'Same-sex marriage is very new...'

The quote is Samuel Alito's at the title.

Maureen Dowd uses it as launching pad to slam the "fusty" Supreme Court, "Courting Cowardice."

Supreme Court Proposition 8 Oral Arguments

At Athouse, "'What precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as procreation of children that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not?'"

And following the links there, at the New York Times, "Full Transcript of Arguments in California’s Gay Marriage Case."

And there's a complete video with the audio here.

Nine Glorified Lawyers

Pundette has a wonderful roundup on today's arguments before the Supreme Court, "We love you, Jonah, but ..."

Why Gay Marriage Will Win, and Sexual Freedom Society Will Lose

From Megan McArdle, at the Daily Beast:

In some sense, it doesn't really matter how the Supreme Court rules on the gay marriage case it's hearing today.  The culture war is over on this front, and gay marriage has won.  Even if it loses at the Supreme Court this term, it will win in the legislatures . . . because it is already winning in popular opinion.  Few people much under the age of sixty see a compelling reason that straights should marry and gays should not.  For that matter, my Republican grandfather is rumored to have said, at the age of 86, "I think gays should marry!  We'll see how much they like it, though."

At this point, it's just a matter of time.  In some sense, the sexual revolution is over . . . and the forces of bourgeois repression have won.

That's right, I said it: this is a landmark victory for the forces of staid, bourgeois sexual morality.  Once gays can marry, they'll be expected to marry.  And to buy sensible, boring cars that are good for car seats.  I believe we're witnessing the high water mark for "People should be able to do whatever they want, and it's none of my business."  You thought the fifties were conformist?  Wait until all those fabulous "confirmed bachelors" and maiden schoolteachers are expected to ditch their cute little one-bedrooms and join the rest of America in whining about crab grass, HOA restrictions, and the outrageous fees that schools want to charge for overnight soccer trips...

More at the link.

I think McArdle overestimates the benign effects of this development. Homosexuals will gain more clout, push for normalizing all kinds of depraved behavior in the public schools, and further demonize and marginalize people of decency and faith. And frankly, we might find out in a few years that homosexual marriage is empirically not better for the well-being of children --- that is, we might have large-N, statistically significant research demonstrating the harshly adverse effects of legalizing the marriages of the bunghole bungee jumpers.

Via Memeorandum.

Family Members Make Gay Marriage Personal for Newfound Supporters

From this morning's Los Angeles Times, "Knowing gay person a key factor in rising support for gay marriage."

Knowing someone who's gay won't change my opinion that traditional marriage is best for kids, families, and society. But MSM hacks like George Stephanopoulos sure love to beat the dead horse with that meme:

Forget Homosexual Marriage! Here's Your Smokin' New Britney Spears Bikini Pics!

I need a Britney bikini break, at London's Daily Mail, "Britney Spears looks back to her best as she parades taut tummy in a bikini."

Okay, carry on!

And check back for the freak homosexual blogging throughout the night.

The New York Times Goes All In for the Left's Morally-Depraved Homosexual Marriage Scam

I have argued in previous posts that the Supreme Court should strike down the DOMA in furtherance of a genuine federalism protecting states' rights to regulate marriage according to local political interests.

That view is mistaken and I'm retracting that position. I still have questions about the effects of DOMA repeal on the states, as noted in my earlier post, "I'm Reading Around on the Defense of Marriage Act." However, folks should read this amicus curiae brief from the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund, "BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF EAGLE FORUM EDUCATION & LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL ON THE MERITS."

One of my questions that's now been answered is how, as I mentioned, would states be affected by married same-sex couples of a state who relocate and then make claims on another state that does not recognize homosexual marriage? Actually, there could be dramatic effects, if the Eagle Forum brief is accurate --- and it makes a powerful case in any event. Homosexual married federal employees who reside in a same-sex marriage state who then move to a state recognizing only opposite-sex marriages could then claim a violation of their rights under DOMA, and hence force the recognition of homosexual marriage on a state whose political system has rejected the redefinition of the institution. It's telling, then, that the Washington Post has this just now as I'm drafting this entry, "Federal employees in same-sex unions look to Supreme Court to overturn DOMA."

In any case, here's the key section at the brief, "As a Practical Matter, Rejecting DOMA Would Spread Same-Sex Marriage Nationwide":

Although Windsor and her allies often seek to minimize the issues at stake in challenging DOMA §3, the impact of the Second Circuit’s decision – and of any decision by this Court to affirm that decision – simply is not limited to Windsor’s tax liability or even a relatively few couples in New York and a few other states. The question of whom society allows to marry does not affect only the wedding couple.

Even without the direct force of law, federal employees with federally recognized, same-sex marriages from a few states will spread across the Nation when they are re-posted, transferred, or simply move. They will take with them not only their federal recognition, but also various property rights such as pensions, as well as child-custody issues. When they move to states that do not recognize same-sex marriages, they will raise countless substantive and procedural issues, as well as the sheer weight of practical problems that the differing legal regimes will present.

These issues posed by same-sex couples will arise when federally regulated persons such as federal employees and contractors either (a) move from one of the few same-sex marriage states to a state with a husband-wife definition of marriage, or (b) visit same-sex marriage jurisdictions (like Windsor here) while domiciled in states with a husband-wife definition of marriage. The latter category will require still further litigation to determine DOMA’s application to such “destination marriages” by non-domiciliaries. Whenever federal law recognizes a marriage that state law does not, the conflicts that the differing regimes pose will be magnified.

Be sure to RTWT. It's a very compelling argument.

Now, here are the editors at the New York Times, who're going all cultural Marxist for the left's family-destruction agenda, "A 50-State Ruling":

California’s Proposition 8 rewrote the state’s Constitution so that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, for purposes of any federal law, defined the word marriage to mean “only a legal union between one man and one woman.”

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on challenges to Proposition 8 on Tuesday and Defense of Marriage on Wednesday. In both cases, the court should rule that the Constitution prohibits the federal government and every state from defining the fundamental right of marriage so narrowly and fully protects the liberty of same-sex couples.

When Proposition 8 was on the California ballot in 2008, the official pamphlet explaining the initiative said that it did not “take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships,” which have the “ ‘same rights, protections, and benefits’ as married spouses.”

As the California Supreme Court said about legal attacks on same-sex marriage, the point of denying gay marriages was to say officially that these relationships were not of “comparable stature or equal dignity” to opposite-sex marriages. The intent was to stigmatize them, enshrine discrimination in law and encourage discrimination against gay men, lesbians and same-sex couples. The federal Defense of Marriage Act does the same, with the same effects. And in depriving same-sex couples and their children of federal recognition and benefits, it fails to meet any test under the Constitution.

Keep reading. The editors are making a radical call to stop the political process now moving toward greater acceptance of homosexual marriage across the land. A sweeping ruling like that endorsed by the Times will only radicalize and polarize the debate, and thus prevent the likely accommodation of all sides through the federal system. What a disaster.

Compare the Times to the Wall Street Journal's editorial board, "Marriage and the Supreme Court":

This week the Supreme Court takes up same-sex marriage, amid shifting American mores and a healthy debate about equality. Yet the two cases before the High Court are less about the institution of marriage than the sanctity of democratic institutions and the proper role of the courts.

Over time, through popular consent, the law comes to reflect an evolving social consensus. On gay marriage, state by state, election by election, voters are extending to gay and lesbian couples the same rights and responsibilities that pertain to a union between a man and a woman. Those choices are the pith of self-government, even if fair-minded voters in other states preserve the traditional meaning.

If the Supreme Court now reads a right to gay marriage into the Constitution and imposes that definition on all states, it won't settle the debates Americans are conducting. It will inflame them and ensure they never end, prematurely aborting the give-and-take on contentious moral and social issues the Constitution is designed to encourage. Five Justices—or fewer, if they split into pluralities—could further polarize the body politic and make compromise more difficult.

