Casinos Frank Citro Jr. is on the list of undesirables blackballed by casino regulators. At 68, he's trying to do what no one has ever done: Get off while he's still alive.Read it at the link.
Re " A gay marriage backlash? Not likely," Opinion, March 24Well, that's not politically correct to say that. You'll be attacked as homophobic!
It is incredible to suggest that the effect of legalizing same-sex marriage is only "abstract and long term." A normal response to someone who says "I grew up without a mother" or "I grew up without a father" is to say, "I'm so sorry." Legalizing same-sex marriage would celebrate motherlessness and fatherlessness.
If the Supreme Court redefines marriage, we will tell ourselves and every child that women are replaceable and men don't matter. There is nothing more fundamentally equal than marriage as it always has been: You must have a man, and you must have a woman.
Gwendolyn Wyne
Los Angeles
WASHINGTON—Two days of arguments on same-sex marriage revealed a Supreme Court uneasy about making sweeping moves on gay rights and holding doubts about whether the cases belonged before the justices at all.Continue reading.
The arguments also brought to life more familiar fissures between the court's liberal and conservative wings. On Wednesday, liberal justices suggested that a 1996 federal law denying benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples was motivated by animus against gays, while Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, challenged assertions that gays and lesbians need judicial protection from repressive majorities.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, seen as a pivotal vote, gave gay-marriage proponents some hope by suggesting the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act might infringe on states' rights to make their own marriage rules. That suggested at least five justices—Justice Kennedy plus the court's four liberals—might be ready to strike down the law.
But questions about whether the court could properly hear the case made it hard to predict any outcome.
Decisions are expected by late June on the Defense of Marriage Act case as well as the case the court heard Tuesday on California's 2008 voter initiative prohibiting same-sex marriage.
The arguments highlighted a point in common between the two cases. Normally, federal courts require two adverse parties before they can decide a case. Strikingly, however, both the federal and state governments agree with the plaintiffs that the challenged laws are unconstitutional, and have declined to defend them on appeal.
Other groups have stepped in to defend the laws banning gay marriage—the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives for the Defense of Marriage Act and the private citizens who officially sponsored Proposition 8.
But justices of different ideological stripes were wary of litigants without clear legal standing, even though advocates on both sides were eager for vindication in a roiling culture war.
"I can't think of another instance where that's happened," said Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal, referring to the House's intervention in the federal marriage law case. "I'm afraid of opening that door."
The truly scary fact is that California is often the state that dictates national trends in education. Pro-LGBT indoctrination in the name of tolerance is growing, and as Kevin Jennings showed us, that doesn’t mean that kids are being taught not to bully the gay kid in their class.Read it all at the link.
Robert Y. Shapiro, a political scientist at Columbia who has studied left-right divisions and polarization, is actually optimistic about prospects for conservatism. In an e-mail, he wrote:Okay, but homosexual marriage is like a Waterloo or something. It just really destroys a key plank of what it means to be a conservative, if not a Republican.
The right has been weakened on gay rights and now gay marriage, and it looks like immigration. Also interestingly there are fissures on defense spending since defense cuts have been accepted by some conservatives in the sequester as a needed part of budget cutting and holding the Democrats’ feet to the fire on that. But conservatism may not weaken by much since it looks like it can and has regrouped on economic and social welfare spending, taxes, and the budget deficit. Economic and anti-regulation conservatism has hardly weakened.
And on the cultural/values issues, abortion is as strong a rallying issue as ever (public opinion has not shifted left on this, even among younger cohorts in contrast to other issues), and they are just more cautious regarding what they say about contraception. Conservatives would look as much as ever for opportunities on prayer in schools and support for religious group endeavors. Conservatives have held together on guns even after recent events. And with regard to racial and racial justice issues, watch the Supreme Court on voting rights and affirmative action. Conservatives have not been weakened any further on these issues.
Exit question: If such self-interested “nativism” is right and good for the protection and survival of Mexico, why not for the United States?
