The Sword Drops: Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade; Clarence Thomas Says Contraceptives, Gay Rights, and Homosexual Marriage on the Chopping Block (VIDEO)

The day has come. The Sword of Damocles has crashed down on the constitutional right to an abortion. The Court's decision is the most consequential in generations, and will make the abortion issue even more contentious and controversial than it's been already.

But contra the Democrats, especially President Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, it's doubtful that "abortion will be on the ballot" this fall. Bread and butter issues, kitchen table issues, will be on the ballot, and what better way for the radical Democrat Party to try to change the subject, try to turn the page on the misery the great majority of Americans are feeling amid the worst economy since the 1980s. 

It's a big day. 

At the Los Angeles Times, "In historic reversal, Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade, frees states to outlaw abortion: The ruling marks the most significant curtailing of an established constitutional right in the Supreme Court’s history":

WASHINGTON — In a historic reversal, the Supreme Court on Friday overturned the landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision and ruled states may again outlaw abortion.

The court’s conservative majority said the Constitution does not protect the rights of women to choose abortion and instead leaves these decisions in the hands of state lawmakers.

The 5-4 ruling marks the most significant curtailing of an established constitutional right in the court’s history.

The opinion written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. closely tracks a draft that was leaked by Politico in May.

“We hold that Roe and [the 1992 Planned Parenthood vs.] Casey must be overruled,” Alito wrote. “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.”

The opinion was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. concurred but did not join the majority opinion in overturning Roe, saying he would have upheld only a Mississippi 15-week ban on abortion. That made the decision to uphold Mississippi’s law a 6-3 opinion.

“The court’s decision to overrule Roe and Casey is a serious jolt to the legal system,” Roberts wrote.

The court’s three liberal justices — Justice Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — dissented.

“Today, the court ... says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of,” their dissent read. “A state can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs.”

The dissenting justices concluded, “Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens.”

The ruling figures to set off a fierce political fight nationwide and state by state as politicians and voters weigh in on whether abortion should be restricted or prohibited entirely.

Opinion polls show most Americans support access to abortion, at least in the early months of a pregnancy. Nevertheless, half the states are expected to seek to quickly enforce laws that make most abortions illegal.

The decision is the high court’s most far-reaching reversal on a matter of constitutional rights since 1954, when the justices reversed six decades of precedent and struck down laws authorizing racial segregation.

But that unanimous decision in Brown vs. Board of Education expanded the rights of individuals and rejected conservative state laws, while today’s does the opposite. It empowers states and reverses what had been the most significant women’s rights ruling in the court’s history.

For the U.S. Catholic bishops as well as evangelical Christians who believe abortion ends a human life and is immoral, the ruling is a triumph decades in the making. They had refused to accept the idea the Constitution protected abortion as a fundamental right...

Keep reading.

 

The Hateful Ideology and Rhetoric of Homosexual Rights

I get some mean and nasty homosexuals at my college. And to think, it's been 10 years since Proposition 8. Maybe a deep backlash is setting in, and none too soon.

Read Andrew "Milky Loads" Sullivan, at New York Magazine:

Andrew Sullivan: Since achieving marriage rights, there’s been a radicalization of the gay rights movement’s ideology and rhetoric https://t.co/naGSy5UjH4

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) January 28, 2018

"The sewer of most of Twitter is now so rank that even addicts have begun to realize that they are sinking in oceans of shitholery."

https://t.co/emm9BvPYSw via @intelligencer

— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) January 26, 2018

"Social media has turned journalism into junk, has promoted addictive addlement in our brains, is wrecking our democracy, and slowly replacing life with pseudo-life."

https://t.co/emm9BvPYSw via @intelligencer

— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) January 26, 2018

The Slow Fade to Social Depravity

On Twitter:

New Gallup poll tells a tale on the state of our culture, and it’s not good https://t.co/ZTw4tH2q5i

— LifeSiteNews.com (@LifeSite) June 13, 2017

Anyone who knows me personally knows that I am not a pessimist; however, what I am going to say might cause angst among some in the pro-life and pro-family movement, especially Catholics.

A recent Gallup poll exposed three terrible truths. First, we are not succeeding in transforming hearts and minds to cultivate and sustain a Culture of Life. Second, we are losing the younger generation to materialism, secularism and moral relativism. Third, the moral compass and Christian conscience in America is systematically being phased out of existence while indifference and tolerance of evil fill the void.

I readily admit that I usually place little emphasis upon polls; however, the results of this survey highlight and parallel trends we see around the world. Societies are radically rejecting centuries of Judeo-Christian beliefs concerning life and family while embracing a secular view of life and the human person.

How did we get here? It's been a slow fade. The acceptance of homosexual marriage. Normalizing it. Flaunting it. Adoring it like a god. https://t.co/HEarItXX5J

— Terri Green (@TerriGreenUSA) June 13, 2017

And don't forget normalizing transgender ideology and depravity. Christian values are playing defense. It's an assault on decency.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 13, 2017

Court Rules Kentucky Print Shop Has Right to Avoid Making Gay Pride T-shirts

Good.

Screw the homosexual Nazis.

