Boy Scouts of America to Lift Ban on Homosexual Adults

Hey, gotta go with the flow, I guess.

At ABC 10 News, San Diego, "Boy Scouts board ends ban on gay scout leaders."

Also at CNN, "Jon Langbert, a former Boy Scout leader who is gay, says that the lifted ban on gay adult leaders does not go far enough."

Doesn't go far enough? You'll notice that the goal isn't so much to allow gays to participate in the Boy Scouts, but to once again banish altogether the role of religion out of American life, public and private.

This whole turn is horrendous. See, "The Same-Sex Marriage Bait-and-Switch."

12 Year-Old Conservative CJ Pearson's Family Threatened with Death

This is the kid who criticized Obama in a viral video, and who was forced to "take a break" from politics for the safety of his family.

This is the work of the left. The left is evil. Everything it touches is marked for death.

At Gateway Pundit, "12 Year-Old Conservative and Family Target of Death Threats After Criticizing Obama."

Here's the kid's video: "President Obama: Do you really love America?"

And on Twitter, "A leftist bully on Twitter - "Mona Hussein Obama" - threatened him and his family. That's what minions of tyrants do."

The Left, Losing the Debate on Homosexuals and Transgenders, Always Resorts to 'Biological Basis' Fall-Back Position

This is great, from Daniel Payne, at the Federalist, "Left Resorts to ‘Gaslighting’ Tactics In Transgender Debate."

I had to chuckle a couple of times, although the implication of the argument supports the idea that radical homosexual leftists will ratchet ever increasing totalitarian methods to shut down opposition to the left's regressive agenda.

The same-sex marriage bait-and-switch http://t.co/1gu8Ivan7U pic.twitter.com/Vk4pGOHlU2

— The Weekly Standard (@weeklystandard) June 15, 2015

The Same-Sex Marriage Bait-and-Switch

From Jonathan Last, at the Weekly Standard, "You Will Be Assimilated":

You may recall Brendan Eich. The cofounder and CEO of Mozilla was dismissed from his company in 2014 when it was discovered that, six years earlier, he had donated $1,000 to California’s Proposition 8 campaign. That ballot initiative, limiting marriage to one man and one woman, passed with a larger percentage of the vote in California than Barack Obama received nationally in 2012. No one who knew Eich accused him of treating his gay coworkers badly—by all accounts he was kind and generous to his colleagues. Nonetheless, having provided modest financial support to a lawful ballot initiative that passed with a majority vote was deemed horrible enough to deprive Eich of his livelihood. Which is one thing.

What is quite another is the manner in which Eich has been treated since. A year after Eich’s firing, for instance, Hampton Catlin, a Silicon Valley programmer who was one of the first to demand Eich’s resignation, took to Twitter to bait Eich:

Hampton ‏@hcatlin Apr 2

It had been a couple weeks since I’d gotten some sort of @BrendanEich related hate mail. How things going over there on your side, Brendan?

BrendanEich ‏@BrendanEich

@hcatlin You demanded I be “completely removed from any day to day activities at Mozilla” & got your wish. I’m still unemployed. How’re you?

Hampton ‏@hcatlin Apr 2

@BrendanEich married and able to live in the USA! .  .  . and working together on open source stuff! In like, a loving, happy gay married way!

It’s a small thing, to be sure. But telling. Because it shows that the same-sex marriage movement is interested in a great deal more than just the freedom to form marital unions. It is also interested, quite keenly, in punishing dissenters. But the ambitions of the movement go further than that, even. It’s about revisiting legal notions of freedom of speech and association, constitutional protections for religious freedom, and cultural norms concerning the family. And most Americans are only just realizing that these are the societal compacts that have been pried open for negotiation.

Same-sex marriage supporters see this cascade of changes as necessary for safeguarding progress against retrograde elements in society. People less deeply invested in same-sex marriage might see it as a bait-and-switch. And they would be correct. But this is hardly new. Bait-and-switch has been the modus operandi of the gay rights movement not, perhaps, from the start, but for a good long while.