Also notice the discussion of upholding DOMA at the piece.

Today's my long day at the college, but I'll have more blogging tonight.

Anti-Marriage Extremist Walter James Casper III and the Unitarian Push for Polyamorous Sexual Licentiousness

The disgusting Occupy-endorsing, anti-Semitic hate-bagging progressive Walter James Casper III writes:

Marriage law is not primarily about continuing the species or the optimal raising of children, especially to the detriment of any family situation other than the supposed optimal one for raising children. If it were, we would hear all of the results of these studies that say "mommy and daddy in committed marriage is best," and perhaps outlaw more of what is less than optimal... poverty, single parenthood, divorce, ...

Legal marriage can and often does include children, but it isn't -- and shouldn't be -- defined by children or the possibility of creating them. To my knowledge, it never has been -- except of course, as an argument against marriage equality....

I know? How could anyone be this dishonest? Folks can Google the post, titled "We Just Disagree (Marriage Equality)." I won't link the lies, because that's all this guy has --- lies, deceit and the destruction of decency and moral regeneration of family, faith and country. This is progressive radicalism and licentiousness at its most disgusting.

Hatesac is a pathological liar. Marriage is and has always been at base about the union of man and woman for the biological regeneration of society. To brutally rip the centrality of the marriage union from procreation and family is to adopt nothing less than the cultural Marxist ideological program of destruction of decency in the name of state power. Marx and Engels specifically called for the obliteration of the family in furtherance of the Utopian communist state. Walter James "Hatesac" knows all of this. He simply will not acknowledge the truth of the millennium. He's a disgusting, anti-God prick. A hateful degenerate who's out to destroy the moral fiber of the nation.

As David Blankenhorn has written:

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

And Hatesac lies about this alleged dearth of "studies that say 'mommy and daddy in committed marriage is best'." Unbelievable dishonesty. Or, it'd be unbelievable for a normal person, but hate-bagging Repsac3 is not a normal person. If he was, if he was honest, he'd cite the wealth of research arguing that indeed kids do best in the biological mom/dad family unit. I just wrote about this the other day, and given Hatesac's obsession with this blog, he certainly knew the truth but choose to lie anyways. See, "Amicus Brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry Demonstrates Children Fare Better With Biological Parents in Traditional 'Opposite Sex' Marriage." And this bullshit about "banning" other situations like "poverty" and "divorce" is just straw man stupidity. Poverty is worsened by current progressive social policies and divorce --- especially "no fault" --- is a product of radical left-wing social disorganization. But liar Hatesac won't discuss these truths. He's just making shit up as he goes along. A truly bad person. Evil incarnate. Seriously, it's people like this who're dragging this country to the depths of perdition. Horrible.

Of course, longtime readers will recall that Walter James "Hatesac" Casper is a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church --- a religious organization that is outside all mainstream denominations, and has been likened to a faith of cultural nihilists and radical collectivists. Gven Hatesac's perverted views on the institution of marriage, it's clear that his Unitarianism is busting out in all of its disgusting, orgiastic licentiousness. See the Washington Post, "Many Unitarians would prefer that their polyamory activists keep quiet":

The joke about Unitarians is that they’re where you go when you don’t know where to go. Theirs is the religion of last resort for the intermarried, the ambivalent, the folks who want a faith community without too many rules. It is perhaps no surprise that the Unitarian Universalist Association is one of the fastest-growing denominations in the country, ballooning 15 percent over the past decade, when other established churches were shrinking. Politically progressive to its core, it draws from the pool of people who might otherwise be “nones” – unaffiliated with any church at all.

But within the ranks of the UUA over the past few years, there has been some quiet unrest concerning a small but activist group that vociferously supports polyamory. That is to say “the practice of loving and relating intimately to more than one other person at a time,” according to a mission statement by Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA). The UUPA “encourages spiritual wholeness regarding polyamory,” including the right of polyamorous people to have their unions blessed by a minister.

UUA headquarters says it has no official position on polyamory. “Official positions are established at general assembly and never has this issue been brought to general assembly,” a spokeswoman says.

But as the issue of same-sex marriage heads to the Supreme Court, many committed Unitarians think the denomination should have a position, which is that polyamory activists should just sit down and be quiet. For one thing, poly activists are seen as undermining the fight for same-sex marriage. The UUA has officially supported same-sex marriage, the spokeswoman says, “since 1979, with tons of resolutions from the general assembly.”

More:

In 2007, a Unitarian congregation in Chestertown, Md., heard a sermon by a poly activist named Kenneth Haslam, arguing that polyamory is the next frontier in the fight for sexual and marriage freedom. “Poly folks are strong believers that each of us should choose our own path in forming our families, forming relationships, and being authentic in our sexuality.”

Right.

That's exactly what the putrid Hatesac argues at his scummy, morally depraved essay, "We Just Disagree (Marriage Equality)." Again, it's too sick to even link. Folks can Google it if they can stomach Hatesac's "cutting-edge" views about how Americans should "choose their own path" on abandoning the historic conception of marriage as the foundation of healthy children and the survival of decency in society.

But this is radical progressivism we're talking about, which seeks the cultural Marxist overthrow of basic goodness and moral clarity in society. The genuine evil here is literally astonishing.

Escaping From Human Oppression

From yesterday's Orange County Register, "Passover's message can resonate with everyone":

"Why is this night different from all other nights?" Thus, at sunset Monday, will begin the ritual of questions during the Seder meal with which Jews start the celebration of Passover, or Pesach, which commemorates the deliverance of the Israelite slaves from bondage in Egypt. The youngest child at the table is expected to answer the questions, fulfilling the commandment, "And thou shalt tell thy son."

According to tradition, as related in the book of Exodus, the Israelites were made slaves in ancient Egypt. But Yahweh, the Hebrew God, instructed Moses to demand of the ruling Pharaoh that His people be released. Pharaoh refused, and Yahweh brought 10 plagues down upon Egypt. The final plague was the death of the firstborn son in every household. The Jews were instructed to sacrifice a lamb and smear its blood on the house's lintel or doorpost. Seeing the blood, the Angel of Death would pass over that house. After this final plague, Pharaoh relented and allowed the Jews to leave.

"Passover speaks to every generation because every generation sees dictators and tyrants aiming to destroy the dreams, hopes, religious beliefs and cultural identities of population subgroups within their borders," Rabbi Dov Fischer, of the Irvine-based Young Israel of Orange County, told us. "The Jewish people in Egypt, even in slavery, refused to be forcibly assimilated.  Rather, the Jews retained their language, their Hebrew names and their forms of dress throughout their centuries of slavery."

Why do we eat only unleavened bread, or matzoh, on Pesach? To remember that when the Jews left Egypt there was not time to allow the bread to rise, so the dough was baked into hard crackers. Why do we eat bitter herbs? To remind us of the cruelty the Jews suffered. Why do we dip our foods? We dip bitter herbs into Charoset made of apples and nuts, which resemble clay used for bricks, to remind us how hard the slaves had to work. Parsley is dipped into saltwater, symbolizing that spring is here, and new life will grow. The saltwater reminds us of the tears of the Jewish slaves. Why do we lean on a pillow? To be comfortable and to remind us that once we were slaves, and now we are free.

Passover is typically celebrated for seven days in Israel and among Reform Jews, and for eight days among diaspora Conservative and Orthodox Jews. It recalls the birth of a Jewish nation, freed of Egyptian oppression and able to serve Yahweh, or God, alone. The first and last days are full festivals, marked by abstention from work, special prayer services and holiday meals. Jews eat only unleavened bread during the entire observance.

Passover commemorates the birth of a Jewish nation consecrated to serve Yahweh, not the Pharaoh. It is a time to be humble and to remember what it was like to be a slave. Most of all, it is a celebration of freedom, of the joys and opportunities available when we are not forced to serve others.