At WSJ (via Memeorandum and Vox Populi):

Court Rules Kentucky Print Shop Has Right to Avoid Making Gay Pride Shirts... https://t.co/xEoLZoiPgp

— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) May 13, 2017

A Kentucky appellate court on Friday ruled that the Christian owner of a printing shop in Lexington had the right to refuse to make T-shirts promoting a local gay pride festival.

The dispute represents the latest court fight testing the limits of antidiscrimination protections for gays and lesbians following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 landmark ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

The cases have led to a number of state court rulings against Christian-owned businesses that refused to bake cakes, design floral arrangements or take portrait photographs for same-sex weddings.

The ruling by the Kentucky Court of Appeals favored the business owner. A crucial difference in this case was the expressive nature of the service denied: literally words on a shirt.

In a split vote, a three-judge panel concluded that the store, Hands on Originals, couldn’t be forced to print a message with which the owner disagreed.

The dispute started in 2012 when Gay and Lesbian Services Organization in Kentucky asked Hands on Originals to make T-shirts with the name and logo of a pride festival...

Flashback to the Weekly Standard, "You Will Be Assimilated":

You Will Be Assimilatedhttp://t.co/1gu8Ivan7U pic.twitter.com/dguZejRK72

— The Weekly Standard (@weeklystandard) June 26, 2015

Will X. Walters, Plaintiff in San Diego Gay Pride Nudity Case, Dead of an Apparent Suicide (VIDEO)

What a waste.

At the San Diego Union-Tribune, "Man who lost gay pride nudity case against SDPD dies of apparent suicide":

A man who unsuccessfully sued San Diego police over his public nudity arrest at a gay pride festival was found dead Wednesday night at his Hillcrest apartment in an apparent suicide, authorities said.

The death of Will X. Walters comes about two weeks after a federal jury delivered the verdict in favor of police.

Walters’ attorney, Chris Morris, said Walters was shocked by the Dec. 13 verdict and immediately left the downtown San Diego federal courthouse after it was announced.

Morris said he hadn’t heard from Walters since and had tried to reach him in the days that followed. Friends also tried checking on him, the lawyer said.

San Diego police were called to the apartment by a neighbor late Wednesday.

His time of death was not known. The county Medical Examiner’s Office said the death remained under investigation.

“Will Walters was a valiant warrior for his cause, and he will be missed by those who knew him and the community he fought for,” Morris said Thursday...

Maybe he should have just paid the fines, or whatever, and let it go.

This case isn't worth taking your life. But apparently, his identity as a homosexual man was everything and he wanted that fully validated, or else. I'll bet the guy was a pushy in-your-face advocate for same-sex marriage and all that. Homosexual activists are like that.

More (via Memeorandum).

Supreme Court Justices Return to Face Volatile Docket

I was just thinking about the Court's new term this week, since I'm doing civil liberties in my classes and I thought I might show my students an article or two or the coming term, which starts (each year) at the beginning of October.

So, what do you know?

See the New York Times, "Supreme Court Faces Volatile, Even if Not Blockbuster, Docket":

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, awaiting the outcome of a presidential election that will determine its future, returns to the bench this week to face a volatile docket studded with timely cases on race, religion and immigration.

The justices have been shorthanded since Justice Antonin Scalia died in February, and say they are determined to avoid deadlocks. That will require resolve and creativity.

“This term promises to be the most unpredictable one in many, many years,” said Neal K. Katyal, a former acting United States solicitor general in the Obama administration now with Hogan Lovells.

There is no case yet on the docket that rivals the blockbusters of recent terms addressing health care, abortion or same-sex marriage. But such cases are rare, whether there are eight justices or nine.

“This term’s cases are not snoozers,” said Elizabeth B. Wydra, the president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group. “This term features important cases about racial bias in the criminal justice system, voting rights and redistricting, immigration and detention, and accountability for big banks that engaged in racially discriminatory mortgage lending practices.”

There are, moreover, major cases on the horizon, including ones on whether a transgender boy may use the boys’ restroom in a Virginia high school and on whether a Colorado baker may refuse to serve a same-sex couple.

“If either of these cases is taken, it will almost immediately become the highest profile case on the court’s docket,” said Steven Shapiro, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

There is also the possibility that a dispute over the outcome of the presidential election could end up at the Supreme Court, as it did in 2000 in Bush v. Gore.

“That is the doomsday scenario in some respects of having an eight-member court,” said Carter G. Phillips, a lawyer with Sidley Austin. A deadlocked Supreme Court would leave in place the lower court ruling and oust the justices from their role as the final arbiters of federal law.

Race figures in many of the new term’s most important cases, including two to be heard in October, and that seems to be part of a new trend. “The court hasn’t had a lot of cases recently dealing with race in the criminal justice system,” said Jeffrey L. Fisher, a law professor at Stanford.

In June, a dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought a new perspective to the issue. Citing James Baldwin’s “The Fire Next Time” and Ta-Nehisi Coates’s “Between the World and Me,” she insisted that the brutal history and contemporary reality of racism in the United States must play a role in the court’s analysis.