It began at the most elementary factual level: How many Americans are gay? For decades, gay-rights activists pushed the line that 1 out of every 10 people is homosexual. This statistic belied all evidence but was necessary in order to imbue the cause with a sense of ubiquity and urgency. The public fell so hard for this propaganda that in 2012 Gallup did a poll asking people what percentage of the country they thought was gay. The responses were amazing. Women and young adults were the most gullible, saying, on average, that they thought 30 percent of the population was gay. The average American thought that 24 percent of the population—one quarter—was gay. Only 4 percent of respondents said they thought homosexuals made up less than 5 percent of the population.

But even 5 percent turns out to be an exaggeration. The best research to date on American sexual preference is a 2014 study from the Centers for Disease Control with a monster sample of 34,557 adults. It found that 96.6 percent of Americans identified as heterosexual, 1.6 percent identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent as bisexual. The percentage of gays and lesbians isn’t much higher than the percentage of folks who refused to answer the question (1.1 percent).

Then there’s the matter of the roots of homosexuality. Important to the narrative behind the same-sex marriage movement has been the insistence that sexual orientation is genetically determined and not a choice. But now that same-sex marriage is a reality, some activists are admitting that this view might not, strictly speaking, be true. For instance, in the avant-garde webzine n+1, Alexander Borinsky argued that sexuality is a characteristic to be actively constructed by the self. He was making a philosophical argument from the safety of gay marriage’s now-dominant position. Others were less philosophical and more practical. Here, for instance, is how the dancer and writer Brandon Ambrosino tackled the subject in the New Republic in January 2014:

[I]t’s time for the LGBT community to start moving beyond genetic predisposition as a tool for gaining mainstream acceptance of gay rights. .  .  .

For decades now, it’s been the most powerful argument in the LGBT arsenal: that we were “born this way.” .  .  .Still, as compelling as these arguments are, they may have outgrown their usefulness. With most Americans now in favor of gay marriage, it’s time for the argument to shift to one where genetics don’t matter. The genetic argument has boxed us into a corner.

It’s always a little unsettling when a movement that claims the mantle of truth, liberty, and equality starts openly admitting its arguments are mere “tools” to be wielded for their “usefulness.” But that’s where the movement is these days. Remember when proponents of same-sex marriage mocked people who suggested that creating a right to same-sex “marriage” might weaken the institution of marriage itself: How could my gay marriage possibly affect your straight marriage? Those arguments have outlived their usefulness, too. Here’s gay activist Jay Michaelson last year in the Daily Beast:

Moderates and liberals have argued that same-sex marriage is No Big Deal—it’s the Same Love, after all, and gays just want the same lives as everyone else. But further right and further left, things get a lot more interesting. What if gay marriage really will change the institution of marriage, shifting conceptions around monogamy and intimacy? . . .

[T]here is some truth to the conservative claim that gay marriage is changing, not just expanding, marriage. According to a 2013 study, about half of gay marriages surveyed (admittedly, the study was conducted in San Francisco) were not strictly monogamous.

This fact is well-known in the gay community—indeed, we assume it’s more like three-quarters. But it’s been fascinating to see how my straight friends react to it. Some feel they’ve been duped: They were fighting for marriage equality, not marriage redefinition. Others feel downright envious, as if gays are getting a better deal, one that wouldn’t work for straight couples. . . .

What would happen if gay non-monogamy—and I’ll include writer Dan Savage’s “monogamish” model, which involves extramarital sex once a year or so—actually starts to spread to straight people? Would open marriages, ’70s swinger parties, and perhaps even another era’s “arrangements” and “understandings” become more prevalent? Is non-monogamy one of the things same-sex marriage can teach straight ones, along with egalitarian chores and matching towel sets?