"As Americans, we oppose tyranny and dictatorships throughout the world, from Saddam Hussein in Iraq to Libya's Moammar Gadhafi in Libya to the Taliban in Afghanistan.  We know that, if dictators and tyrants are not stopped, they eventually expand their sights and attack us, too," Fischer said. "We celebrate freedom, and we respect and cherish the many expressions of cultural identity and religious belief that have contributed to make America great."

Still more at that top link.

I'm Reading Around on the Defense of Marriage Act

Blogging will be light this evening while I read around on the background to DOMA.

I've noticed that most conservatives hope to preserve DOMA, but I'm interested in fully returning the issue of marriage regulations to the states. Plus, under DOMA the federal government determines what kinds of benefits are available to married couples. I'm looking to see how DOMA repeal will affect states that do not recognize same-sex marriage in their states. (What kind of claims might a same-sex married couple have on a state that doesn't allow homosexual marriage, for example?) For true federalism to work the national government is going to have recognize marriage as a right subject to state laws and that under Article IV states are required to honor the laws of other states. There could be drawbacks to this beyond the initial notion of recognition of same-sex marriage as violating ideological and religious convictions, but I need more information.

See Lyle Denniston, at SCOTUS Blog, "Argument preview: Marriage and the Court’s “friends” — Part I," and "Argument preview: Marriage and the Court’s “friends” — Part II."

#MarriageMarch is tomorrow myop.us/10HknTi retweet this meme to show your support! twitter.com/NOMupdate/stat…
— NOM (@NOMupdate) March 25, 2013

And until later, see Andrew Ferguson, at the Weekly Standard, "Politicized 'Science' of Gay Marriage."

March for Marriage

An excellent clip, from the National Organization for Marriage:

Likely Outcomes on Homosexual Marriage at the Supreme Court

At the Los Angeles Times, "Supreme Court has menu of options in gay marriage case":

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. often looks for a narrow way to decide a major case. He also focuses on the procedural rules, and there is some doubt over whether the sponsors of Proposition 8 have "standing" to represent the state of California in the case. The sponsors of the gay marriage ban are private citizens, and their opponents say they do not have a personal stake in the case that would give them legal standing.

If the high court were to punt for procedural reasons in the Proposition 8 case, most lawyers say, California's gay marriage ban would fall as a result of U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that declared it unconstitutional. Others say that a procedural ruling might mean the only winners would be the two gay couples who filed the suit to overturn the ban.

In another scenario, the court might follow a procedural finding on Proposition 8 with a major decision on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the case to be heard Wednesday. This creates the possibility of a ruling that the government cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians and deny equal benefits to gay couples, but it would not mandate that all states allow gay marriage.

Some legal scholars, citing recent public opinion polls and votes in several states, said it was unlikely that the court would completely shut the door on gay marriage. Harvard Law School professor Michael J. Klarman, author of a recent book on the legal fight over same-sex unions, said the justices would not want to put their names to an opinion that would be seen over time as narrow-minded.

The menu of options facing the court could complicate the oral arguments this week and make it especially hard to forecast the outcome, which is likely to be released in June. They also may prove crucial if the justices find themselves closely split, as they were last year in the case on President Obama’s healthcare law. Then, Roberts found a narrow option for upholding the Affordable Care Act that appealed to him alone, and the four liberal justices opted to join him.

This time, the four liberal justices are likely to take their cue from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. If he is willing to strike down Proposition 8 narrowly or rule broadly in favor of same-sex marriage, they would probably join him to make a majority.

The court's seniority system puts Kennedy in position to write the majority opinion in that event. When the justices meet in their private conference late this week, they will vote on whether to uphold or reverse the U.S. 9th Circuit Court's decision striking down Proposition 8. Roberts speaks first, followed by Justice Antonin Scalia. Both are likely to vote to reverse the 9th Circuit's decision.

The Court needs to defend the will of the voters in California. Anything else will be a victory for the gay left. And either way, let DOMA crash. Leave it to the states.

VIDEO: Pamela Geller on CNN Taking Down Islamic Supremacist Thug

At Atlas Shrugs:

Lots more counter-jihad at Pamela's blog.

The Coming Backlash Against Homosexual Marriage

Here's Harvard Professor Michael Klarman, "A gay marriage backlash? Not likely." While perhaps a backlash might not be inevitable should the Court strike down Proposition 8 in June, I think Klarman needs to rethink this a little:

Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples may alter the institution's meaning for religious conservatives who believe that God created marriage to propagate the species. But that effect is abstract and long-term. The immediate effect of a marriage equality ruling would be that the gay couple already living down the street would become eligible for a marriage license — and nothing would change in the daily lives of gay-marriage opponents.

I wonder if these are lies of commission or omission? The fact is, people of deep traditional faith will be further banished from the public square and the public schools will be even more marinated in radical leftist cultural Marxist indoctrination. Society will be deeply divided on the issue. To say otherwise is morally bankrupt in the extreme. Shame on Professor Klarman.

Progressives push lies like this to advance their agenda. Then they demonize those who push back with the truth. Behold the evil people.

The Left-Wing Stranglehold on Academia

From Mark Bauerlein, at the Weekly Standard, "Forbidden City."

Read it at the link.

The United States is Top Destination for Potential Immigrants Worldwide

An absolutely amazing global survey from Gallup, "More Than 100 Million Worldwide Dream of a Life in the U.S":

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- About 13% of the world's adults -- or about 630 million people -- say they would like to leave their country and move somewhere else permanently. For roughly 138 million people, that somewhere else would be the U.S. -- the No. 1 desired destination for potential migrants. The U.K., Canada, and France also rank among the top choices for potential migrants....

Implications

The U.S. remains the most popular destination in the world for potential migrants. This is likely because of economic opportunities in the country and the established networks of potential migrants. In addition, the U.S. again tied with Germany in 2012 as the country with the highest leadership approval ratings in the world, but when it comes to a desired place to live permanently, no other country compares with the U.S.

Behold: There is no greater repudiation of the radical left's century-long campaign of anti-American delegitimation. Frankly, we should export the hardline progressives seeking to destroy America and import those teeming masses worldwide yearning to breathe free. I have no doubt our country would grow even more prosperous and wealthy if we could simply get rid of the dead-weight radicals bent on tearing America down.

Via Steve Sailor and Maggie's Farm.

What is the Resolution to the Homosexual Marriage Debate?

Check this interesting and very well-done essay from Sarah Marie Brenner, at the Brenner Brief, "The Gay Marriage SCOTUS Debate: The Constitution, or God?":

Just as we cannot redefine “death” or “birth” (at least, not without a complete perversion of the word), we cannot redefine the word “marriage.”

RTWT.

Social Conservative Leader Gary Bauer Just Destroys Fake Conservative Nicole Wallace on Fox News Sunday

Ms. Wallace may be right that public opinion is shifting toward social acceptance of homosexual marriage, but she sounds like a bloody fool trying to argue that giving homosexuals marriage rights is a conservative value. And she just gets beaten up on this by Gary Bauer, who was completely unflustered in smacking down this clueless progressive tool:

Heading Back to the O.C.

We should be on the road by now. Regular blogging will probably pick back up tonight and tomorrow.

Thanks for reading.

#TheEagles at @mgmgrand. Amazing concert. Love those guys. And glad my whole family made it to the show! #RockandRoll twitter.com/AmPowerBlog/st…
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) March 24, 2013

Echoes of Roe v. Wade in Supreme Court's Homosexual Marriage Cases

The best outcome will see the Court upholding California's Proposition 8 but simultaneously striking down the federal government's DOMA. That result will send homosexual marriage back to the states, with the will of the voters (as in California in 2008), where it belongs.