That dissent may prove influential, said Justin Driver, a law professor at the University of Chicago. “One item to keep an eye on this term,” he said, “is the extent to which the Black Lives Matters movement makes its presence felt on the court’s docket.”

On Wednesday, the court will hear arguments in Buck v. Davis, No. 15-8049. It arose from an extraordinary assertion by an expert witness in the death penalty trial of Duane Buck, who was convicted of the 1995 murders of a former girlfriend and one of her friends while her young children watched. The expert, presented by the defense, said that black men are more likely to present a risk of future danger.

The justices will decide whether Mr. Buck, who is black, may challenge his death sentence based on the ineffectiveness of the trial lawyer who presented that testimony.

“The Buck case raises questions that could not be more relevant to ongoing conversations sparked by police shootings about implicit bias and stereotyping of African-American men as violent and dangerous,” Ms. Wydra said. “The Roberts court, and particularly the chief justice himself, has often been reluctant to acknowledge the reality of systemic racism in this country, but the egregious facts of the Buck case make it impossible to avoid.”

On Oct. 11, the court will consider another biased statement, this one ascribed to a juror during deliberations in a sexual assault trial. “I think he did it because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want,” the juror said of the defendant, according to a sworn statement from a second juror.

The question in the case, Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado, No. 15-606, is how to balance the interest in keeping jury deliberations secret against the importance of ridding the criminal justice system of racial and ethnic bias.

Race also figures in cases on redistricting, fair housing and malicious prosecution...

Well, that's a lot of stuff on race and criminal justice, but I can't wait to see the Court take up the transgender restroom issue, to say nothing of the homosexual wedding cakes. You gotta ask how far is the culture war going to succeed in rending our country into that which is totally unrecognizable.

But keep reading. We'll certainly know in due time.

Hillary Clinton to Give Speech Attacking Donald Trump and the 'Alt-Right'

So, this is the big deal for the day.

Hillary's gonna smear Donald Trump and the "alt-right" as reactionary racists threatening a Fourth Reich in America.

Oh brother.

I posted on the alt-right in May, "Trump Trolls, the Alt-Right, Neo-Reactionaries, and Anti-Semitism."

Frankly, the movement's mostly harmless, especially the Milo Yiannopoulos brand. Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson (Prison Planet) are pretty harmless too.

I would warn against some of the more hardcore varieties, however, folks that cluster more closely to the Stormfront types. You've got real racism over there, and of course some anti-Semitism. Naturally the media's gonna highlight these latter groups as totally representative of the "alt-right," thus smearing Donald Trump and his legions of supporters. These are the regular everyday folks in flyover America, those whom Salena Zito has been talking to all election season. See, "Stumped by Trump's Success?"

In any case, David Weigel (no friend of mine who blocked me on Twitter years ago) has a background piece up at WaPo, "What’s the alt-right? A primer." Weigel was at the libertarian Reason years ago, but he increasingly moved left. For a while he had that prime gig posting the "Right Now" column at WaPo, but was then outed (and fired) in the JournoList scandal as a pathetic partisan hack who made ugly attacks on opponents of homosexual marriage. (For some reason, WaPo rehired Weigel a couple of years ago, as if nothing ever happened. I guess the idiot got down on his knees for forgiveness, or more.)

So, FWIW, here's this from his piece today (via Memeorandum and Hot Air):

On Thursday, with an unusual amount of fanfare, Hillary Clinton will give a speech denouncing the "alt-right" and delineating ways in which Donald Trump has inflamed racist sentiment. On the alt-right itself, the speech is being welcomed as a sort of coming-out party; alt-right figures are finding their phones and email boxes glowing with new messages, asking to explain who they are and what they think.

While reporters like Rosie Gray, Olivia Nuzzi, and Benjy Sarlin have reported on the alt-right's success for a year, and while the Southern Poverty Law Center has closely monitored its success, the movement remains elastically defined, harboring some terms and personalities that remain obscure or impenetrable. This is a guide — which can and will be updated — to the basics.

'The Camp of the Saints'

A 1973 French novel by Jean Raspail, published as "Le Camp des Saints," which envisions an immigrant invasion of France, and which many on the alt-right view as prophetic. In a 2005 essay for the American Conservative, after riots in France, commentator (and future Michelle Bachmann collaborator) Jim Pinkerton cited Raspail's novel at length to ask why Europe had not realized it was committing "national suicide."

As Raspail describes the scene aboard the immigrant convoy, “Everywhere, rivers of sperm. Streaming over bodies, oozing between breasts, and buttocks, and thighs, and lips, and fingers … a welter of dung and debauch.”

But France is persuaded that these people are a “million Christs,” whose arrival will “signal the dawn of a just, new day.” In other words, Raspail writes, what the French are lacking is a proper sense of national-racial consciousness, “the knowledge that one’s own is best, the triumphant joy at feeling oneself to be part of humanity’s finest.” Instead, he concludes, after having been beaten down by decades of multicultural propaganda, “the white race” has become “nothing more than a million sheep.”