And what about those post-racial and post-gender millennials? What happens when a queer-identified, mostly-heterosexual woman with plenty of LGBT friends gets married? Do we really think that because she is “from Venus,” she will be interested in a heteronormative, sex-negative, patriarchal system of partnership? . . .

Radicals point out that gay liberation in the 1970s was, as the name implies, a liberation movement. It was about being free, questioning authority, rebellion. “2-4-6-8, smash the church and smash the state,” people shouted.

Slate’s Hanna Rosin agrees, suggesting that gay marriage won’t just change “normal” marriage, but will do so for the good:

The dirty little secret about gay marriage: Most gay couples are not monogamous. We have come to accept lately, partly thanks to Liza Mundy’s excellent recent cover story in the Atlantic and partly because we desperately need something to make the drooping institution of heterosexual marriage seem vibrant again, that gay marriage has something to teach us, that gay couples provide a model for marriages that are more egalitarian and less burdened by the old gender roles that are weighing marriage down these days.

Of course, not everyone in the same-sex marriage movement wants to help traditional marriage evolve into something better. Some want to burn it to the ground. Again in the New Republic, for instance, one member of a married lesbian couple wrote about her quest to use her own brother’s sperm to impregnate her wife. Why would she seek to do such a thing? Because “The queer parts of me relished the way it unsettled people. Uprooting convention, collapsing categories, reframing and reassigning blood relations was a subversive wet dream.” This is quite intentionally not, as Andrew Sullivan once promised, a “virtually normal” view of marriage.

Other changes are coming...

I'm sure they are.

No surprise to me, of course. I warned about many of these developments over the years since Prop. 8. The hate campaign against dissenters is the least surprising of all. It's been a constant in the news for years now. What's next is the continued marginalization of religion from the public square, and the further evisceration of robust public morality.

Keep reading, in any case.

Again, more specific expectations going forward depend on what happens at the Supreme Court in the coming days. Once we find out how the Court rules, we'll have a better sense of the coming arc of the homosexual agenda. That, and the virtually inevitable majority backlash against same-sex licentiousness and immorality. As I always say, social issues are not settled. Support for homosexual marriage in public opinion has probably peaked. Aggressive hate campaign by the left will drive public opinion back down. This is the worst outcome for the radical left's homosexual activists and SJWs, and they'll do anything to prevent the emergence of a traditional marriage movement rivaling the pro-life movement (and all its successes). This includes destroying lives with complete impunity and even using political violence against dissenters.

America's in for a long cultural war, with thanks to the left's ideological demons of hate and perversity.

How Long Does America Have?

From Robert Wargas, at PJ Media, "Every week this country is consumed in a new distended orgy of polarized, mutual hatred, set against the backdrop of outrage mobs, race riots, shuttered businesses, scandals, Twitter-induced career ruination, gleeful smear parties, and partisan hackery."

It's interesting how the left's homosexual culture war is always indicated in the anarchic breakdown of the inner cities. It's like there's a common thread or something. See, "There Is a 'Real Case' Against Homosexual Marriage. But Nowadays Very Few Are Willing to Make It."

There Is a 'Real Case' Against Homosexual Marriage. But Nowadays Very Few Are Willing to Make It

I don't think anyone seriously doubts that the Supreme Court is on the verge of announcing a national constitutional right to homosexual marriage. Oral arguments begin this week, so there's a lot of new commentary coming out.

But as readers of this blog will recall, I've basically thrown in the towel on this fight --- at least in its current iteration.

The left's culture warriors have won on same-sex marriage. Perhaps there'll be a period of experimentation on the issue, and it's possible that the Court could craft a decision that includes some element of federalism, but mostly we're simply past the moral turning point. In the popular culture, and among the younger demographics, traditional values hold no sway. Frankly, a lot of ignorance and rank stupidity do hold sway, but most leftist arguments aren't intellectual, in any case. They're emotional. And with polls showing that Americans have warmed to the idea of expanding the definition of what's a "civil right," it's simply a fact that "marriage" as it's been understood for millennia will no longer exist. As long as people are programmed to do as they please, with allegedly no individual or social consequences, marriage as the biological regenerative basis of societal reproduction simply can't compete. Again, time will tell if the damaging effects of such change force a cultural reaction to literally save society as we know it, but either way, it ain't gonna be pretty.