I'll have more, in any case, but see the New York Times, "Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage":

WASHINGTON — When the Supreme Court hears a pair of cases on same-sex marriage on Tuesday and Wednesday, the justices will be working in the shadow of a 40-year-old decision on another subject entirely: Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion.

Judges, lawyers and scholars have drawn varying lessons from that decision, with some saying that it was needlessly rash and created a culture war.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal and a champion of women’s rights, has long harbored doubts about the ruling.

“It’s not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far, too fast,” she said last year at Columbia Law School.

Briefs from opponents of same-sex marriage, including one from 17 states, are studded with references to the aftermath of the abortion decision and to Justice Ginsburg’s critiques of it. They say the lesson from the Roe decision is that states should be allowed to work out delicate matters like abortion and same-sex marriage for themselves.

“They thought they were resolving a contentious issue by taking it out of the political process but ended up perpetuating it,” John C. Eastman, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage and a law professor at Chapman University, said of the justices who decided the abortion case. “The lesson they should draw is that when you are moving beyond the clear command of the Constitution, you should be very hesitant about shutting down a political debate.”

Justice Ginsburg has suggested that the Supreme Court in 1973 should have struck down only the restrictive Texas abortion law before it and left broader questions for another day. The analogous approach four decades later would be to strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage but leave in place prohibitions in about 40 other states.

But Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a lawyer for the two couples challenging California’s ban, said the Roe ruling was a different case on a different subject and arose in a different political and social context. The decision was “a bolt out of the blue,” he said, and it had not been “subject to exhaustive public discussion, debate and support, including by the president and other high-ranking government officials from both parties.”

“Roe was written in a way that allowed its critics to argue that the court was creating out of whole cloth a brand new constitutional right,” Mr. Boutrous said. “But recognition of the fundamental constitutional right to marry dates back over a century, and the Supreme Court has already paved the way for marriage equality by deciding two landmark decisions protecting gay citizens from discrimination.”

RTWT.

Robert Stacy McCain Eviscerates Matthew Yglesias

Excellent work, "The 1% Progressive Bloggers Club and the Bourgeois Dialectic of Comrade Yglesias."

That Yglesias dude is such an asshole:

.@mattyglesias You're getting hammered so hard for hypocrisy it's like you've cornered the market on progressive douche-iness. Congrats!
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) March 24, 2013

Girls Outnumbered in New York's Elite Public Schools

The progs won't be satisfied until everyone's freakin' identical in "equality of result."

At the New York Times, "Girls Excel in the Classroom but Lag in Entry to 8 Elite Schools in the City."

In the United States, girls have outshined boys in high school for years, amassing more A’s, earning more diplomas and gliding more readily into college, where they rack up more degrees — whether at the bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral levels.

But that has not been the trend when it comes to one of the highest accomplishments a New York City student can achieve: winning a seat in one of the specialized high schools.

At all eight of the schools that admit students based on an eighth-grade test, boys outnumber girls, sometimes emphatically.

Boys make up nearly 60 percent of the largest and most renowned schools, Stuyvesant, the Bronx High School of Science and Brooklyn Tech, and as much as 67 percent at the High School for Mathematics, Science and Engineering at City College, according to city statistics.

While studies suggest that girls perform as well as boys in math and science classes in high school, their participation in those fields drops off in college and ultimately in careers, a phenomenon that the White House, with its Council on Women and Girls, and the National Science Foundation have tried to reverse....

There are reasons for this that don't fit the collectivist narrative.

RELATED: From Christina Hoff Sommers, at the Atlantic, "What 'Lean In' Misunderstands About Gender Differences."

Study On

From Justine Bateman on Tumbler, who's a freshman at UCLA:

She's also on Twitter.

More at Wikipedia.

Sunday Rule 5

Via Theo Spark:

RELATED: From Bob Belvedere, "Rule 5 Saturday: And God Created Kelly Brook!"

Ghetto Mom Tasered

Via iOWNTHEWORLD, "Meanwhile, The Left’s Enemy is Anyone Trying to Keep This Culture From Spreading."

Chancellor Merkel Angry with Cyprus as Euro Crisis Intensifies

At Der Spiegel, "Iron Chancellor Returns: Merkel Can't Contain Anger over Cyprus":

Angela Merkel is known for her measured approach to even the most controversial issues. The crisis in Cyprus, however, has enraged the German chancellor. In parliamentary meetings on Friday morning, she did little to disguise her fury -- though she shoulders some of the blame herself.

Coalition parliamentarians have rarely seen Chancellor Angela Merkel so upset. Whether it has been election defeats, internal bickering in the government or the euro crisis, she almost always finds moderate words even as others panic. She has earned a reputation for being cool and calculating.

But the situation in Cyprus appears to have frayed her nerves. In meetings with parliamentarians from her conservative faction and later with those from her junior coalition partner, the Free Democrats (FDP), it quickly became clear on Friday that her patience with Cyprus is running out. Together with Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, she left no doubt as to her frustration with Nicosia's new plan for raising €5.8 billion in badly needed capital.

Merkel disapproves of the Cypriot proposal, which involves bundling state assets into a "Solidarity Fund" that includes the country's retirement fund to back bond issues. According to reports on Friday, she is not alone. The troika, made up of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund, agrees with her assessment.

What happens next? "I hope that it doesn't result in a crash," Merkel told FDP parliamentarians according to a meeting participant. Merkel has long warned of a potential domino effect should a euro-zone member state enter insolvency. But now, her government is no longer excluding the possibility.

The chancellor is particularly frustrated by the lack of communication with Cypriot leaders even as the situation worsens dramatically. Some in her party have even used the word "autistic" to describe Nicosia's apparent unwillingness to communicate with Berlin. "What we have never experienced before is that, over a period of days, there has been no contact with the EU or with the troika," Merkel reportedly told the parliamentarians.

More at that top link.

Plus, "Search for a Solution: Troika Reportedly Rejects 'Plan B' in Cyprus."

The Eagles at @MGMGrand

A way cool tweet from Lorenza Ponce:

Soundcheck at The Eagles show MGM Grand Las Vegas. They are f'ing great. twitter.com/lorenzaponce/s…
— Lorenza Ponce (@lorenzaponce) March 24, 2013

I'll look for more. I took the whole family to the show. My boyz were digging it. That made me feel good. Rock and roll. The great generational equalizer.

More later ...

#EarthHour Mindlessness

Blazing Cat Fur nails it, "Dear Earth Hour, I Don't Want To Pretend I Live In North Korea - P.S. You Suck #earthhour."

More at Watts Up With That, "Tonight’s ‘Earth Hour’ is not only futile, but sends the wrong message."

The #BudLight Hotties!

These casino lovelies were hangin' out at MGM Grand:

Hot #BudLight ladies at @mgmgrand #LasVegas twitter.com/AmPowerBlog/st…
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) March 24, 2013

Socialist Roseanne Barr Expropriating the Tourist Expropriators at Las Vegas Tropicana Resort

So we pulled into the MGM Grand Hotel yesterday, and it turns out that Roseanne Barr's playing across the way at the Las Vegas Tropicana Hotel.

Hey, way to show your capitalist bona fides, right? Well, no actually. During the campaign last year Ms. Barr ran on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket and announced on Sean Hannity's show that what we need is more socialism in the United States: "I do think that we need a little bit more socialism in this country at this time."

Yeah, tell that to the working class rubes turning out for Ms. Barr's nightly gig at the Tropicana. Freakin' progressive hypocrites.

And check Ms. Barr on Twitter, where her stream is filled with all kinds of far-left agitation.

FLASHBACK: At Twitchy, "Roseanne Barr sneers at other people’s jobs, slimes Breitbart; Twitter conservatives strike back."

Adria Richards Sexual Harassment at Tech Conference

And this lady got fired?