Raspail's vision has been cited frequently at Breitbart News, especially when a major Western leader criticizes anti-immigrant sentiment. "Now, as in the novel, prominent political officials are urging on ever larger waves," wrote Breitbart's Julia Hahn in 2015. "Secular and religious leaders hold hands to pressure blue collar citizens to drop their resistance; media elites and celebrities zealously cheer the opportunity that the migrants provide to atone for the alleged sins of the West — for the chance to rebalance the wealth and power of the world by allowing poor migrants from failed states to rush in to claim its treasures."

Keep reading.

Via Memeorandum.

How Gender Dysphoric Bathroom Access Became the Next Frontier in America's Culture Wars

Heh.

This issue shouldn't even be a thing. But leave it to leftists. For them, it's permanent revolution. There's never enough "progress."

At NYT, "Transgender Americans See Their Personal Battle Become a National Showdown":

.@nytimes Leftists rammed their postmodern gender dysphoria crap down our throats? #LGBTyranny

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) May 21, 2016

How a clash over bathrooms, an issue that appeared atop no national polls, became the next frontier in America’s fast-moving culture wars — and ultimately landed on the desk of the president — involves an array of players, some with law degrees, others still in high school.

The sweeping directive to public schools seemed to come out of nowhere. In fact, it was the product of years of study inside the government and a highly orchestrated campaign by advocates for gay and transgender people. Mindful of the role “Whites Only’’ bathrooms played in the civil rights battles of more than half a century ago, they have been maneuvering behind the scenes to press federal agencies, and ultimately Mr. Obama, to address a question that has roiled many school districts: Should those with differing anatomies share the same bathrooms?

The lobbying came to a head, according to people who were involved, in a hastily called April 1 meeting between top White House officials — led by Valerie Jarrett, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser and one of his closest confidantes — and national leaders of the gay and transgender rights movement. North Carolina had just become the first state to explicitly bar transgender people from using the bathrooms of their choice.

“Transgender students are under attack in this country,” said Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington-based advocacy group that is active on the issue, summing up the message he sought to convey to Ms. Jarrett that day. “They need their federal government to stand up for them.”

Ms. Jarrett and her team, he said, listened politely, but “did not reveal much,” including the fact that a legal directive on transgender rights that had been in the works for months was about to be released.

When — or precisely how — Mr. Obama personally weighed in is not clear; the White House would not provide specifics. But two days before that meeting, scores of advocacy groups sent Mr. Obama a private letter, appealing to his sense of history as he nears the end of his presidency, in which he has already advanced gay and transgender rights on multiple fronts.

“Too many students — including every single transgender, intersex, and gender-nonconforming student in North Carolina — will go to sleep tonight dreading the next school day,” the groups wrote, telling him that “your legacy will be defined by the tone you have set and the personal leadership you have shown on these issues.”

The dispute in Palatine came amid increasing confusion for school districts over how to handle questions about bathroom access for transgender students. Officials at the Department of Education said it had received hundreds of requests for guidance — so many that advocates for gay and transgender rights, frustrated by the Obama administration’s failure to issue specific policy guidelines, decided to act on their own.

In August, several groups seeking protection for transgender people — including the Human Rights Campaign, the National Education Association and the National Center for Lesbian Rights — issued a 68-page guide for schools, hoping to provide a blueprint for the White House.

At the Department of Education, Catherine E. Lhamon, 44, a former civil rights litigator who runs the agency’s Office of Civil Rights — and has made aggressive use of a federal nondiscrimination law known as Title IX — was taking the lead. The department’s ruling in favor of Student A in November was the first time it had found any school district in violation of civil rights over transgender issues.

For Student A, the federal intervention has been life changing. Her mother, who requested anonymity to protect the privacy of her daughter, said she was close to finishing her junior year and had just gone to the prom with a group of friends. (She wore a “nice, expensive dress” with a lot of sparkles, her mother said.) Student A is starting to think about which college she might attend.

“She’s in her own teenaged world right now,” her mother said.

The ruling in Palatine reverberated across the Midwest. In the South Dakota Legislature, Republicans were so alarmed by the situation in Palatine that, in February, they passed a measure restricting bathroom access for transgender students — similar to the one that later became law in North Carolina. Opponents sent transgender South Dakotans to meet with Gov. Dennis Daugaard, a Republican, and they believe that influenced his veto of the bill.

Among the visitors was Kendra Heathscott, who was 10 when she first met Mr. Daugaard, then the executive director of a social services organization that treats children with behavioral problems. In his office to lobby against the bathroom measure, she reintroduced herself. “He remembered me as a little boy,” she said.

In Wisconsin last year, another Republican-sponsored bathroom bill began to work its way through the Legislature, but was beaten back by transgender rights activists, many of them teenagers.

In rural north-central Florida, a retired veterinarian and cattle rancher named Harrell Phillips was alarmed one evening in March, when his 17-year-old son reported over dinner that he had encountered a transgender boy in the high school bathroom.

“I marched myself down to the principal,” said Dr. Phillips, who believes that “you are born into a sex that God chose you to be.”

The principal, and later the school superintendent, citing advice from lawyers, said there was nothing they could do. So Dr. Phillips turned to his best friend, a lawyer in Jacksonville, who introduced him to Roger Gannam of Liberty Counsel, an Orlando-based Christian organization. Mr. Gannam represented Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses last year.