In any case, Politico's got a piece up from far-left law professor John Culhane, "There's No Real Case Against Gay Marriage" (at Memeorandum). Culhane, who's a regular columnist at Slate, argues that conservatives are fighting a rear-guard action, designed to fear-monger the Court, warning against the epic damage to come if the justices grant a national right to homosexual licentiousness. Culhane flippantly brushes away these arguments, claiming them to be repudiated and "eviscerated." Actually, they have not been, because the left uniformly brings its own favorable research to bear while simultaneously ignoring or dismissing ideologically conflicting findings as "methodologically unsound." What Culhane does not mention, of course, is that the left's homosexual marriage steamroller has explicitly sought to destroy any and all opponents of the same-sex agenda by any means necessary. It's been an all-out cultural war since Proposition 8 passed in California, for sure. The left has used fascist intimidation, lies and deception, judicial misconduct, and simple political realpolitik opportunism to bring the debate to the critical mass of public approval of moral degeneracy.

Think back over the past few years of cultural conflict. In 2008, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton claimed that marriage was an historic institution embedded in the sacred union of one man and one woman for the moral rebirth of the family. Nowadays, not so much. And California's majority vote in 2008 to secure the traditional standing of marriage in the state constitution? Swept away by the federal courts and homosexual judges with massive conflicts of interest, ethics or standards be damned. Popular culture? "Duck Dynasty" is still going strong, having beaten back a vicious jihad by the left's culture warriors, and for what? The depraved Hollywood hedonist culture keeps marching on. Chick-fil-A? The company's stronger than ever. But the leftist Obama-enabling state media continues to demonize those who stand for old-fashioned values. The list goes on. In short, traditional culture has been affirmed again and again as the ugly fascist homosexual left revealed its true diabolical agenda. Screw families. If your kid is traditional he or she will be kicked out of school. Screw religion. Biblical teachings have been redefined as "hate speech." Screw science. You're not down with transgender "women" using public restrooms with your pre-teen little girl? Hater!

I've made the case against homosexual marriage for years. (Check the archives. Try various searches.) These days, I rarely see very many new arguments under the sun. The fact is America has abandoned God-given moral standards. The left has destroyed the fundamental idea of right and wrong in the name of touchy-feely political correctness that's turned the country into a barren wasteland of abomination. And that's just what the regressive left wants. Leftists seek to destroy traditional America and bring about the Gramscian Marxist collective of the wretched and deranged. They're succeeding. And society's becoming more polarized by the day. Regular Americans --- the silent majority --- will increasingly abandon statist conceptions of the public good and retreat into family and small communities to escape the tyranny of the leftist regime foisted by the Democrats and the Washington political class. We'll see a growing "Hunger Games" politics with increasing resistance in the states (the "districts"), and ultimately a revolution of values that will rend the country along lines so divisive the import will be tantamount to a new civil war. And even then, there'll be no guarantee of change or improvement. Perhaps enough traditionalists who decide to "go Galt" will force an apocalyptic moment on the political class. Maybe we'll see a constitutional revolution, with perpetual demands for an Article 5 convention. Perhaps we'll have a "double-dip" recession to make 2008-2010 look like the good old days. No doubt regular folks will proudly announce they're clinging to their guns and religion, and they'll proclaim they're willing to die for their God-given rights. Rioting will further become a permanent feature of Obama's America, and those of his Democrat Party successors. This is the future that's coming, thanks to the destructive politics of the radical left hordes and their take-no-prisoners social war that's now reached a head this week.

