Justices Show Reluctance for Broad Marriage Ruling

This morning's big front-page write-up at the Wall Street Journal, "High Court Uneasy Over Broad Ruling":

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.

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."

Continue reading.

ZoNation: Why Liberals Like Touré Love Racism

Via Theo Spark:

California Schools Forcing LGBT Literature on Children

Well, as I said the other day, if you think it's bad now, just wait until the Supreme Court strikes down Prop 8 (or rules that the defendants lack standing, which is the same thing).

Here's Cassy Fiano, at Victory Girls:

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.

A Republican Left Turn?

Yep, the GOP is turning left alright, if the establishment push for homosexual marriage is an indication.

But see Thomas Edsall, at the New York Times. I like this part:

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:

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.

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.

But RTWT.

Mexico Doesn't Want America's Tired, Poor Americans Coming Over Its Borders — Or Anybody Else!

An excellent piece, from Michelle Malkin, "Reminder: How Mexico Treats 'Undesirable' Foreigners."

Exit question: If such self-interested “nativism” is right and good for the protection and survival of Mexico, why not for the United States?

Who's Mark Firestone?

Some progressive douchebag who won't leave Wirecutter alone. See: "Mark Firestone's man-crush."

Shoot, you've got to block, ban and report those f-kers!

Jenny Erikson A-Okay With Victoria Secret for 'Tween' Girls

The Internet is a big place and as much as you think you're on top of it, you're not. I'm reminded of this cold, hard fact with the story of "mommy blogger" Jenny Erikson, who I met a few years back when Robert Stacy McCain was in town for the Rose Bowl.

See Jenny's piece at Cafe Stir, "Victoria's Secret's New Teen Lingerie Is Something All Moms Should Be Happy About."

I guess that caused a backlash, because she's been on ABC News a number of times since that was published last month, as recently as yesterday morning, during Good Morning America. Here's an earlier segment of her interview:

And here's some of the online responses, "Outrage Grows Over Mom’s ‘Victoria’s Secret’ For Young Daughter," and "Mom Blogger Inspires Wrath of Nation Advocating Victoria’s Secret for Tweens."

And more television, at Inside Edition, "Uproar Over Mom Permitting Victoria's Secret Underwear For Daughter When She Becomes a Tween."

Jenny's a tea party conservative and I think her responses are pretty hip and knowledgeable. I don't have girls so I can't make an immediate parenting connection. Let's just say I won't be buying my youngest son Maxim Magazines for a few years yet. But my oldest boy is 17 now and he's pretty much on his own when it comes to this stuff. He'll be 18 next January, so the final legal decisions on all the big sexuality stuff will be out of my hands. I think Jenny's a good mom, and super involved. If an inner-city black woman had become an Internet sensation over this we'd be seeing outcries of RAAAAACISM from the deep benches of the radical left's victimology industry.

Well, Shark Cage Diving Wasn't on My Bucket List Anyway

From ABC News, "Newlyweds' Terrifying Close Encounter With Shark."

Michael Bloomberg Violates All Three Gun Safety Rules Taught by NRA

Well, actually, Bloomberg's gun-grabbing political advertisement violates the rules, according to Emily Miller, at the Washington Times, "Mayor Bloomberg’s irresponsible gun attack ads - Man violates all three NRA gun-safety rules":

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.

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.

See also Mary Katharine Ham, "Video: Guy in Bloomberg gun-control ads breaks all the major rules of gun safety."

Liberalism Explained

From Katie Pavlich:

. @thesdcowgirl liberalism explained ow.ly/i/1M3u3

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) March 28, 2013

Illegal Immigrant Climbs Border Fence While Senators McCain and Schumer Look On

At Pundit Press, "Illegal Alien Climbs Fence Right Behind Senators McCain, Schumer." And Hot Air, "Illegal immigrant climbs border fence right in front of McCain and Schumer; Update: Video added."

Ali Akbar Mars Curtis Bostic Campaign for Congress #SC1

There's a huge conservative buzz building for GOP congressional candidate Curtis Bostic, who's running for election from South Carolina's District 1.

Robert Stacy McCain mounted a little shoe-leather funding drive to finance a trip to cover the campaign, and now he's hitting the road: "Headin’ to South Cackalacky!"

Unfortunately, alternative media have been reporting an ugly little controversy surrounding Ali Akbar, the convicted felon who is head of the National Bloggers' Club.

iOWNTHEWORLD reports, "Head of National Bloggers Club Embroiled in South Carolina Congressional Primary Controversy."

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.

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 ...

More at the link.

And from Ladd Ehlinger on Twitter:

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

And from Rick Wilson:

I’ve completed my due diligence: any candidate within 500 miles of that creepy little shitbird @ali needs their head examined.
— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) March 27, 2013

This story's getting bigger.

Slate's David Weigel weighs in: "Is the GOP's Last, Best Hope Against Mark Sanford Blowing It?"

Expect updates...

Mark Kelly's Dog Kills Baby Sea Lion in Laguna Beach

Remember, this is Gabby Giffords' gun-grabbing husband.

And to think, I once respected this man.

At Jammie Wearing Fool, "Mark Kelly’s Assault Dog Kills Baby Sea Lion." The video is graphic. That dog just murders the little sea lion.

