... some things are just nonsensical.
... some things are just nonsensical.
Here's what's coming next.
Watch for a *cough* *cough* totally unforseeable constitutional challenge to Section 2(e) of the bill, which states:
No Private Cause of Action - Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to create a private cause of action.
Once that section's excised with surgical precision by a sympathetic lefty judge (Vaughn Walker to the lavender courtesy phone, please!) ... Katie bar the door.
The gay activists in uniform will then sue to be allowed to marry, notwithstanding Section 2(d) of this bill, which states:
Benefits - Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to require the furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of "marriage" and "spouse" and referred to as the "Defense of Marriage Act").
Once 2(d) is gone & a few suitable test couples get hitched, retire, & file for marriage-related benefits in the civilian world, guess what'll be next on the chopping block?
After that inconvenient law is out of the gay activists' way (phone call for Judge Walker on line 3) they'll demand more than "tolerance." They'll demand financial benefits & federal protection for gay "marriage," state laws be damned. Why? They can't cite national security, because effective national defense matters not one whit to these activists. No, they'll simply cite the full faith and credit clause found in Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Game over. It'll be "Sit down, shut up, & hand over those wallets, you hateful bigoted Christianist breeders."
This. Is. Their. Goal.
What exactly does it mean to say that homosexuals can "serve openly" in the U.S. military? Presumably behavior like this ...
With the passage of today's lame duck bill, it would appear the ban on open homosexuals in the U.S. military will soon be repealed. Not long from now, it will be official military policy to endorse and celebrate homosexual behavior.
I find it interesting that none of the homosexual activists pushing this agenda of social engineering and the destruction of marriage have bothered to address what happens if things go horribly wrong, as many have predicted. If open homosexuals end up being a net burden on the military's ability to accomplish its mission (that is, to kill our enemies and break their stuff), then how do we undo this?
Oh, joy. The City of Cleveland just won the competition to host the 2014 Gay Games. Here's the relevant audio from the first two hours of last night's Bob Frantz Show:
I don't see the point in creating a homosexualized version of the Olympics. If someone's an Olympic caliber athlete, they can compete in the Olympics. Their sexual tastes have nothing to do with it.
Who wants to crow about winning some event at a politicized athletic gathering that has no qualification standards whatsoever? For goodness' sake, the Gay Games are "not oriented to victory" ... whatever that means.
Every time I think Cleveland has sunk to a new low in punch-line-worthiness, the city breaks out a shovel and digs some more.
Mike Adams has found another radical feminist raw nerve on which to tap dance.
Sarah Palin's comments opposing gay "marriage" in a recent interview:
Allah over at Hot Air worries about the federalism implications of a federal marriage amendment:
Normally I'd call this another reason for the base to love her, but the implications for federalism make me wonder how reaction will shake out. Althouse, who's been pretty high on her (but isn't a member of the base, needless to say), finds it "genuinely dismaying." I find it more perplexing than anything else given that she's on record recently as supporting a federalist approach to abortion. I can understand the opposite position, of banning abortion at the federal level via amendment (as Huckabee wants to do) but letting the states handle marriage on grounds that the dire moral imperative in protecting innocent life should trump normal conservative inclinations towards state rights, but what's the argument for Palin's vice versa? Is it simply a question of identifying which issue federal judges are more likely to tinker with at this point and taking that issue out of their hands before they can act? McCain shares that concern -- but thinks that any amendment can and should come after a problematic ruling, not before.
Allah needn't worry. Amending the Constitution is an inherently federalist process (emphasis mine):
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.U.S. Constitution, Article V
Through their legislatures, the states get the last word on any proposed amendment, and the citizens of the states have a helluva lot of influence over state legislators. If a federally-introduced amendment does not have the support of the vast majority of the citizenry, it will not be ratified.
Some things are more important than others. Please remember that when you vote.
As I've noted before, the photographs and documentation of what went on in San Francisco at the 2007 Folsom Street Fair are not safe for work. The effects of the sex festival continue to ripple outward.