Mr. Gannam had just helped block a proposed anti-discrimination ordinance in Jacksonville, with an argument religious conservatives have been lately using to powerful effect: It would endanger women and young girls by allowing men — and even sexual predators — to pose as transgender and enter women’s bathrooms.

Ocala, where Dr. Phillips’s son attends school, is now embroiled in a fight much like the one that engulfed Palatine. The school board, at Mr. Gannam’s prodding, voted in April to require transgender students to use bathrooms that correspond with their biological sex.

One transgender young man there has been suspended for using the boys’ bathroom. The A.C.L.U. of Florida sued the day before the White House issued its directive, and last Sunday night, transgender activists and their allies held a strategy session in a church — with a sheriff’s deputy standing guard outside because attendees feared for their safety.

“It’s separate but equal, so they might as well put black and white up on the bathrooms, too,” said Beth Miller, the mother of 17-year-old Mathew Myers, formerly Madison, an R.O.T.C. student in Ocala who came out as transgender this fall by asking his sergeant to permit him to switch from a women’s uniform to one for men. The sergeant accommodated Mathew on the uniform, but the school required him to use the gender-neutral bathroom in the nurse’s office.

“I go to the guy’s bathroom all the time out in public, and no one cares,” Mathew said.

It's not "separate but equal," and it's a national disgrace, and rape of history, for leftists to appropriate the legacy of Jim Crow and slavery to push the homosexual and gender dysphoric licentiousness.

Still more.

West Hollywood Councilman John Duran Was Seen at Public Council Meetings 'trolling for men on Grindr...'

Well, there's those Democrat Party values for you.

When I was blogging homosexual marriage all the time back in the day, one of the biggest findings (that went against the left's "marriage equality" mantra), is that homosexual men are plagued with virtually unquenchable rampant sexual urges. They just can't get enough, and they're in no way likely to want to "settle down" monogamously with a "spouse." It's utter hypocrisy to claim that same-sex marriages are equal to, well, regular marriage (which somehow started to be called "opposite sex" marriage, smh). Andrew Sullivan was the personification of the hypocrisy, when his "milky loads" scandal broke wide open, lol.

More of this utter depravity, at LAT, "Sex scandal at West Hollywood City Hall spark calls for less Grindr, more respect":

West Hollywood is not shy about sex.

When city officials held a public forum about anal cancer, they called it "Booty Call to Action." The City Hall lobby offers free condoms. A water conservation campaign encouraged residents to "have a morning quickie" by taking short showers.

But in February, West Hollywood agreed to pay $500,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit against the city and Councilman John Duran. The suit was brought on behalf of Ian Owens, whom Duran hired as his deputy after meeting him on Grindr, the smartphone dating app for gay and bisexual men, and then having sex with him.

Now, some residents and politicians in this mecca of gay culture and the home of the Sunset Strip counterculture are wondering if City Hall's famously cheeky attitude about sex needs to be checked a little.

Councilman John D'Amico, who like Duran is gay, said he often looked over during public meetings and saw Duran "trolling for men on Grindr."

"This is not gay-life excuse time, or 'This is how we do it because we're gay,'" D'Amico said at a council meeting. "This is we-live-in-the-21st-century time, and treating people with respect and care and following not just the letter of the law but the spirit of the law is ... part of who we are as a city."

As part of the settlement, Duran and West Hollywood admitted no wrongdoing, but a private investigator's report commissioned by the city dinged Duran for openly talking about his sex life and making "inappropriate" comments that "were sexual in nature" in the workplace.

Duran publicly apologized last month for hiring "a friend," but he has repeatedly denied sexual harassment. He conceded in an interview that had the lawsuit against him and the city gone to trial, West Hollywood's "unique culture" might not have translated well with many members of a jury outside of the city.

"I'm not a stuffed-shirt politician," Duran said. "Yes, my humor is bawdy and funny and outrageous, but, you know what, so is everything else in this town. I could not get elected in Downey."

Indeed, West Hollywood council members occasionally engage in the kind of risque talk that in more strait-laced towns could possibly cost politicians voters or get them recalled. Here, residents sometimes playfully join in the banter during council meetings, whether it's a play-by-play about a visit to the gynecologist or riffs on porn collections.

But in an email, Owens said Duran crossed the line...

More.

Pope Francis Calls on Catholics to Be More Understanding, Except on Homosexual Marriage (VIDEO)

Well, the Church isn't budging on homosexual nuptials, which they still won't recognize.

At USA Today, "Pope has good news for divorced, but not for gays":

There had been hope among some Catholics that the pontiff might overhaul its position on gay marriage, but the large document that ends with the hand-written signature of “Franciscus” — the pope’s Latin name — made it clear that would not happen. It said there are “absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar … to God’s plan for marriage and family.”

The document also made repeated references to Christian marriage as a “union between a man and a woman.”

Colorado Preschoolers Indoctrinated with Homosexual Marriage Curriculum

At iOWNTHEWORLD Report, "Four-year-old preschooler expelled in the name of LGBT tolerance":

A 4-year-old Aurora girl was kicked out of a preschool last month when her parents raised questions about books read in her class, including ones that told the stories about same-sex couples and worms unsure about their gender.