See the Frisky, "Developer Evangelist Adria Richards Fired After Tweeting About Sexual Jokes at Tech Conference." And San Jose Mercury News, "Adria Richards: Lawyers say firing of developer who outed inappropriate comments on Twitter hard to defend in court."

Not cool.Jokes about forking repo's in a sexual way and "big" dongles.Right behind me #pycon twitter.com/adriarichards/…

— Adria Richards (@adriarichards) March 17, 2013

And what's "forking repos"?

Anyway, more at Venture Beat, "Playhaven developer fired for sexual jokes after SendGrid marketer outs him on Twitter."

More at Daily Dot, "How a "big dongle" joke brought out the worst of the Internet."

The lady did the right thing. Making "big dongle" jokes behind this lady wasn't cool.

Maria Eugenia Suarez Rule 5

At Egotastic!, "Maria Eugenia Suarez Lingerie Pictures Demand That You Fall Deep in Lust." And go straight to the video here.

Also, "Proof Positive, "Friday Night Babe is Marta Dabrowski."

More from Dana Pico, "Rule 5 Blogging: Cyprus!" Also, "Rule 5 Blogging: Fun in Iraq."

And the Laughing Conservative, "Rule 5: Kelli Garner."

Now, things get hot at 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, "Ladies Late at Night," and "Hot Pick of the Late Night." Also, "Late Night Ladies."

More over at Subject to Change, "Hot in the Kitchen." And at Randy's Roundtable, "Thursday Nite Tart (on Friday) ... Hilary Rhoda."

Still more at Pirate's Cove, "If All You See……are lights that should be turned off to show sympathy for hotcoldwetdry, you might just be a Warmist." And, "If All You See……is a coffee pot which will soon be empty because someone (else) drove an SUV, you might just be a Climate Astrologer."

Also at the Last Tradition: "Sarah Palin's Rack: Sarah Palin spotted at NBA Suns basketball game wearing a Chic-fil-A Tee shirt."

At Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, "The Friday Pin Up." And Reaganite, "PRETTY IMPRESSIVE: 'Miss Lithuania 2012' is Greta Mikalauskyte."

And at Woodsterman's, "Is It Summer Yet ~OR~ Rule 5 Woodsterman Style."

And for the King of All Rule 5, see The Other McCain, "Rule 5 Monday."

Don't Look Now But Things Ain't Going So Great for ObamaCare

Rising premiums aren't a new story, but making it to the front-page of the Wall Street Journal yesterday is certainly worth noting. See: "Health Insurers Warn on Premiums."

And implementation isn't going quite as planned either, as the New York Times reports: "Tight Deadlines and Lagging Funds Bedevil Obama Health Care Law":

Mr. Obama scored his biggest legislative achievement exactly three years ago when he signed the Affordable Care Act. But this week the administration cautioned officials to be careful about suggesting that the law would drive down costs.

Oops, that wasn't how the White House sold this monstrosity, but what else is new?

And see Rep. Paul Broun, at the Hill, "Repeal of 'ObamaCare" must remain a top priority."

Also at I'm41, "Bachmann Turns Tables: ObamaCare Will Kill Women and Children."

Obama in Israel

At the New York Times, "At Yad Vashem in Israel, Obama Urges Action Against Racism."

And, "Transcript of Obama's Speech in Israel."

Also at the Wall Street Journal, "Obama Seeks an Israeli Shift."

And see Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary, "Obama’s Mix of Reality and Fantasy," and "Both Right and Left May Be Wrong About Obama’s Speech."

The Emptiness of a Politicized Life

Some interesting blogging, from Sonny Bunch, at the Washington Free Beacon.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz Defends Company's Support of Homosexual Marriage

At London's Daily Mail, "Starbucks CEO spars with anti-gay marriage activist at the coffee company's stockholder meeting":

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz defended the coffee company's support of gay marriage at a stockholders meeting in Seattle this week.

During the business meeting, shareholder Tom Strobhar, who advocates against same-sex marriage through the Corporate Morality Action Center, said he was unhappy that Schultz has used the company to support gay marriage and claimed it had impacted the stock price.

'It’s a free country. You can sell your shares of Starbucks and buy shares in another company,' Schultz told the discontented stakeholder at the event on Wednesday.

Schultz has long been an advocate for gay rights and stated last year that the company would endorse a same-sex marriage bill in Washington state.

The move caused a stir among conservatives and opponents to gay marriage, prompting the  National Organization for Marriage's decision to boycott Starbucks.

Continue reading.

Take Lots of Euros at Look Out for Thieves

At Telegraph UK, "Take a pile of euros and watch out for thieves, Foreign Office tells Britons going on holiday to Cyprus":

Easter holidaymakers planning a trip to Cyprus have been told by the British Government take piles of euros with them - and watch out for thieves - as the country faces financial meltdown.

Every year one million Britons visit Cyprus, with many of them choosing to go on holiday over the long Easter weekend.

Advice published on the Foreign Office's website is urging Britons to take enough cash “to cover the duration of your stay” and take “appropriate security precautions”.

The official guidance prompted fears that British tourists could be at greater risk of crime in Cyprus where banks have remained shut during the financial crisis.

The advice, published on the Foreign Office’s website, said: “The Government of Cyprus has announced an extended bank closure.

“ATMs, debit and credit cards can be used as normal however, while banks are closed, we advise taking sufficient euros to cover the duration of your stay, alongside appropriate security precautions against theft.”

A GOP Push for Same-Sex Marriage Will Put 'Republicans on the Path to a Permanent Minority...'

This story captures my sentiments exactly, at WSJ, "Some on Right See Red Flags In GOP Report":

The national Republican Party's new 97-page blueprint for rebuilding the GOP makes no fewer than 30 mentions of the need to become more welcoming and inclusive, mainly on immigration and social issues.

That has some social conservatives worried that the party may become less welcoming to them.

On social issues, the party will never win over young voters if it is seen as "totally intolerant of alternative points of view," a Republican National Committee panel said this past week in its report on rejuvenating the party. The report didn't mention gay marriage specifically, but it appeared to be talking about the issue when it said that "certain social issues" are "turning off young voters from the party," and that many young voters see these matters as "the civil rights issue of our time."

Ralph Reed, founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, is among a group of conservatives now holding up a large "Caution" sign, particularly on the subject of changing the party's stance on marriage.

As someone who consulted on the blueprint, Mr. Reed said he applauds its "cold-eyed, unreserved, unflinching look at the mistakes Republicans made" in losing last year's presidential election and several Senate races that the party had expected to win.

But a push to change the party's stance on social issues, particularly by playing down its opposition to gay marriage, "is not a freebie for the Republican Party," Mr. Reed said. A move in that direction, he said, "will bleed away support from evangelicals," traditionally one of the party's pillars.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Christian conservative activist group, sent his warning to the party in an email to thousands of supporters.

"If the RNC abandons marriage, evangelicals will either sit the elections out completely—or move to create a third party," he wrote. "Either option puts Republicans on the path to a permanent minority."

The only other policy sphere that the report singled out was immigration, calling for the party to "embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform," a term that generally includes granting legal status and possibly citizenship to people who entered the country illegally. That idea has divided the evangelical community and the party as a whole, with some supporting it and others opposing what they say amounts to a reward for lawbreaking.

The national party's self-examination focused less on changing its policy stances than on a need to adjust its tone and find new ways to deliver its message to voters. It was particularly concerned with strategies for expanding the conservative brand into minority communities and other places where it hasn't been popular.

More at that top link.

The Republicans are on a path to partisan suicide. Becoming more like the Democrats will not win them votes. They'll lose their key supporters and be laughed at by the libertarians and progressives they're trying to attract. It's going to be a painful experience no matter what happens. There's a lot of change going on in American politics right now. The GOP needs to be careful not to hold its finger to the wind too long.