I give you this year's Folsom Street Fair, held in San Francisco and sponsored by the Miller Brewing Company. Be warned ... clicking the image below will take you to a citizen photojournalist's site that documents the blatant and unrestrained sex acts that took place in public and in full view of children and on-duty uniformed police. This is not safe for work, and frankly not safe for a full stomach:
While our troops go in harm's way to advance America's security and bring liberty to millions, these homegrown fringe nuts engage in public sexual bacchanals on the streets of San Francisco and hand our sworn enemies a precious P.R. gift. Is it any wonder that jihadist savages draw new recruits with propaganda that says only shari'a law can prevent flamboyant drag queens and aggressive leather fetishists from running rampant on their own streets? "This is what America stands for", say Ayman Zawahiri and Muqtada al-Sadr and Hassan Nasrallah. Their recruits need only see photographs like these for words like "liberty" and "freedom" to sound like synonyms for "license" and "debauchery."
I worry that we Americans have lost our collective moral spine. The Folsom Street Fair should make us hang our heads in shame. Can we no longer see the difference between right and wrong? If events like these continue they will end up causing more attacks on all of us. Don't the Folsom Street crazies understand that the jihadis would kill them all if given the chance?
Hat tip: Michelle Malkin. I'm done drinking Miller Genuine Draft. Pass me some Thirsty Dog.
Until last week, most same-sex "marriage" advocates have tried to downplay their objectives by claiming that they only want to extend the benefits of marriage to "committed, loving same-sex couples." But now they've finally discarded that fig leaf.
A new lefty activist group called BeyondMarriage.org announces that they don't just want government support for gay "marriage"; they want to officially place multiple sex partner relationships on the same level as heterosexual monogamous marriage:
The struggle for marriage rights should be part of a larger effort to strengthen the stability and security of diverse households and families. To that end, we advocate:
- Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families -- regardless of kinship or conjugal status.
- Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance.
Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people -- whatever their sexual and gender identities -- do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:
- Single parent households
- Senior citizens living together and serving as each other's caregivers (think Golden Girls)
- Blended and extended families
- Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents
- Adult children living with and caring for their parents
- Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives
- Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other's primary support and caregivers
- Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner
Did you catch that last one? "More than one conjugal partner." For years conservatives have warned Americans that this is what the radical homosexual activists have been after, and now they've finally admitted it.
We advocate the expansion of existing legal statuses, social services and benefits to support the needs of all our households.
We call on colleagues working in various social justice movements and campaigns to read the full-text of our statement "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision," and to join us in our call for government support of all our households.
They really do want to eliminate real marriage, and this isn't some tiny splinter group. These folks have some major liberal names in their corner.
Smokescreens like this are going to disappear. Now you know what the real stakes are. Don't say you weren't warned.
Hat tip: Ohio Conservative
Update: Is this next?
Meanwhile, Good As You bobs and weaves. How long until the major gay activist groups line up behind this manifesto? I give it 3 years, tops.
National Review Online sums up the rationale nicely.
I'm curious to find out just how many gays and lesbians there really are in America. The gay rights movement often touts the 10% number (or more), and their opposition claims that the number's closer to 2% (or less). I know it takes time to get the federal government to do anything, so why not start a discussion on using the nonpartisan U.S. Census Bureau to directly ask the question in 2010? I suggest something like:
We'll be much better equipped to make sound public policy if we know how large this segment of the population truly is. We'd also have better figures on their household income, childlessness, and other important statistics. It can't hurt.
What do you think?
College Republicans at the University of Central Oklahoma plan on celebrating a Straight Pride Week:
"The general gist is that if you are a straight student on campus be proud, be loud, this is your time to shine," said college Republican Kyle Houts.
The group has posted fliers on campus that read, "we're here, we're conservative, we're out."
Members of the Gay Alliance for Tolerance and Equality say they consider the College Republican's celebration an attack on gay and lesbian students.
"What is there to say about it, 'I'm proud, and I'm straight and I guess white,' I don't know?" said GATE member Jennifer Rodriguez. "I think they definitely are being discriminatory because there's probably a lot of gay Republicans out there."
How very intolerant and non-diverse of you, Ms. Rodriguez.
Hat tip: Backcountry Conservative
Why do I oppose gay "marriage"? Not because I'm homophobic. Not because I hate homosexuals. Not because I'm a closeted homosexual. Not because I'm stupid. Not because I'm mean. Not because my right-wing overlords commanded me to. All of those accusations are baseless. The reasons I oppose it are straightforward and obvious.
I oppose gay "marriage" because it would harm children, change the definition of marriage, undermine the nuclear family, and wash away the foundation of our society.
I'd be much less annoyed if the gay rights movement would stop getting judges to do their dirty work by forcing their agenda on people who overwhelmingly oppose gay "marriage." This is precisely why we need a Federal Marriage Amendment.