In any case, Culhane cites and dismisses the "amicus brief of 100 scholars of marriage," but it seems clear that should conservative forces lose this year, a cataclysmic moment will have been reached. Get in, sit down, and shut up. We're in for a ride.

And see the Public Discourse, "Redefining Marriage Would Put Kids of Heterosexuals at Risk":

The metamorphosis of marriage from a gendered to a genderless institution would send the message that society no longer needs men to bond to women to form well-functioning families or to raise happy, well-adjusted children. That would be bad news for children of heterosexuals on the margins: the poor, the relatively uneducated, the irreligious, and others who are susceptible to cultural messages promoting casual or uncommitted sex.

*****

Marriage is a complex social institution that, like all social institutions, regulates and encourages certain human behaviors. Without effective social institutions, no amount of law and law enforcement can make a society function properly. Marriage reinforces particular values and actions that benefit society, both broadly and individually. As Professor Amy Wax has observed: “Marriage’s long track record as a building block for families and a foundation for beneficial relations between the sexes suggests that ordinary people desperately need the anchor of clear expectations, and that they respond to them.” Or, as the Sixth Circuit put it, at least some citizens “may well need the government’s encouragement to create and maintain stable relationships within which children may flourish.”

That is why states have traditionally supported man-woman marriage, an institution that has historically and universally been linked to procreation, marking the boundaries where sexual reproduction is socially commended. This underlying message helps achieve a principal purpose of marriage: any children born will have a known mother and father who have the responsibility to care for them. Even ancient Greek and Roman societies understood this. Despite encouraging same-sex intimate relations, they limited marriage to man-woman unions.

Of course, marriage provides benefits to adults as well. But these are secondary to the main purpose of an institution that, in the words of revered psychologist Bronislaw Malinowski, is “primarily designed by the needs of offspring, by the dependence of the children upon their parents.” Indeed, as the religious skeptic Bertrand Russell candidly observed, “But for children, there would be no need for any institution concerned with sex.”

From this purpose—ensuring the care of any children born to man-woman unions—flow several specific secular norms, norms that are “taught” and reinforced by the man-woman definition and understanding of marriage:

1. Biological Bonding and Support: Where possible, every child has a right to be reared by and to bond with her biological father and mother. And every child has a right, whenever possible, to be supported financially by the man and woman who brought the child into the world.

2. Gender Diversity: Where possible, a child should be raised by a mother and a father who are committed to each other and to the child, even where he cannot be raised by both biological parents.

3. Postponement: Men and women should postpone procreation until they are within the committed, long-term relationship of marriage. This is alternatively called the “responsible creation” or “channeling” norm.

4. Valuing Procreation/Child-Rearing: Within the protection and stability of marriage, the creation and rearing of children are socially valuable.

5. Exclusivity: For the sake of their children, men and women should limit themselves to a single procreative partner.

All of these specific norms are grounded in and support the more general norm of child-centricity: Parents and prospective parents should give the interests of their children—present and future—equal if not higher priority than their own.

Common sense and social science show that these norms provide immense benefits to children, their parents and society. In short, children generally do best emotionally, socially, intellectually, and economically when reared in an intact home by both biological parents. More specifically, as the brief documents in detail, compared to any other family structure, children raised by their biological, married parents are less likely to commit crimes, experience teen pregnancy, have multiple abortions, engage in substance abuse, suffer from mental illness, or do poorly in school. They are also more likely to support themselves and their own children in the future. No other parenting arrangement comes close (on average) to that of a child’s biological, married mother and father.

This is true because of the power of the norms stemming from man-woman marriage. For instance, biological bonds between parents and their child deepen their investments in their relationships with each other and with the child. Further, having both a mother and a father provides crucial gender diversity for a child’s social and emotional development. As famed anthropologist (and atheist) Margaret Mead noted: “One of the most important learnings for every human child is how to be a full member of its own sex and at the same time fully relate to the opposite sex. This is not an easy learning; it requires the continuing presence of a father and a mother.”