Mike Bloomberg is spending $12 million on attack ads designed to force U.S. senators to vote for national gun control laws that will supposedly save lives. However, the New York mayor’s commercials running in 13 states over the next two weeks could cause injury or death by showcasing irresponsible handling of a firearm.See also Mary Katharine Ham, "Video: Guy in Bloomberg gun-control ads breaks all the major rules of gun safety."
Mr. Bloomberg's organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, produced two ads featuring a man holding a shotgun, wearing plaid flannel with a camouflage cap and sitting on the tailgate of a pickup truck. While a child swings on a tire in the background, the man says, “I support comprehensive background checks so criminals and the dangerously mentally ill can’t buy guns.”
The ad does not specify if the man is an actor, but the text accompanying it says he is a "gun owner." Either way, the man violates all three gun safety rules taught by the National Rifle Association (NRA). (Click here to see the ads.)
The first rule is to always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. In this case, the children are playing in the yard. Although the viewers can’t see what is to the side of the truck, the man should be pointing the muzzle in the air or at the ground.
The second NRA rule is always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
In the ad “Responsibility,” the man has his finger on the trigger, as if ready to shoot. While doing this, he says, “I believe in the Second Amendment, and I’ll fight to protect it. But with rights come responsibilities.” To make an ad demonstrating actual gun responsibility, the man would put a straight forefinger above the trigger guard to make sure he doesn't accidentally touch the trigger.
The third NRA safety rule is always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use. This means a situation in which the gun is available for immediate use -- such as when hunting and a deer could step out at any time or when the firearm is safely stored but ready for quick self-defense as needed.
In the ad called “Family,” the man says that, “My dad taught me to hunt, and I’ll teach my kids. I’ve owned a gun all my life, and I’ll fight for my right to keep it.”
While saying this, he holds the pump-action shotgun with the action (bolt) closed, so it is impossible to know if it is loaded. To make this a demonstration of safety, the bolt would be wide open to demonstrate that it is unloaded.
A man who grew up hunting would know that by holding a shotgun straight horizontal, with the action closed and his finger on the trigger, he is committing all three cardinal sins of gun safety.
. @thesdcowgirl liberalism explained ow.ly/i/1M3u3
— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) March 28, 2013
Ali A. Akbar’s past is being used against Curtis Bostic, the TEA Party favorite who is running an underdog campaign against the establishment’s Mark Sanford.More at the link.
The Patch has been covering the controversy -
In the week since his surprising second-place finish to Mark Sanford in the Republican primary for the first Congressional District, Curtis Bostic and his social media presence has kept a low profile.
But on Monday, political consultant and convicted felon Ali Akbar emerged in vocal support of Bostic’s campaign. Akbar and the Bostic campaign differ on whether the two are working together.
Akbar’s “work” for Bostic raised a few eyebrows, given his criminal history.
Akbar was convicted in 2006 of credit card theft and fraud in Tarrant County, Texas. He was placed on four years probation. Screen shots of the court records relating to the case are attached to this article ...
This is the story of a convicted felon who thought he would rule conservative bloggers while still on probation. columbia-sc.patch.com/articles/sc1-c…
— Film Ladd (@FilmLadd) March 27, 2013
Because what the conservative movement really needs is a pissy convicted felon to threaten you with no Bwog Bash ID. columbia-sc.patch.com/articles/sc1-c…
— Film Ladd (@FilmLadd) March 27, 2013
It's spelled fwinge. RT @rachelveronica Haha! That’s what Ali calls people who question him. The fringe.@ericontrarian @johnpo88
— Film Ladd (@FilmLadd) March 27, 2013
What an awesome BWOG BASH ID RT @johnpo88 twitter.com/johnpo88/statu…
— Film Ladd (@FilmLadd) March 27, 2013
@libertylynx @rachelveronica No worries. It is disappointing that a good conservative candidate may now lose because of this creep.
— Film Ladd (@FilmLadd) March 27, 2013
I’ve completed my due diligence: any candidate within 500 miles of that creepy little shitbird @ali needs their head examined.This story's getting bigger.
— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) March 27, 2013
They should probably institute a waiting period before someone demonstrates they can capably handle the dog.
With the issue of same-sex marriage argued before the Supreme Court and raging elsewhere in America, a question:What?
Is it possible to be a traditional Christian or Muslim or Orthodox Jew — and hold to one's faith on what constitutes marriage — and not be considered a bigot?
And is faith now a problem to be overcome, first marginalized by the state and then contained, so as not to get in the way of great changes to come?
The issue of same-sex unions is by nature contentious and divisive. It is not merely about equal protection under the law, but redefining the foundation of our culture, which is the family itself.
It's not my intention to add to the anger and the noise. If you've followed the news of the crowds outside the Supreme Court this week, and watched those vicious little boxes within boxes on cable TV, with angry people barking at each other, you'll get plenty of noise.
I'm not angry. Yet I am struggling. And I've been silent on the subject for some time, trying to figure it out.
I'm not opposed to same-sex unions. Americans have the right to equal protection under the law, and same-sex couples should be able to expect the same tax benefits and other considerations allowed to those of us who are now being called, in some quarters, "opposite-sex couples."
As far as I'm concerned, Americans have the right to do as they please as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. America is all about liberty and freedom.
But this all comes now during the season of Lent, a time of fasting and prayer, when Christians are compelled to confront the obligations of their faith.
And while I hear the new moral arguments, about equal rights and equal protection, I've read little about the religious freedom aspects and what the Supreme Court's ruling might mean for houses of traditional worship.
All I'm asking is that in the rush to establish new rights, that tolerance for religious freedom be considered as well.
More at that top link, and at SCOTUS Blog, "Argument recap: DOMA is in trouble (FINAL UPDATE)." (Via Memeorandum.)Why did Congress pass the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996? Before I went to the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, I thought the answer was obvious: to prevent gay couples from receiving federal marriage benefits, as a signal of condemnation or at least displeasure.
So it was a surprise to hear Paul Clement, defending DOMA on behalf of House Republicans, stay as far from that rationale as possible. Clement’s central argument was this: Congress was merely striving for “uniformity,” ensuring that gay couples would be treated the same throughout the country. “We want to treat same-sex couples in New York the same as in Oklahoma,” Clement said. It was a thin, implausible reed to cling to. And it won’t support five votes for upholding DOMA’s definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
“It’s not really uniformity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in response to Clement. Kennedy, the crucial swing voter, framed the case differently: “The question is whether or not the federal government under a federalism system has the authority to regulate marriage.” That’s the genius of this particular court challenge, United States v. Windsor, as an incremental step toward federal rights for gay couples. The case aligns state sovereignty (a cause close to Kennedy’s heart) with gay couples’ sovereignty over their lives (ditto). On the table today was not a broad proclamation of gay marriage throughout the land—the grander vision that animated, but also could sink, the challenge to California’s ban, which was argued Tuesday. Today, the court focused only on whether Congress has the power to define marriage for the purpose of denying federal benefits to gay couples in the nine states and the District of Columbia that now fully recognize their marriages. Can Congress exclude gay couples whom states have included?
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had the laugh line of the day when she scolded DOMA for creating “two kinds of marriage, full marriage and the skim-milk marriage.” It was easy to see which one you’d want in your coffee. But Clement’s diciest moment came when Justice Elena Kagan faced him down. She said that “for the most part and historically, the only uniformity that the federal government has pursued” is uniform recognition of marriages recognized by the states. Federal law has followed state law. “This statute does something that’s really never been done before,” Kagan continued, and the question is whether “that sends up a pretty red flag.”
Then she hoisted that flag for all to see. “I’m going to quote from the House report here: ‘Congress decided to reflect and honor collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.’ ”
“Does the House report say that?” Clement asked, before catching himself: “Of course the House report says that. And if that’s enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute.” Maybe that’s the whole case right there.