Are you finally paying attention? Missouri is.
Here's the rollcall vote on the vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment. No, I didn't accidentally repeat "vote on." By a vote of 50 to 48, the FMA was kept off the floor and failed to come to a vote. Which two Profiles In Courage weaseled out of taking a position? You get one guess.
I'm glad to see that my two guys, DeWine and Voinovich, voted "yes." I'm not too surprised, since reaching their offices by phone took me two days; the nice staffers who answered said they'd been swamped with calls. We'll see if they take the right stand when it's time to vote on the FMA itself.
On a side note, this filibuster nonsense needs to stop. Just don't blame Democrats alone for today's 60-vote silliness.
If you're not a Christian, you might find this post mildly interesting, but it probably won't tickle your gray cells much. Most of you Christians out there trying to argue against gay "marriage" need to understand my point and adjust your approach.
- The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family.
- Children will suffer most.
- Public schools in every state will embrace homosexuality.
- Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete.
- Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically.
- The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.
- Social Security will be severely stressed.
- Religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized.
- Other nations are watching our march toward homosexual marriage and will follow our lead.
- The gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed.
- The culture war will be over, and the world may soon become "as it was in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37).
I think Greg Koukl over at Stand To Reason does a much better job of persuading undecided people who don't tackle this issue from an evangelical Christian worldview. In Dobson's defense, his audience is almost exclusively evangelical Christians like me, and his excerpted essay aims to get us off our lazy butts and do something about the problem.
Think of it this way. There are plenty of arguments you could use to oppose gay "marriage", signified by the inside of the light brown circle. Some of them have foundations in a Christian worldview (the darker circle). The wise advocate for traditional marriage will select the right intellectual ammunition for each target. You might be convinced that our Christian arguments give you more than enough to get the job done, but non-Christians respond to that approach like a tank responds to a pistol bullet.
Yes, I know we're right. But tactically speaking, your sincere beliefs don't mean anything to someone who doesn't recognize the authority of the Bible. How receptive are you when you hear a muslim arguing that Islam must be the one true faith, because the miraculous beauty and structure of the Quran shows that it couldn't possibly be otherwise? Their source of authority is illegitimate in your worldview. And just like them, you're trying to knock out a tank with a handgun.
If you don't want to be a gooey blob in somebody's tank treads, pick up an intellectual anti-tank missile. Use arguments that stand some chance of getting past the non-Christian's armor. I've highlighted five of Dobson's eleven points that have some promise. Not all of them are potential winning shots, but at least they can do some good.
Try using what you find here:
Commentary on news
I'll keep adding bullets as I find more good material.
Hat tip: Frank Beckwith
Same-sex "marriage" is now legal in Massachusetts. Since the old definition of marriage, "one man and one woman", has been thrown out in favor of "two men ... or two women ... or one man and one woman", I have a question. If marriage is that easy to redefine, then how can anybody oppose stretching it further to include the following examples?
1) three bisexuals from two genders
2) one person who wants to marry himself
3) two married couples who want a temporary "wife-swap lease"
4) two brothers, two sisters, or a brother and a sister
5) an adult mother and son
6) a man who wants to add a second wife and a first husband
7) a man and his dog
8) a man and a girl (aged 17 years and 364 days)
9) a man and a boy (aged 17 years and 364 days)
10) a man and a boy (aged 13)
11) a man and a girl (aged 6)
Somebody please explain to me how formalized government-sanctioned gay "marriage" will stop things like this.
The Massachusetts Legislature today actually passed an amendment banning gay marriage. I'm pleasantly surprised. Governor Romney's sure to sign it, but his request to the Mass Supreme Court to hold off on its order to allow gay marriage will fall on deaf ears. If those judges aren't afraid of ordering the Legislature around, what do you suppose the odds are that they respect a governor?
Now we'll see if they can repeat their feat next year and make the amendment official.
Hugh Hewitt's article in The Weekly Standard, "Without the Consent of the Governed", does a nice job of summarizing why so many of us are so outraged at the gay marriage advocates: they're ramrodding their desires through the courts instead of doing things democratically.
Two other, similar columns are also worth a read:
"Gay Marriage -- An Issue for the People, not the Courts", by Michael B. McClellan
"Strange Bedfellows", by Stanley Kurtz