Vibrant child-centricity and biological support norms lead to less physical and sexual abuse, neglect, and divorce. And parents who embrace the procreative exclusivity norm are unlikely to have children with multiple partners—a phenomenon that leads to social, emotional and financial difficulties for children and their mothers. Similarly, people who embrace the postponement norm are less likely to have children without a second, committed parent—another well-established predictor of psychological, emotional and financial heartache.

On the other hand, a culture that largely rejects the social value of creating and rearing children jeopardizes a society’s ability to reproduce itself. It is thus not surprising that some courts have deemed man-woman marriage “the fundamental unit of the political order … [for] the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.”

More at the link.

And check for updates at Memeorandum.

Children Raised by Homosexual Couples at Serious Risk

From Oscar Robert Lopez, at American Thinker, "The Gay Marriage Wake-Up Call."

The Death of Free Speech on Campus

Leftists are the problem, and they won't be forgiven.

From Pat Condell:

Laurie Burchfield Testimony on Idaho's HB 2 Homosexual Rights Bill

At Idaho's Spokesman-Review, "Testimony: 'Ramifications upon my church,' questions on bathroom use, 'parading their genitalia'."

Here's the bill:

“Our laws are designed to protect and keep safe the citizens of Idaho… Everyone should be free to go to a public restroom without fear of people with confused sexual orientation exposing themselves to our children or flagrantly and unnecessarily parading their genitalia in the locker rooms of our YMCAs and gyms.”

I'm surprised she wasn't arrested right then and there for thought crimes and hate speech.

Cassandra Fairbanks Poses Covered Topless for Walter James Casper III

Repsac3 was reaching out to the scuzzy leftist bitch over the summer, so Cassandra's now returning the favor with some communist covered topless for the far-left loser.

Here, "This isn't the 50s. Slut shaming, body shaming, and general disdain for women is lame. Boobs are awesome, fuck you."

.@CassandraRules Thinkin' I might have a cookie too. @beautifulchaosJ @drginaloudon http://t.co/DaAvrWJxbv Keep respectfully reaching out.
— Walter James Casper (@repsac3) July 17, 2014

.@RSMcCain Here's "Cassandra" calling a pro-Israel demonstrator a 'Zionist piece of shit.' https://t.co/YrNLBy2ban Repsac's BFF now too lol.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) August 3, 2014

So disgusting. All of these people. No beauty. No decency. Just hate.

Liberals Leftists Are Killing the Liberal Arts

Christ, we're doomed.

From Harvey Silverglate, at WSJ, "Hypersensitivity to the trauma allegedly inflicted by listening to controversial ideas approaches a strange form of derangement — a disorder whose lethal spread in academia grows by the day."

A Smith College alumna is labeled a racist for defending free speech. http://t.co/SkWVoK7Qu4
— WSJ Editorial Page (@WSJopinion) November 10, 2014

'I’ll check my white male privilege right after you check your arrogant liberal [leftist] assumptions...'

From Frau Katze, at Blazing Cat Fur:

This is what I hate about progressivism. It’s such a dry, gray, joyless thing. It leaves no room for anyone to have an actual identity of their own. It doesn’t illuminate. It doesn’t enlighten. It doesn’t encourage open expression. It simply turns the lights off and tells everyone to shut up and play along.

Indeed, it's a sickness. If Ebola doesn't kill us, the left's secular collectivist totalitarianism most surely will.

George Will Disinvited from Scripps College Speaking Engagement

This is quite a story, at National Review, "Scripps College Disinvited George Will from Speaking Series Focused on Different Views for Having Different Views."