The Major Groups Opposing Homosexual Marriage

An excellent front-page story at today's USA Today, "Gay marriage? These voices say 'No' and explain why."

And an interesting, if flawed, piece from Michael McConnell, at the Wall Street Journal, "The Constitution and Same-Sex Marriage."

McConnell argues that when courts attempt a final resolution to contemporary hot-button issues currently working through the political process, especially at the state level, they violate the concept of political legitimacy. He then goes on to argue that the Supreme Court should rule that the group of private citizens defending Proposition 8 (in place of the State of California, which refused to advocate in defense of California's voters) doesn't have standing to sue, thus upholding the decision of the Federal District Court striking down the measure back in 2010. Get that? It wouldn't be right for the Supreme Court to resolve a hot-button political issue, but it would be perfectly fine to let stand the mob-rule decision handed down by the corrupt Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, a homosexual, now retired, who clearly had a conflict of interest in the case. Biased much, Professor McConnell?

Althouse has more, "'If the court dismisses the Proposition 8 case on standing grounds and strikes DOMA down on federalism grounds...'" (via Memeorandum).

At the MGM Grand

I'm just now getting back online after arriving in Las Vegas last night, where we stayed at Harrah's for one night. Now we're checked in at MGM Grand. The Eagles concert is tomorrow night. Here's the placard down in the elevator lobby. I'll be blogging tonight and tomorrow and then getting back on the road to Orange County on Sunday. Thanks for reading.

What the Iraq War's Critics Choose to Ignore 10 Years Later

From the editors at the Wall Street Journal, "Iraq in Retrospect":

It was 1998, and Iraq and the U.S. were edging toward war.

The Iraqi dictator, President Clinton warned that February, "threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." In October, the Iraq Liberation Act, which made regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy, passed 360-38 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate. In December, Mr. Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox, a four-day bombardment of Iraq with the declared purpose of degrading Saddam's WMD capability.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process," said Rep. Nancy Pelosi, justifying the case for military action on the eve of Mr. Clinton's impeachment.

***
Whatever else might be said about the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which began 10 years ago, its origins, motives and justifications did not lie in the Administration of George W. Bush. On the contrary, when Mr. Bush came to office in January 2001 he inherited an Iraq that amounted to a simmering and endless crisis for the U.S.—one that Saddam appeared to be winning.

American and British warplanes enforced a no-fly zone over northern and southern Iraq at a cost of $1 billion a year. The U.N.'s Oil for Food sanctions designed to "contain" Saddam were crumbling amid international opposition to its effects on the Iraqi people, even as the regime used the sanctions as a propaganda tool and as a vehicle to bribe foreign officials. Iraqi Kurds were in perpetual jeopardy, as Saddam demonstrated in 1996 when his Republican Guard took the city of Irbil and shot 700 Kurdish partisans.

Most seriously, after 1998 Iraq rid itself of weapons inspectors, meaning there wasn't even a small check on Saddam's ambitions to rebuild a WMD capability he had already proved willing to use. When the weapons inspectors finally returned to Iraq in the run-up to the invasion, they found Saddam playing the same cat-and-mouse games that had defeated them in the 1990s.

"No confidence can arise that proscribed programs or items have been eliminated," chief U.N. weapons inspector (and avowed war opponent) Hans Blix reported to the Security Council in January 2003, adding that "the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced 1,000 tons of VX nerve agent—one of the most toxic ever developed."

It was on these bases, and in the wake of the deadly 9/11 attacks, that Mr. Bush ordered the invasion. If he had lied about the intelligence—as was so widely alleged after the failure to find WMD—then so had Mr. Clinton in 1998, and so had the intelligence services of every Western intelligence service, including those of countries like Germany that opposed the war. Similarly, if Mr. Bush is to be blamed for going to war "illegally" because the U.S. failed to obtain explicit Security Council authorization, then so must Mr. Clinton for going to war with Serbia over Kosovo without U.N. blessing.

So much for the usual canards about the war. As for the failure to find WMD, what the postwar Iraq Survey Group concluded was that Saddam had the intention of restarting his weapons programs as soon as sanctions were lifted. "It was reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat," David Kay, the ISG's first head, testified to Congress in January 2004. "What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."

***
The larger intelligence (and military) failure was not anticipating the kind of war the U.S. would wind up waging in Iraq. General Tommy Franks planned a conventional military thrust to Baghdad while Saddam was laying the groundwork for the insurgency that would follow. The result was that U.S. commanders thought the war was effectively finished before it had really begun.

That mistake was compounded by General John Abizaid's "light footprint" strategy, which effectively ceded cities such as Fallujah to the insurgents while U.S. forces stayed on secure bases or conducted search-and-destroy operations. By the time Mr. Bush finally ordered Fallujah taken, late in 2004, the insurgency was full-blown and increasingly difficult to contain.

Those weren't Mr. Bush's only mistakes. He agreed to Paul Bremer's over-long regency in Iraq. He allowed Colin Powell to try diplomacy with Syria even as Bashar Assad was turning Damascus into a safe haven for Saddam loyalists and a transit center for al Qaeda jihadists. He did little to stop Iran from supplying both Shiite and Sunni insurgents with armor-busting munitions that killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers. He deferred for too long to mediocre commanders who thought it wasn't their business to defeat an insurgency they believed could only be solved through political means.

Above all, the Administration proved amazingly inept at rebutting its critics, particularly the politicians and pundits (you know who you are) who supported the war when it was popular and opposed it when it was not. Joe Wilson was proved a liar by a bipartisan Senate report, yet the myth persists that President Bush misled the public in his 2003 State of the Union address by claiming that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa, largely because Administration officials needlessly conceded a point on which they were right...

RTWT.

Plus, more lies right here, at the faux Conservative Heritage Times.

John Yoo on the Iraq War 10 Years After

At Ricochet, "Considering Iraq: Another View."

Read it all at the link.

Those who're arguing against the war, saying it wasn't worth it, essentially favor tyranny over democracy. That is, the antiwar idiots think Iraq would be better off had we never toppled Saddam. Who knows where the Middle East would be with the Ba'athists still in power today? But we know that Iraq is not threatening the region with weapons of mass destruction, that Iraqis have freedom and self-determination, and that regional tyrants know that America will stand up for its interests and for the rule of law internationally (or at least they did know, when G.W. Bush was in office).

See also Fouad Ajami, "Ten Years Ago, an Honorable War Began With Wide Support":

There is no way of writing a convincing alternative history of the region without this war. That kind of effort is inherently speculative, subject to whim and preference. Perhaps we could have let Saddam be, could have tolerated the misery he inflicted on his people, convinced ourselves that the sanctions imposed on his regime were sufficient to keep him quarantined. But a different history played out. It delivered the Iraqis from a tyranny that they would have never been able to overthrow on their own.

RTWT.

America's precipitous withdraw under President Obama risks squandering the blood, treasure, and sacrifice of American people for Iraq and the Middle East.

BONUS: For your boilerplate leftist 10 year antiwar anniversary, see Neta Crawford, at Foreign Policy, "The Iraq War: Ten Years in Ten Numbers."

Readers Fume Over Failure of Feinstein's Gun-Grabbing Bill in Senate

This is hilarious, at the Los Angeles Times, "Fuming over the assault weapons ban's failure."

PREVIOUSLY: "Feinstein's Gun-Grabbing Legislation Fails — On Cue, New York Daily News Exploits Newtown Dead to Attack 'Spineless Pols'."

Child Services, Police Descend on Home After 10-Year-Old Poses with Hunting Rifle

See the report at Big Government, and here's the father's post at the Delaware Open Carry discussion board, "I stood my ground."

Plus, Michelle Malkin's comments from last night's Hannity:

Who's Afraid of Homosexual Pornography?