Her mother, R.B. Sinclair, sees it as sex education and wanted to opt her daughter out of those discussions.

Instead, school officials from Montview Community Preschool & Kindergarten in Aurora — run as a private, parent cooperative — explained the stories were part of the school's anti-bias curriculum, and because the discussions are embedded through the day, they told her that opting out was not possible.

Sickening.

It's bad enough in grade school. But they keep pushing depraved leftist indoctrination down to the younger ages.

Leftists Are Losing the Culture Wars?

Actually, I don't believe leftists are losing the culture wars, although the left came out the big loser during this week's elections. It remains to be seen if we have an actual retrenchment in public policy. Homosexual marriage is here to stay, I'd say. Transsexuals using women's restrooms is a lunatic fringe issue that's only on the agenda in Democrat Party strongholds. And electing a Republican to the White House will have a dramatic effect in federal civil rights enforcement in the schools.

It's not just homosexuals and trannies, however.

See Molly Ball, at the Atlantic, "Liberals Are Losing the Culture Wars":

In Tuesday’s elections, voters rejected recreational marijuana, transgender rights, and illegal-immigrant sanctuaries; they reacted equivocally to gun-control arguments; and they handed a surprise victory to a Republican gubernatorial candidate who emphasized his opposition to gay marriage.

Democrats have become increasingly assertive in taking liberal social positions in recent years, believing that they enjoy majority support and even seeking to turn abortion and gay rights into electoral wedges against Republicans. But Tuesday’s results—and the broader trend of recent elections that have been generally disastrous for Democrats not named Barack Obama—call that view into question. Indeed, they suggest that the left has misread the electorate’s enthusiasm for social change, inviting a backlash from mainstream voters invested in the status quo.

Consider these results:

Ohio voters rejected a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana by a 30-point margin.

Voters in Houston—a strongly Democratic city—rejected by a 20-point margin a nondiscrimination ordinance that opponents said would lead to “men in women’s bathrooms.”

The San Francisco sheriff who had defended the city’s sanctuary policy after a sensational murder by an illegal immigrant was voted out.

Two Republican state senate candidates in Virginia were targeted by Everytown for Gun Safety, former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s gun-control group. One won and one lost, leaving the chamber in GOP hands.

Matt Bevin, the Republican gubernatorial nominee in Kentucky, pulled out a resounding victory that defied the polls after emphasizing social issues and championing Kim Davis, the county clerk who went to jail rather than issue same-sex marriage licenses. Bevin told the Washington Post on the eve of the vote that he’d initially planned to stress economic issues, but found that “this is what moves people.”

More.

Conservative Catholics Fear Pope Francis Has Abandoned Core Teachings of the Church (VIDEO)

He's a freakin' leftist, way outside the mainstream of American politics, to say nothing of the conservative laity.

At the Wall Street Journal, "Conservative Catholics in U.S. Greet Pope Francis With Unease":

ARLINGTON, Va.— Jacquelyn Dupuy attends Mass every Sunday, as well as several days during the week. She gives daily lessons on the catechism to her two young children. And on the first date with her now-husband, she quizzed him about his views on abortion.

But she won’t be among the throngs crossing the Potomac River to see the pope during his time in Washington, D.C., this week. Because of her deep faith, she says, Ms. Dupuy is troubled by Pope Francis’ relaxed disposition when it comes to controversial topics such as homosexuality, contraception and divorce.

“I’m not exactly sure where he stands on issues that are really important to me,” says Ms. Dupuy, a 37-year-old stay-at-home mother. “I feel there is a disconnect. He seems to be saying things that contradict church teaching.”

Ms. Dupuy’s apprehension illustrates some of the broader anxieties about the pope among a key cohort of American Catholics: the conservative faithful who have provided a strong and energetic base for the church over the last three decades.

For them, some of the major issues behind Pope Francis’ world-wide acclaim—his conciliatory approach to gay people, for instance—have instead been a cause for dismay. Like Ms. Dupuy, many fear the pope is blurring the lines around seminal teachings and creating confusion about what it means to be Catholic.

“Conservatives worry about the way he seems to have turned from the culture war over issues like abortion and homosexual marriage,” says Robert Royal, president of the conservative Faith and Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. “The image that gets transmitted is that these are not ‘Francis issues’—that he’s more interested in income inequality, the gap between rich and poor, the environment,” adds Mr. Royal, who belongs to the Catholic diocese here.

“It’s high time that he said, ‘here’s the church’s teaching and we will not change on these issues,’ ” says Patrick O’Neill, a father of three who attends another church in the diocese, Holy Trinity in Gainesville, and says he “humbly disagree(s)” with the pope on his decision to discuss allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion.

Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, wouldn’t comment on specific criticisms about the pope. “It can be hard for some people to understand the pope’s positions,” he said. “But we trust that, if people listen and watch carefully what the pope says and does, everybody is going to be reassured that the pope is leading the church the right way. He’s applying the Gospel to today’s world.”

Keep reading.