And from Ed Morrissey, at Hot Air, "George Will speech at Scripps College canceled because of tolerance, or something":

This story begins almost four months ago, when Washington Post columnist George Will challenged the Obama administration’s attempts to use debunked data to push a narrative of an epidemic of sexual assaults on American college campuses. Will also criticized the expansion of the term “sexual assault” to a nearly meaningless definition, and the demand by the White House for colleges to use a minimal standard of evidence to “convict” the accused. For being one of the first to call foul on the Department of Education’s efforts, Will earned the ire of progressives and activists, and one newspaper stopped carrying his column when the controversy erupted over his opinion.

Since then, plenty of people have joined Will in questioning the actions, motives, and outcomes of the Obama administration’s insistence that a sexual assault epidemic has erupted and kangaroo campus courts are the remedy, including myself, and especially Ashe Schow at the Washington Examiner.  That emergence of a legitimate debate over what looks very much like a new McMartin Preschool-style witch hunt made little difference to Scripps College, which invited Will to deliver a speech — and then disinvited him...

More. Via Memeorandum.

Colleges really aren't places of diversity of thought. Perhaps they were at one time, but nowadays anyone who deviates from the hard-left ideological orthodoxy is not welcomed, and indeed will be demonized, excoriated, and boycotted.

The left is leading the closing of the American mind.

BONUS: Here's Will's offending column, at WaPo, from June, "Colleges become the victims of progressivism."

The Left's Religion of Unhappiness

From Daniel Greenfield, at FrontPage Magazine, "The left doesn’t want to be happy; it wants you to be miserable."

Homosexual Rights Could Reshape Legacy of Supreme Court

I fully expect the Court to announce a national right to homosexual marriage. The justices had a chance last year to push back against the left's depraved homosexual agenda and caved. The ruling on California's Proposition 8 case was especially craven. I have no confidence that the Court will stand up for traditional values. Indeed, homosexual marriage has jumped the shark as far as I'm concerned. The left prevailed, by any means necessary. I do expect that the culture will shift back in favor of traditionalism (as is already happening, as per the Pew poll out recently on religion in public life), so it's way too early to rule out a comeback for decency and morality.

As I've said all along, the history of the abortion movement provides a classic case of common sense prevailing over the left's horrific culture of death. Given enough time, homosexuality will further destroy the foundations of the progressive consensus on same-sex licentiousness and decay. Common sense will prevail in time, especially should diseases such as HIV, now enormously overrepresented among young minority barebacking homosexuals, break out into an epidemic afflicting more and more of the general population.

But all of this takes times. We'll see how it goes.

Meanwhile, at WaPo, "As Supreme Court term begins, prospect of a gay-marriage ruling looms large":

The 10th edition of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. begins work Monday with the prospect of a monumental ruling for gay rights that could serve as a surprising legacy of an otherwise increasingly conservative court.

Whether the justices will decide that the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry dominates expectations of the coming term; such a ruling would impart landmark status on a docket that so far lacks a blockbuster case.

And some say it would be a defining moment for a closely divided court that bears the chief justice’s name but is most heavily influenced by the justice in the middle: Anthony M. Kennedy, who has written the court’s most important decisions affording protection to gay Americans.

“If the court establishes a right to same-sex marriage . . . [it] will go down in history as one that was on the frontiers of establishing rights for gays and lesbians,” said David A. Strauss, a constitutional-law scholar at the University of Chicago.

“The rough idea would be that the Roberts court would be to the rights of gays and lesbians what the Warren court was on race issues.”

Keep reading.

U.C. Berkeley Chancellor Places Limits on 'Free Speech'

The ultimate in civility bullshit.

Christina Hoff Sommers tweets:

Place this annoying letter from Berkeley Chancellor to all students in file called "mealy-mouthed doublespeak." http://t.co/UV3ASn4azZ

— Christina H. Sommers (@CHSommers) September 6, 2014

And see Downtrend, "U.C. Berkeley Sets Free Speech Limits: Must Be Courteous and Respectful."

'We are Hamas!… From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!'