Well, I guess Dan Riehl's not, if this tweet's any indication:

Public Junior College Blocks Speech By Gay Porn Star buzzfeed.com/shani/college-… via @buzzfeedlgbt
— DanRiehl (@DanRiehl) March 21, 2013

The gay porn star, Conner Habib, has more on his ordeal, "Why Are We Afraid to Talk About Gay Porn?":

Last week, I was informed by Corning Community College Vice President and Dean of Student Development, Don Heins, that the school's president, Katherine Douglas, had singled out my talk and decided to cancel it, against student wishes. They agreed to honor the contract (which they'd signed off on and which contained a cancellation fee), but they were worried that the talk would be "controversial." I wasn't scheduled to speak about porn, but to talk more broadly on sex and culture. The reason I was banned was because she'd changed her mind after discovering that I was not, as she'd thought, an educator who used to be in porn, but rather a university instructor before I started appearing in adult films.

I was told she stated, empathically and more than once, that pornography cannot and should not be linked to LGBT rights.

When I communicated with frustrated students, I told them that I'd consider coming anyway and that I could work on finding another venue if they were interested. Then I was informed that administrators contacted a local hotel and local businesses to make sure I wouldn't be coming to town, that a student was pulled aside and told not to give direct comments to the press, that the president wanted to schedule her own talk to tell students about why she canceled my appearance, and that if I were to appear in the town of Corning, students were not to attend my lecture.

Continue reading.

And checking over at the college's homepage, this announcement was at top, "CCC's Center for Diversity and Inclusion Grand Opening." Well, obviously "diversity and inclusion" doesn't include LBGT student groups who'd like to hear a gay porn actor discuss human sexuality. Too diverse, I guess.

American Withdrawal Means Global Disorder

A great piece from Eliot Cohen, at WSJ:

Since the days of the Monroe Doctrine, American foreign policy has rested on a global system of explicit or implicit commitments to use military power to guarantee the interests of the U.S. and its allies. The current administration has chosen to reduce, limit or underfund those commitments, and the results—which we may begin to see before President Obama's term ends—will be dangerous.

RTWT.

'I'm Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage'

From Doug Mainwaring, at the Public Discourse.

And here's the key section, which dovetails with the argument I've been making at this blog for years:

We are in the middle of a fierce battle that is no longer about rights. It is about a single word, “marriage.”

Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together. Same-sex relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many, but they are wholly different in experience and nature.

Gay and lesbian activists, and more importantly, the progressives urging them on, seek to redefine marriage in order to achieve an ideological agenda that ultimately seeks to undefine families as nothing more than one of an array of equally desirable “social units,” and thus open the door to the increase of government’s role in our lives.

And while same-sex marriage proponents suggest that the government should perhaps just stay out of their private lives, the fact is, now that children are being engineered for gay and lesbian couples, a process that involves multiple other adults who have potential legal custody claims on these children, the potential for government’s involvement in these same-sex marriage households is staggering.

Solomon only had to split the baby in two. In the future, judges may have to decide how to split children into three, four, or five equal pieces. In Florida, a judge recently ordered that the birth certificate of a child must show a total of three parents—a lesbian couple and a gay man (the sperm-providing hairdresser of one of the lesbian moms). Expect much more of this to come.

Statists see great value in slowly chipping away at the bedrock of American culture: faith and family life. The more that traditional families are weakened in our daily experience by our laws, the more that government is able to freely insert itself into our lives in an authoritarian way. And it will.

I said earlier that "gay conservative" is an oxymoron. Mainwaring could be an exception to the rule. He's got more here, "Same-Sex Marriage: We're Playing Chess, Not Checkers."

Is Obama Trying to Undermine Israel?

From Caroline Glick, "Obama's mysterious visit":

Obama will not use his speech before Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's most outspoken critics to express remorse over the hostility with which he treated Israel's leader for the past four years. He will not admit that his decision to coerce Israel into suspending Jewish property rights in Judea and Samaria in his first term gave the PLO justification for refusing to meet with or negotiate with the Israeli government.

So since he doesn't think he's done anything wrong, and he intends to continue the same policies in his second term, why did he decide to come to Israel? And why is he addressing, and so seeking to empower the radical, unelectable Left? Obama's speech in Cairo to the Muslim world was held at the Islamist Al-Azhar Univerity. By speaking at Al-Azhar, Obama weakened Mubarak in three different ways. First, Al-Azhar's faculty members regularly issue religious rulings calling for the murder of non-Muslims, prohibiting the practice of Judaism, and facilitating the victimization of women. In stating these views, Al-Azhar's leadership has demonstrated that their world view and values are far less amenable to American strategic interests and moral values than Mubarak's world view was. By speaking at Al-Azhar, Obama signaled that he would reward the anti-American Islamists at the expense of the pro-American Arab nationalists.

Be sure to read it all. I'm embarrassed by my own president.

Feinstein's Gun-Grabbing Legislation Fails — On Cue, New York Daily News Exploits Newtown Dead to Attack 'Spineless Pols'

Click through at Memeorandum. I'm not linking the asshole Mike Lupica. The kids deserve better than that.

And also at the front-page of today's Los Angeles Times, "Feinstein's assault weapons ban loses this round":

WASHINGTON — To advance a cause that has defined her political career, Sen. Dianne Feinstein brought the father of a child killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School to Capitol Hill, where he talked about the last time he saw his first-grader alive. She brought in police officers to press her case against her law-and-order opponents.

She made it personal, evoking the time she had sought a pulse on the wrist of San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, shot seconds before, and found her fingers "in a bullet hole." And she erupted in a rare display of public anger when a Republican senator questioned her understanding of the Constitution.

But on Tuesday, none of that was enough as the Senate majority leader, a fellow Democrat, excluded Feinstein's proposed assault weapons ban from a broader gun package. Nevada Sen. Harry Reid said he made the move out of fear the Feinstein ban would jeopardize the passage of more popular measures.

"I'm not going to try to put something on the floor that won't succeed," Reid said.

That was the unofficial death knell, and brought Feinstein to a place she has been before. She suffered similar disappointment in 2004, when Congress allowed her 1994 assault weapons ban to expire.

The California senator would not publicly acknowledge defeat, vowing to continue to lobby colleagues as she brings the ban up as an amendment to the broader bill. She said she would also seek a vote to ban ammunition magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds.

"Obviously I'm disappointed," she said. "I tried my best, but my best, I guess, wasn't good enough."

But there was a tinge of irritation as well. Citing public support for an assault weapons ban, she said, "You'd think the Congress would listen, but they clearly listen to the National Rifle Assn."

Feinstein's measure would prohibit the sale, import and manufacture of more than 150 weapons — including the make of Bushmaster rifle used in the Newtown, Conn., school shooting — and also ban the larger ammunition magazines. People who legally own assault weapons — 3.5 million to 4 million such guns exist, by one estimate — would be allowed to keep them. To buy one of the existing weapons, buyers would have to undergo a background check.

Gun violence has propelled Feinstein's political career. She became San Francisco mayor after Mayor George Moscone and Milk were shot to death at City Hall in 1978.

She pushed for the 1994 ban after a series of shootings, including a 1993 rampage in a San Francisco office building that left eight people dead and six wounded. She has become a favorite nemesis of the NRA, which has used her visage to raise money.

This time around, she spent weeks working to rally support for a new ban in the belief that the December school massacre would turn the debate. She pushed back against the notion that assault weapons should be allowed for hunting.

More at that top link.

And remember, gun control is for the little people: "Dianne Feinstein's Concealed Carry Permit."

Harry Reid Shamelessly Ties Marines' Explosion Deaths to the Sequester

From Katie Pavlich, at Townhall, "Shameless Harry Reid Uses Dead Marines to Fearmonger on Sequester" (via Memeorandum):

As Ben Shapiro would say, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is dancing on the graves of dead Marines in order to score political points. Today during remarks on the Senate floor about an explosion at an Army base in Nevada last night that killed seven Marines during a training exercise, Reid shamelessly implied sequestration and cut backs in funding were to blame for the accident.