Here's Ryan Anderson's New Book on Homosexual Marriage

They got into the debate on homosexual marriage and religious freedom at last night's debate, as well as the ideological fidelity of Chief Justice John Roberts. (On Twitter, some folks pointed out that Ted Cruz was hypocritical.)

In any case, here's Ryan Anderson's book, at Amazon, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom.

I really disagreed with Mike Huckabee. Folks need to flesh out the distinctions between Kim Davis' obligations as a public servant and elected official vis-à-vis her rights and responsibilities under the First Amendment. It's a complicated question, because while she has rights to freedom of religion, as a public official she could be violating citizens' protections against state sponsorship of religion.

Leftist Media Digs the Dirt on Kim Davis, Kentucky Clerk Refusing to Issue Homosexual Marriage Licenses (VIDEO)

Here's Dana Loesch, on the Kelly File last night.

This lady is an elected official, it turns out. And that changes my thinking a little on the case. Sure, I'd expect her to issue marriage licenses as part of her duties, but it's up to the voters to remove her from office, or for the state legislature to impeach, which is unlikely. And as Dana points out, the woman's a Democrat. You're definitely not getting that tidbit of info from the collectivist press, conveniently.



Plus, at the New York Times, "What’s Next for Kentucky Clerk Who Refuses to Issue Licenses for Gay Marriage."

PREVIOUSLY: "Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis is Sudden Symbol of Recalcitrant Resistance to Depraved Leftist Homosexual Agenda."

Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis is Sudden Symbol of Recalcitrant Resistance to Depraved Leftist Homosexual Agenda

I'm actually not backing this lady, since she's a government employee. The Supremes ruled in favor of a right to homosexual marriage. I don't like it, but that's the law. She should take her opposition campaign to the private realm. Folks expect to get the marriage licenses in the state, and rightly so.

At the Lexington Herald-Leader, "Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, once a local fixture, is suddenly a national symbol."

And at the Louisville Courier-Journal, "Kim Davis cites God, crowd jeers gay couple," and "Rowan clerk Kim Davis loses Supreme Court fight."

Planned Parenthood and the Price of Aborted Baby Parts

From Charles Krauthammer, at the Washington Post, "The price of fetal parts":

“Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

— Barack Obama, address to Planned Parenthood, April 26, 2013

Planned Parenthood’s reaction to the release of a clandestinely recorded conversation about the sale of fetal body parts was highly revealing. After protesting that it did nothing illegal, it apologized for the “tone” of one of its senior directors.

Her remarks lacked compassion, admitted Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards. As if Dr. Deborah Nucatola’s cold and casual discussion over salad and wine of how the fetal body can be crushed with forceps in a way that leaves valuable organs intact for sale is some kind of personal idiosyncrasy. On the contrary, it’s precisely the kind of psychic numbing that occurs when dealing daily with industrial scale destruction of the growing, thriving, recognizably human fetus.

This was again demonstrated by the release this week of a second video showing another official sporting that same tone, casual and even jocular, while haggling over the price of an embryonic liver. “If it’s still low, then we can bump it up,” she joked, “I want a Lamborghini.”

Abortion critics have long warned that the problem is not only the obvious — what abortion does to the fetus — but also what it does to us. It’s the same kind of desensitization that has occurred in the Netherlands with another mass exercise in life termination: assisted suicide. It began as a way to prevent the suffering of the terminally ill. It has now become so widespread and wanton that one-fifth of all Dutch assisted-suicide patients are euthanized without their explicit consent.

The Planned Parenthood revelations will have an effect. Perhaps not on government funding, given the Democratic Party’s unwavering support and the president wishing it divine guidance. Planned Parenthood might escape legal jeopardy as well, given the loophole in the law banning the sale of fetal parts that permits compensation for expenses (shipping and handling, as it were).

But these revelations will have an effect on public perceptions. Just as ultrasound altered feelings about abortion by showing the image, the movement, the vibrant living-ness of the developing infant in utero, so too, I suspect, will these Planned Parenthood revelations, by throwing open the door to the backroom of the clinic where that being is destroyed.

It’s an ugly scene. The issue is less the sale of body parts than how they are obtained. The nightmare for abortion advocates is a spreading consciousness of how exactly a healthy fetus is turned into a mass of marketable organs, how, in the words of a senior Planned Parenthood official, one might use “a less crunchy technique” — crush the head, spare the organs — “to get more whole specimens.”

The effect on the public is a two-step change in sensibilities. First, when ultrasound reveals how human the living fetus appears. Next, when people learn, as in these inadvertent admissions, what killing the fetus involves.

Remember. The advent of ultrasound has coincided with a remarkable phenomenon: Of all the major social issues, abortion is the only one that has not moved toward increasing liberalization. While the legalization of drugs, the redefinition of marriage and other assertions of individual autonomy have advanced, some with astonishing rapidity, abortion attitudes have remained largely static. The country remains evenly split...

Well, public support for homosexual "marriage" and licentiousness has already tanked since the Obergefell decision, and folks are having second thoughts about the legalization of marijuana. What's going to take is a change in leadership at the very top. We know that the left is moving into its Thermidorean phase. Now's the time to crush the death-worshiping regressives while their down.

Keep reading.

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."

