country club in Fulton, Miss., that attracted only five other students. Her school principal and teachers served as chaperones, but clearly there wasn't much to keep an eye on.

"They had two proms and I was only invited to one of them," McMillen says. "The one that I went to had seven people there, and everyone went to the other one I wasn’t invited to."

McMillen was invited to the prom--that's the school sponsored event. The other party was just a party, regardless of what they called it. It's understandable that McMillen should feel hurt and angry that she was left out of the other event, but obviously a lot of people were uncomfortable with her political statement about lesbianism. And, unfortunately, the more vocal and in-your-face homosexuals get about their sexuality, the more they will be subjected to such passive-aggressive tactics.

Obama's EEOC Nominee: Society Should ‘Not Tolerate Private Beliefs’ That ‘Adversely Affect’ Homosexuals

Another "moderate" Obama nominee expresses outrageous opinions that could have the effect of law if their appointment stands.

Chai Feldblum, the Georgetown University law professor nominated by President Obama to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has written that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, that may negatively affect homosexual “equality.”

Feldblum, whose nomination was advanced in a closed session of the Senate Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on December 12, published an article entitled “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion” in the Brooklyn Law Review in 2006...

“For those who believe that a homosexual or bisexual orientation is not morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual orientation is acting in a sinful or harmful manner (to himself or herself and to others), it is problematic when the government passes a law that gives such individuals equal access to all societal institutions,” Feldblum wrote.

“Conversely, for those who believe that any sexual orientation, including a homosexual or bisexual orientation, is morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual or bisexual orientation acts in an honest and good manner, it is problematic when the government fails to pass laws providing equality to such individuals.”

Feldblum argues that in order for “gay rights” to triumph in this “zero-sum game,” the constitutional rights of all Americans should be placed on a “spectrum” so they can be balanced against legitimate government duties.

The least Obama could do is pick people who had actually read the Constitution before expounding on it.

This Will Make Your Child Straight

Apparently, this phone will make your child straight. At least,
that seems to be the complaint here.

Sociological Images has a post up featuring this cell phone for children which has big buttons representing parental speed dials. Assuming, of course, that all children not only have two parents, but that they're of opposite sexes as well. Heteronormativity is everywhere, but it's the everyday small things that can be most insidious.

Damn those rightwing phone providers!

Maine Reporter Fired for Offending Gay Lobbyists

Some stories leave you scratching your head. Take the case of the Maine reporter fired for sending a private e-mail opposing gay marriage to the Human Rights Commission.

Larry Grard fired off an angry e-mail to the Human Rights Commission after the HRC sent a press release claiming that Maine's gay marriage proposition died because of "hatred of gays."

Grard, who said he’d gotten no sleep the night before, used his own e-mail to send a response. “They said the Yes-on-1 people were haters. I’m a Christian. I take offense at that,” he said. “I e-mailed them back and said basically, ‘We’re not the ones doing the hating. You’re the ones doing the hating.’

“I sent the same message in his face he sent in mine.”

Grard thought his e-mail was anonymous, but the HRC Googled his name and discovered he was a reporter at the Waterville Morning Sentinel. The tolerance policde then demanded that Grard be fired and the weak-kneed sissies at the Morning Sentinel obliged.

According to Grard and his union, the Portland Newspaper Guild, he has never before had any disciplinary issues. Guild president Tom Bell said in an e-mail that a grievance has been filed on Grard’s behalf, and the Guild is awaiting a date for an arbitration hearing, which will probably take place in three or four months. “The Guild is defending the contract,” Bell said, “which requires that there be progressive discipline in situations like this.”

Grard said he wouldn’t be complaining if he’d been subjected to a lesser penalty, such as a reprimand or a suspension without pay, for his first offence. He said reporters frequently send personal e-mails from their own accounts during working hours without incurring management’s wrath.

Grard said he thinks his religious beliefs were a factor in his firing, calling it “anti-Christian bias.” “A lawyer said to me, ‘What if you’d agreed with [the Human Rights Campaign]? Would the company fire you for that? Of course they wouldn’t have,’” he said.