Student Suspended for 'Hot for Teacher' Essay Sues Oakland University Administrators

This is an amazing case, at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

More here, "‘So, Are You SURE I Can Write Whatever I Want in This Assignment?’"

Billy Idol Plays Surprise Concert at Hinano's Bar in Venice Beach

Boy, that would have been a lot of fun.

At London's Daily Mail, "Still rebel yelling: Billy Idol, 57, defies his age as he performs topless in surprise show at small bar."

And he'll be playing again at Temecula's Pechanga resort in May, opening his U.S. summer tour there. I'll update if my wife and I score tickets. We'll be seeing the Eagles next weekend in Las Vegas, so not sure about the Pechanga gig.

Our US tour dates have just been announced. Head over to billyidol.net for details and a chance to win tickets.
— Billy Idol (@BillyIdol) March 18, 2013

More: "[VIDEO] 57 Yr Old Billy Idol Rips Killer Set At Hinano on St. Patricks Day In Venice Beach."

The Other Marriage Inequality

Glenn Reynolds discusses declining marriage rates among the low and lower middle classes, at USA Today.

A great piece.

Cyprus Rejects Rescue Plan

At WSJ, "Nation's Future in Euro Zone in Doubt After Blocking Controversial Tax on Deposits":

Cyprus's parliament rejected its government's bailout deal with the euro zone without a single vote in its favor, a move that could hasten the potential collapse of its banks and send the tiny island nation hurtling out of the euro zone.

Even the ruling party of President Nicos Anastasiades, who negotiated the agreement four days ago, declined to support it, leaving the country with few options to avert a financial-sector meltdown. The rejection was centered on the most controversial aspect of the deal—a tax on individual bank deposits—and came even after officials tried to calm objections by exempting depositors with less than €20,000 ($26,000).

Meanwhile, a government delegation led by the finance minister headed to Moscow to present a long-shot plan to ask Moscow for billions of dollars in return for stakes in the island's troubled banks and its energy assets.

Tuesday's vote came after days of fraught political talks in the Cypriot capital. Cyprus's banks are due to stay closed until at least Thursday, with some officials saying the holiday could stretch to Tuesday, March 26.

What happens next isn't clear. A senior European official said after the vote that the euro zone would continue to wait for a counterproposal from Nicosia, outlining how it would raise the €5.8 billion it needs in order to secure the €10 billion bailout it had agreed upon with the euro zone and the International Monetary Fund.

"The ball is now really in Cyprus's court," Eurogroup President Jeroen Dijsselbloem said on Dutch television after the vote, adding there would be no new money for Cyprus beyond the amount already set. "Cyprus was granted some freedom, but it will have to settle with the maximum amount of €10 billion."

Apart from negotiating the rescue deal, the government has been working on a Plan B that would involve support for its banks from Russia, a longtime friend of the country and the largest source of foreign deposits in Cyprus's banks. Cypriot officials were planning to offer Russia stakes in energy projects and banks, two officials familiar with the situation said. The Cypriot finance minister is due to meet with his Russian counterpart in Moscow on Wednesday.

In the past, Moscow has been cool to Cypriot requests for more assistance beyond Russia's current €2.5 billion bailout loan to Cyprus.

"It's anybody's guess what the developments will be from this point on," said Theodore Couloumbis, professor emeritus in international relations at the University of Athens. "My hope is that there will be a renegotiation. But it appears that a catastrophic scenario is not out of the question—and that is bankruptcy that could lead to a Cypriot exit from the euro zone."

Also at the Economist, "The bail-out of Cyprus: We'd rather not."

You Know You're Over the Target...

When the deranged progressive trolls attack you out of the blue as EVIL!!

Exactly how evil is @ampowerblog? Evil enough to want to make sure abusers & stalkers are well armed: americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/states… #scumbag

— Tom Hilton (@TVHilton) March 18, 2013

Here's what set the dude off, the idiot: "States Using 'Civil Protection Orders' to Roll Back Second Amendment Rights." And don't miss the comments at the thread. I won't be surprised if the workplace harassment complaints start kicking up again. Express an opinion at odds with the accepted progressive narrative and be prepared to weather the juvenile backlash. Clueless fucks.

The Progressive Shift — To the Expropriation of Capital!

Occasional (neo)conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks gets back to basics with this piece, proving he really does get it regarding the radical transformation of the Democrat Party in the Age of Obama.

See, "The Progressive Shift":

There is a statue outside the Department of Labor of a powerful, rambunctious horse being reined in by an extremely muscular man. This used to be a metaphor for liberalism. The horse was capitalism. The man was government, which was needed sometimes to restrain capitalism’s excesses.

Today, liberalism seems to have changed. Today, many progressives seem to believe that government is the horse, the source of growth, job creation and prosperity. Capitalism is just a feeding trough that government can use to fuel its expansion.

For an example of this new worldview, look at the budget produced by the Congressional Progressive Caucus last week. These Democrats try to boost economic growth with a gigantic $2.1 trillion increase in government spending — including a $450 billion public works initiative, a similar-size infrastructure program and $179 billion so states, too, can hire more government workers.

Now, of course, liberals have always believed in Keynesian countercyclical deficit spending. But that was borrowing to brake against a downturn when certain conditions prevail: when the economy is shrinking; when debt levels are low; when there are plenty of shovel-ready projects waiting to be enacted; when there is a large and growing gap between the economy’s current output and what it is capable of producing.

Today, House progressives are calling for a huge increase in government taxing and spending when none of those conditions apply. Today, progressives are calling on government to be the growth engine in all circumstances. In this phase of the recovery, just as the economy is finally beginning to take off, these Democrats want to take an astounding $4.2 trillion out of the private sector and put it into government where they believe it can be used more efficiently.

How do the House Democrats want to get this money? The top tax rate would shoot up to 49 percent. There’d be new taxes on investment, inheritance, corporate income, financial transactions, banking activity and on and on.

Now, of course, there have been times, like, say, the Eisenhower administration, when top tax rates were very high. But the total tax burden was lower since so few people paid the top rate and there were so many ways to avoid it. Government was smaller.

Today, especially after the recent tax increases, the total tax burden is already at historic highs. If you combine federal, state, sales and other taxes, rich people in places like California and New York are seeing the government take 60 cents or more out of their last dollar earned.

Democrats would make that weighty tax burden much, much heavier. In fact, the entire Democratic governing vision, from President Obama on down, is based on the notion that we can have a growing welfare state and pay for it by taxing the top 2 percent.

The first problem, of course, is that there aren’t enough rich people to cover even the current spending plans.

Well, the left's "fair share" boilerplate is based on the massive lie that the rich don't pay enough in taxes. And the fact that there aren't enough "rich" people is only a minor inconvenience to the socialists in Washington. Taxes are hitting everybody, even down to the working poor who're paying more in payroll taxes under Obama. These leftist tyrants have an insatiable demand for more --- more! --- revenue, no matter what it takes. And that, my friends, is statist evil in textbook form.

PREVIOUSLY: "Is Obama Really Socialist?"

Uncommon Knowledge: Bernard Lewis and Norman Podhoretz

Via the Hoover Institution, "Bernard Lewis and Norman Podhoretz discuss the Middle East":

This week on Uncommon Knowledge, Islam historian Bernard Lewis and Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz discuss the history and future of the Middle East. (56:54) “Deterrents worked with the Soviets and the Chinese because the Soviets were not suicidal and because they knew that, if they launched the first strike, there would be a second strike that would annihilate them. Mutually assured destruction. And mutually assured destruction can’t work in relation to Iran because these are people who you might say are in love with useful death.”