Poll Shows Support for Homosexual Marriage Tanking After Supreme Court's Obergefell Ruling

This is counterintuitive.

You'd think a threshold's been crossed, and public acceptance of homosexual nuptials would increase.

But no. What's happening is the over-the-top football-spiking of the left's depraved homos is simply turning people off. Indeed, I've been predicting that support for homosexual marriage would decline as the homosexual ayatollahs, emboldened by judicial fiat, started to violently impose their hateful agenda on the rest of America. Combine that with the numerous examples of threats to religious liberty, and it's clear that same-sex licentiousness will continue to be a hot-button issue in politics and elections going forward.

At USA Today, "Poll shows slight dip in gay marriage support since Supreme Court ruling":

NEW YORK (AP) — The Supreme Court's ruling last month legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide has left Americans sharply divided, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that suggests support for gay unions may be down slightly from earlier this year.

The poll also found a near-even split over whether local officials with religious objections should be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, with 47 percent saying that should be the case and 49 percent say they should be exempt.

Overall, if there's a conflict, a majority of those questioned think religious liberties should win out over gay rights, according to the poll. While 39 percent said it's more important for the government to protect gay rights, 56 percent said protection of religious liberties should take precedence.

The poll was conducted July 9 to July 13, less than three weeks after the Supreme Court ruled states cannot ban same-sex marriage.

According to the poll, 42 percent support same-sex marriage and 40 percent oppose it. The percentage saying they favor legal same-sex marriage in their state was down slightly from the 48 percent who said so in an April poll. In January, 44 percent were in favor.

Asked specifically about the Supreme Court ruling, 39 percent said they approve and 41 percent said they disapprove.

"What the Supreme Court did is jeopardize our religious freedoms," said Michael Boehm, 61, an industrial controls engineer from the Detroit area who describes himself as a conservative-leaning independent.

"You're going to see a conflict between civil law and people who want to live their lives according to their faiths," Boehm said...

Only 42 percent support homosexual marriage? That's not a "slight decline." That's an almost 20 percent drop off from the widely touted Gallup poll that had support for homo unions at 60 percent.

Hmm, you think the Supreme Court stepped in and derailed a political contest raging across the country at the state level? No wonder conservative support for the Court is collapsing.

Hat Tip: The Daily Signal, "Poll: 59% Believe Businesses Should Be Able to Decline Gay Weddings."

Lesbian Margie Winters Fired from Waldron Mercy Academy for Homosexual Marriage

At the video, "presumably there are parents who are in favor of the school's decision." Yes, presumably. Would have been nice had this idiot reporter tracked a few of them down, rather than rely on this far-left radical Nancy Houston to speak for "the community." (Houston's also interviewed at MyFox 29 Philadelphia.)

What a joke. You can't even be Catholic in this country any more. Sad.

At the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Lesbian educator dismissed by Catholic school":

A RELIGIOUS-EDUCATION director at a Montgomery County Catholic school has been dismissed because, parents say, she is lesbian wedded to a woman.

Many parents have voiced support for the educator, Margie Winters, director of religious education and outreach, calling her "inspirational" and "dedicated." Now they're directing their ire not at the school and its sponsor, the Sisters of Mercy, but at the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Archbishop Charles Chaput.

"It's time to get the attention of the Archdiocese and the Catholic hierarchy and let them know this is illegal," said Katie Culver, who has three children at the school.

Parents and alumni will meet tonight to discuss the matter and "to unify in support of Margie," Culver said.

Waldron Mercy's principal, Nell Stetser, addressed Winters' dismissal in a letter Friday to parents.

"[O]ur school recognizes the authority of the Archbishop of Philadelphia, especially in the teaching of religion, because we call ourselves Catholic," she wrote.

Despite her "amazing contributions" to the school in Merion Station, the school opted not to renew Winters' contract, Stetser wrote.

"Margie certainly has enriched the lives of everyone in the WMA family . . . however, my duty is to protect our school's future," Stetser wrote.

"In the Mercy spirit, many of us accept life choices that contradict current Church teachings, but to continue as a Catholic school Waldron Mercy must comply with those teachings," she wrote.

Some parents are not buying it.

"It's not for any other reason but the fact that she is a homosexual," said Anthony Archievala, whose two daughters attend Waldron Mercy. "We were shocked because she'd been there for so many years."

A parent wrote to school officials and the Archdiocese suggesting that Winters use the "Theology of the Body," a series of addresses by Pope John Paul II, in the school curriculum, and Winters said no, Culver said.

Efforts yesterday to reach the parent were unsuccessful.

Archdiocese spokesman Ken Gavin released a statement denying that the church was involved in Winters' ouster.

"Waldron is a private Catholic school and it is not in any way under the administrative purview of the Archdiocese," he said. "As such, personnel decisions at that school are made locally without oversight from the Archdiocese."

Winters began to work for the school in August 2007, according to her LinkedIn page. She did not respond to requests for comment.

Winters' old job is already listed under employment opportunities on Waldron Mercy's website...

Also at Truth Revolt, "Philly Catholic School Facing Severe Legal Punishment After Firing Lesbian Teacher."

PREVIOUSLY: "The Coming Era of Civil Disobedience."