They should probably institute a waiting period before someone demonstrates they can capably handle the dog.

Will Tolerance for the Faithful Be Tolerated?

From John Kass, at the Chicago Tribune, "As times change, will tolerance for tradition be tolerated?":

With the issue of same-sex marriage argued before the Supreme Court and raging elsewhere in America, a question:

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.

What?

Tolerance for Godbag religious bigots? Well, don't expect any of that from the pro-homo progressive left. They hate conservative Christians. And traditional Muslims? Well, folks like that are only good for attacking conservatives as Islamophobes, so they have their uses. Just screw 'em when it comes to their "backward" views on homosexuality. Throw those Muslim bigots under the bus.

 More from David Brody, at CBN, "Are the Faithful More Scorned Than Homosexuals?"

Gretchen Rossi Bikini Pics

Once again, a much-needed bikini break before getting back to the depraved homosexual updates.

At Egotastic!, "Gretchen Rossi Bikini Beach Photoshoot in L.A.."

Dumping DOMA

I listened to yesterday's Prop 8 arguments before I went to bed. It's time consuming, so I don't know when I'll listen to today's arguments in Windsor. I'm going to read around the horn for awhile. Perhaps again late tonight I'll take the time. That said, what I've read thus far confirms my suspicion that repealing DOMA won't simply leave the issue to the states --- in line with a liberty-driven federalism argument --- but will have the de facto effect of nationalizing the right to homosexual marriage.

So for now, here's Emily Bazalon, who's convinced DOMA's going down, "Ditching DOMA":

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.

More at that top link, and at SCOTUS Blog, "Argument recap: DOMA is in trouble (FINAL UPDATE)." (Via Memeorandum.)

Oral Arguments in United States v. Windsor

It's still early, but the Court heard arguments on the DOMA today.

The New York Times has this, "Justices Weigh Law Denying U.S. Benefits to Gay Spouses." And at the Washington Post, "Supreme Court considers DOMA case."

And check SCOTUS Blog for updates. I'm heading to work and will blogging developments later tonight.

IMAGE CREDIT: The Looking Spoon, "Regardless of How SCOTUS Rules on 'Marriage Equality' Marriage Can Never Actually Be Redefined."

Alleged Terrorist Attempts Take Down of BlazingCatFur

This is messed up, at BCF, "Ottawa Terrorist Dr. Khurram Sher... Oops Alleged Terrorist... Has Filed Blogger Take Down Requests Against Yours Truly."

'Marriage is not an ancient country club based on bigotry...'

Per Aleister, who, at American Glob, made a libertarian argument in favor of homosexual marriage, a reader responds:

Usually enjoy your Glob posts in my inbox, but this one really disappointed and offended me. This “Hey I’m cool, whatever floats your boat” attitude re: changing the fundamental building block of society, traditional marriage, is where libertarians will lose many conservatives and sink our chances in 2016.

Marriage is not an ancient country club based on bigotry. You need to readjust your goggles, amigo. This issue could sink civilization, not just America, for good.

RTWT, "In Which Iowahawk Describes My Position On Gay Marriage."

Universities as Left-Wing Seminaries

From Dennis Prager, at Townhall, "Florida Atlantic University: Another Left-Wing Seminary":

Question: What is the difference between Christian seminaries and American universities?

Answer: Christian seminaries announce that their purpose is to produce committed Christians. American universities do not admit that their primary purpose is to produce committed leftists. They claim that their purpose is to open students' minds.

This month Florida Atlantic University provided yet another example of how universities have become left-wing seminaries.

An FAU professor told his students to write "JESUS" (in bold caps) on a piece of paper and then step on it.

One student who did not, a junior named Ryan Rotela, complained to the professor and then to the professor's supervisor. He explained that he had refused to do so because it violated his religious principles.

Two days later, Rotela was told not to attend the class anymore. The university then went on to defend the professor in an email to a local CBS TV station: "Faculty and students at academic institutions pursue knowledge and engage in open discourse. While at times the topics discussed may be sensitive, a university environment is a venue for such dialogue and debate."

FAU further pointed out that the stomping exercise -- to "discuss the importance of symbols in culture" -- came from a textbook titled "Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach."

After the story became national news, FAU issued an apology: "We sincerely apologize for any offense this has caused. Florida Atlantic University respects all religions and welcomes people of all faiths, backgrounds and beliefs."

Of course, this "apology" was meaningless. Apologizing for "giving offense" has nothing to do with condemning the act. Not to mention that kicking Rotela out of the class belied the university's claim of open discourse.

This story is significant because it provides yet another example of the deteriorated state of American higher education. There are some excellent professors in the so-called "social sciences" at American universities. But they are in the minority. The left has taken over American universities as well as most high schools, and like almost everything the left has influenced -- education, religion, the arts and the economies of most countries -- this influence has been destructive.

The argument that the professor represents no one but himself is refuted by the fact that the university defended the professor until it feared the national outcry that resulted.

More at that top link.

The professor is a Democrat Party apparatchik.

I saw this case earlier, and it's mind-boggling. More here, "Gov. Scott Requests Answers From FAU In Jesus Stomping Controversy."

'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.