And so it goes, via Gateway Pundit, "Muslims in Miami Chant “Let’s Go Hamas!… From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free!” (Video)."



PREVIOUSLY: "Los Angeles #Gaza Protesters Demand Extermination of Israel and Death to the Jews," and "Walter James Casper 'Reaching Out' to Anti-Israel #ANSWER Communist 'CassandraRules'."

Also, "Cassandra Rules: 'It's Troubling' That Jew-Hating Leftists 'Are Being Painted as Anti-Semitic...'"

Cassandra Rules: 'It's Troubling' That Jew-Hating Leftists 'Are Being Painted as Anti-Semitic...'

What a sad, evil, hate-addled communist stooge.

Here's "Cassandra's" bizarre and normatively evil tweet from this morning:

It's really troubling and absurd to me that people who are concerned about basic human rights are being painted as anti Semitic.
— Cassandra (@CassandraRules) July 23, 2014

And now just refer to Blazing Cat Fur, "From Today's Gaza March In France":

#photo2 #manifgaza pic.twitter.com/kVrV0aeHzX
— Olivier Faye (@olivierfaye) July 23, 2014

PREVIOUSLY: "Los Angeles #Gaza Protesters Demand Extermination of Israel and Death to the Jews," and "Walter James Casper 'Reaching Out' to Anti-Israel #ANSWER Communist 'CassandraRules'."

Yes, because Repsac's always reaching out to leftists who endorse anti-Semitic hatred, genocidal hook-nosed imagery, and collectivist hatred. That's who he is.

Walter James Casper 'Reaching Out' to Anti-Israel #ANSWER Communist 'CassandraRules'

Following up from my previous entry, "Los Angeles #Gaza Protesters Demand Extermination of Israel and Death to the Jews."

Just wanted to get on record how my racist, anti-Semitic hate-troll stalker is "reaching out" to the ANSWER communists I've been covering at the blog. Seriously. This dude is one messed up stalking troll:

.@CassandraRules Thinkin' I might have a cookie too. @beautifulchaosJ @drginaloudon http://t.co/DaAvrWJxbv Keep respectfully reaching out.

— W. James Casper (@repsac3) July 17, 2014

She's not a good person, an America-bashing anti-Israel Jew-hater. Just Repsac's kind. Israel is no different from Nazi Germany. BDS much?

The people speaking out for Gaza right now are the same people who would have been speaking out against the Nazis.
— Cassandra (@CassandraRules) July 17, 2014

TELL ME HOW THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN NAZI GERMANY. SOMEONE FUCKING TELL ME RIGHT NOW http://t.co/tRkVjcahLV
— Cassandra (@CassandraRules) July 18, 2014

Bonus "Cassandra" tweeting an upside down American flag from the Anaheim anti-brutality protest:

Suck it flag wavers. #Anaheim pic.twitter.com/uvJ5yFmoS0
— Cassandra (@CassandraRules) July 19, 2014

And one of "Cassandra's" Anonymous pals, death-wishing Israeli Jews:

Good. More dead Israeli soldiers please RT @AmPowerBlog: Israeli soldier from Los Angeles is killed in Gaza. #Israel http://t.co/DG5qAQjOQk

— Captain Howdy (@jackherer20) July 21, 2014

You can see why Repsac's "reaching out" to these demons. Sheesh.

Racist stalking hate-troll Walter James Casper III. One sick mofo, man.

Your Legal Right to Takes Photos in Public --- of Just About Anything

From Glenn Reynolds, "On photography, cops need to get a clue":

It's legal in America to take pictures of public buildings — and pretty much everything and everyone else in public. That's something that law enforcement agencies routinely take advantage of in arguing that people have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" when they're out and about and being surveilled by the government.

That everyone else includes police officers, despite their protestations, and private citizens, like the ANSWER thugs who used criminal violence in an attempt to shut down "American Power."

More from Professor Reynolds at the link.