The Sentinel and the other MaineToday papers editorialized in favor of same-sex marriage.

Rarely do I support unions, but the PNG is doing the right thing by supporting Grard in a clearly arbitrary firing case. Grard should sue for wrongful termination, if it's possible.

Worse yet, the newspaper apparently is punishing Grard's wife Lisa for the incident.

The week after Grard was fired, he said, his wife, Lisa, who wrote a biweekly food column for the Sentinel as a freelancer, received an e-mail informing her that her work would no longer be needed.

Could it be that Lisa Grard was canned because the paper "didn't need" her work anymore? Possibly, but the circumstances are mighty fishy.

What the Safe School Czar Wants Your 7th Grader Reading

Pretty disgusting. Not because of the homosexuality but because of the sexuality. Not sure this is appropriate for 16-year-olds to read, let alone 12-year-olds.

Unintended Consequences: Same Sex Marriage Mandates Could Harm Charities

Forcing churches to accept homosexual couples and treat them like heterosexual ones could cause many churches to simply stop participating in certain services for the poor and needy.

Refusing to include robust religious liberty protections in the bill that has just been approved by a Council subcommittee, the City appears poised to impose requirements that will drastically cut social services for some of the city’s most hard-pressed residents. The impact will be severest on food pantries, health care providers, services for the homeless and adoption and foster care assistance.

The conflict focuses on the scope of the religious liberty exemption included in the bill the D.C. City Council could pass as early as December 1 to replace its traditional marriage law with a regime that allows same-sex unions. In testimony before the Council late last month, both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, which disagree fundamentally on public policy that approves same-sex marriage, testified that the original draft religious liberty exemption in the bill was far too narrow. The draft bill not only put social services to the needy at risk, but it also would have required churches that operate facilities like reception halls to make them available to same-sex couples regardless of the churches’ religious teachings and practice.
The version of the bill the Council subcommittee approved this week relented on the issue of reception halls, allowing churches to decline to make them available for same-sex marriages and other unions to which they might object. However, the bill did not exempt churches from obligations it would impose that would, for example, require the churches to provide marriage benefits to same-sex couples who work for them. As a result, and because D.C. contracts for social services will require compliance with the city’s non-discrimination laws, the longstanding agreements with service providers like the Archdiocese will end. An analogous impasse occurred in Boston in 2006, where Catholic Charities was unable to obtain a state license because of its views on traditional marriage and was forced to shutter its adoption services for hard-to-place children.

It's more important to be politically correct than to feed the poor.

LGBT: Left Wing Fringe?

Dear, oh dear.

Yesterday, CNBC’s Chief Washington Correspondent John Harwood said that the Obama White House doesn’t view dissatisfaction amongst LGBT advocates — tens of thousands of whom marched in Washington, DC yesterday — as a “serious problem” because officials feel “that if they take care of the big issues — health care, energy, the economy — he’s [Obama] going to be just fine with this group.” As evidence, Harwood cited an anonymous “adviser” who bashed bloggers and dismissed critics as part of the “Internet left fringe”

Probably not the best way he could have put it, to be sure. But given that LGBT are not a large percentage of the population, it's understandable that a staffer might mention how other farther-ranging issues will positively (to them) affect a variety of constituents.

Legal Insurrection notes that yesterday, the same complainers were happy when the designated White House shill was ripping Fox News for having the audacity not to be blinded by hope. Oh, the irony! Too bad the WH shill didn't do her homework.

Judge Finds Texas Traditional Marriage Amendment Unconstitutional

What you can't get through the legislature, do through the courts.

A judge in Dallas has held that Texas' constitutional ban on gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment.

In an order signed Thursday in In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B., 320th District Judge Tena Callahan held that Texas Constitution Article 1, §32(a), which provides that "marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman," violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Callahan further held that Texas Family Code §6.704, which addresses testimony of a man and wife in a suit for dissolution of a marriage, violates the 14th Amendment.

She prefaced those findings by writing that she was ruling "[o]n the limited issue of whether the Court has jurisdiction to divorce parties who have legally married in another jurisdiction and who otherwise meet the residency and other prerequisites required to file for a divorce in Dallas County, Texas." Callahan found that she has jurisdiction to hear a suit for divorce of two men legally married in another jurisdiction and struck the plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Texas Office of the Attorney General.

Of course, the couple does not meet the requirements to be married in Texas.

California Court Upholds Prop 8

The California Supreme Court held today that, yes, voters can actually amend the California Constitution by the initiative and referendum process. Like is outlined in the Constitution.

It's stunning, I know, for a court to decide that a document means what it says, rather than just making up something else. The answer for gay marriage supporters to to create another referendum, get the signatures, put it on the ballot, and get enough voters to vote for it. Again, a stunning observation.

Over at Pandagon the nutroots are going berzerk. The comments are crazy, with poor Dana getting attacked for actually using logic when confronted with indignant harrumphing from the lunatics. Here was my favorite exchange:

Magis wrote:

Then to make matters worse the gays that are married can stay married. But new gay marriages can’t be performed. Is that sane jurisprudence. How can you manage not only to create two disparate classes but create them out of the same subset of people?

Easily enough. If a state allowed first cousin marriage, and then changed the law to restrict marriage to people no more closely ralated than second cousins, the previous first cousin marriages would still be considered legal marriages. Similarly, a state which allows marriages no closer than between second cousins will still not normally fail to consider legal first cousin marriages from another state as legal in the first state.

This has a current application, in that New York state recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries, even though it does not recognize such as being legally performed in New York.

This was an easy enough analogy. All states have some limitations on consanguinity, determining how close relatives can be to get married. It's an analogy that should be easily understood, even by the Pandagonistas. Yet they came unglued that such an analogy would be used!

Before anyone gets upset, I’m sure that Dana isn’t trying to imply that marriages between blood relatives (which are generally considered taboo on the basis of genetic science) are somehow analogous to marriages between same-sex couples (which are generally considered taboo on the basis of superstition). That would be stunningly moronic.

Right, Dana? Just tryin’ to help ya out here.

What was stunningly moronic was that any human being would complain that Dana's analogy was, somehow, a slur against homosexuals, rather than simply an object lesson into how state laws can invalidate certain marriages while recognizing others.

I suppose expecting the Pandagonistas to act normal, as opposed to hysterical ninnies, is expecting too much, since they are incapable of civil behavior under the best of conditions. But attacking Dana? Dana? The man who never tells them to STFU on his own site? Who allows Blubonnet to hijack every comment thread with 9/11 Truther garbage? The guy who doesn't ban reprehensible trolls? It just really shows what's wrong with Pandagon.

Olbermann Idiocy

Great post here.

Carrie Prejean Nude Pics: Much Ado About Nothing

I wasn't going to write anything about the nude photo sliming of Miss California Carrie Prejean.

Here is the photo in question. My reaction: That's it? I mean, I was expecting Hustler style pics from the flap over it.

The Other McCain has a complete rundown of who's talking and who's not and why.

My thoughts on this are:

1. It's pathetic that those out to destroy Prejean for voicing the majority view on marriage have to stoop to this level. But it's not surprising. We're getting used to this sort tactic.

2. Models have nude photos taken. Virtually all of them do, at some time or other. Some clients demand them before considering the model, and someone starting out is less likely to rock the boat about it.

3. I've said, since my early 20's that no woman should ever allow a man to take her picture nude. Ever. I don't care how much you trust the man, your picture is likely to end up plastered on the Internet when either (a) you dump him or (b)you become famous. I've known women whose personal lives and careers have been affected badly by these revelations, and we've seen professional women creamed (no pun intended) for skin pics.

Obviously, those who hate Prejean and want to discredit her aren't interested in any reason she might have nude photos, or what her view of Christianity is. These people want proof that Prejean is just another hypocrite and that, because of her hypocrisy, her views are invalid.

Now, I'm not sure how nude photos invalidate support for traditional marriage, but I've never claimed to understand the liberal mind.