California Supreme Court Set to Uphold Prop 8

The Los Angeles Times reports on today's arguments before the California Supreme Court:

The California Supreme Court strongly indicated Thursday it would rule that Proposition 8 validly abolished the right for gays to marry but would allow same-sex couples who wed before the November election to remain legally married.

The long-awaited hearing, which came as dueling demonstrators chanted and carried banners outside, was a disappointment for gay rights lawyers.

They had hoped the same court majority that overturned the state's previous marriage ban would conclude that Proposition 8 was an impermissible constitutional revision.

Two members of that majority -- Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Justice Joyce L. Kennard -- expressed deep skepticism toward the gay rights lawyers' arguments. Without their votes, Proposition 8 appeared almost certain to survive.

The other two justices who ruled in favor of marriage rights last year - Carlos R. Moreno and Kathryn Mickle Werdegar - seemed more open to the revision challenge. Moreno even helped gay rights lawyers with their arguments.

But the court revealed no division on whether to uphold the marriages of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who wed before November.

Even Justice Marvin Baxter, the court's most conservative member, observed that the couples got married after receiving the right by "the highest court of the state."

"How can we deny the validity of those marriages?" Baxter asked.

The court's ruling is due within 90 days.

There's more at the link, but check Dale Carpenter at Volokh Conspiracy for some of the legal trade-offs the Court must make to come to its expected ruling. Looking ahead, will a simple majority by initiative be able to strip the fundamental "rights" of any numerical minority in the state?

No matter what happens, the gay marriage debate doesn't end here.

A legal rights group, Gay & Lesbian Adocates & Defenders (GLAD), filed suit on Tuesday to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA). The federal law grants an exception to Article IV's Full Faith and Credit command for states' obligations to each other (which requires that states recognize the acts, records, and judgments of other states). So, things at some point will move up from the state level to the federal courts - in California, for example, following the resolution of the Prop 8 challenge, but also in other parts of the country where gay activists are pressing their advantage in the perceived leftist climate engendered by economic crisis and Obamessianism.

Recall, though, that just 31 percent of Americans currently support full same-sex marriage rights (when the question is asked with the alternative responses of "civil unions or partnerships for same-sex couples," or "no legal recognition for same-sex couples"). So, we'll be back to largely a political war over defining what it means to uphold traditional values, but also a struggle to seek a moderate compromise that might work to calm the culture wars before things become so intractable the nation sees a repeat of the worst violence and excesses of the civil rights era.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Newsweek ramps-up the gay marriage debate with its cover story this week, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage."

The piece starts with numerous examples of Biblical figures whose manners of living were diametrically opposed to what today's religious conservatives would champion as an appropriate traditional lifestyle for society: For example, "Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists."

Read the essay. The problem I see is the author argues an exclusively literalist case against faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage, when in fact most Americans would more likely argue an essentialist religious foundation against gay marriage, one that sees religious tradition - rather than literal prophetic realism - as the basis for an ethics privileging heterosexual marriage.

Here's how Newsweek paints religious literalism as a straw man in favor of a more holistic religious acceptance of same-sex marriage:

As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

As I have argued many times here, the case for an expansive religious interpretation of a homosexual right to marry was rejected decisively at the polls this year, and Newsweek's own poll that accompanies this article found only 31 percent of Americans in favor full-blown marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

But we can leave all of that aside for the moment, since the increasing secularism in American society seems like a steamroller at times, and its proponents have no qualms of adopting Soviet-style show-trial tactics to dehumanize those who suppor the majoritarian political process.

The fact is, conservatives may have to battle gay rights advocates on the secular battlefield, as contentious cultural issues like this are essentially uncompromising for people of faith.

Susan Shell, in a masterpiece of an article, "The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage," lays out a classical and secular liberal case against gay marriage ("liberal" is used here in the Lockean form, with a stress on "liberty of rights," not "liberal" as used to describe the American left).

The core of Shell's argument is that marriage historically is recognized as a practice that his essentially procreative and regenerative. Not all couples bear children, but the institution's social foundation is anchored in the elevation of the basic biological union of spouses, and it is protected under the law as available to only one man and one woman, as a matter of civil principle. Shell argues, for example, marriage should only be available for the regenerative union of spouses in the ideal, as funerals are in fact only available to the dead:

When considering the institution of marriage, a useful comparison exists between how society addresses the beginning and end of human life. Like death, our relation to which is shaped and challenged but not effaced by modern technologies, generation defines our human nature, both in obvious ways and in ways difficult to fathom fully. As long as this is so, there is a special place for marriage understood as it has always been understood. That is to say, there is a need for society to recognize that human generation and its claims are an irreducible feature of the human experience.

Like the rites and practices surrounding death, marriage invests a powerful, universally shared experience with the norms and purposes of a given society. Even when couples do not "marry," as is increasingly becoming the case in parts of western Europe, they still form socially recognized partnerships that constitute a kind of marriage. If marriage in a formal sense is abolished, it will not disappear, but it will no longer perform this task so well.

A similar constraint applies to death. A society could abolish "funerals" as heretofore understood and simply call them "parties," or allow individuals to define them as they wish. Were the "liberationist" exaltation of individual choice pushed to its logical conclusion, would not a public definition of "funeral" as a rite in honor of the dead appear just as invidious as a public definition of "marriage" as an enduring sexual partnership between a man and woman? If it is discriminatory to deny gay couples the right to "marry," is it not equally unfair to deny living individuals the right to attend their own "funerals"? If it makes individuals happy, some would reply, what is the harm? Only that a society without the means of formally acknowledging, through marriage, the fact of generation, like one without the means of formally acknowledging, through funeral rites, the fact of death, seems impoverished in the most basic of human terms.

Like generation, death has a "public face" so obvious that we hardly think of it. The state issues death certificates and otherwise defines death legally. It recognizes funeral attendance as a legal excuse in certain contexts, such as jury duty. It also regulates the treatment of corpses, which may not merely be disposed of like any ordinary animal waste. Many states afford funeral corteges special privileges not enjoyed by ordinary motorists. Funeral parlors are strictly regulated, and there are limits on the purchase and destruction of cemeteries that do not apply to ordinary real estate. In short, there are a number of ways in which a liberal democratic government, as a matter of course, both acknowledges "death" and limits the funereal rites and practices of particular sects and individuals. I cannot call a party in my honor my "funeral" and expect the same public respect and deference afforded genuine rites for the dead. And it would be a grim society indeed that allowed people to treat the dead any old which way--as human lampshades, for example.

Once one grants that the link between marriage and generation may approach, in its universality and solemn significance, the link between funereal practices and death, the question of gay marriage appears in a new light. It is not that marriages are necessarily devoted to the having and rearing of children, nor that infertility need be an impediment to marriage (as is still the case for some religious groups). This country has never legally insisted that the existence of marriage depends upon "consummation" in a potentially procreative act. It is, rather, that marriage, in all the diversity of its forms, draws on a model of partnership rooted in human generation. But for that fact, marriages would be indistinguishable from partnerships of a variety of kinds. The peculiar intimacy, reciprocity, and relative permanence of marriage reflect a genealogy that is more than merely historical.

Seen in this light, the issue of gay marriage can be reduced to the following question: Is the desired union between homosexuals more like a marriage between infertile heterosexuals, unions that draw ultimate psychological and moral sustenance (at least symbolically) from the experience of human generation; or is it more like insistence on attending one's own funeral--a funeral, one might say, existing in name only? This question is not easily answered. Progress can be made, however, by attending to the stated goals of most gay marriage advocates.

Someone who is living cannot attend their own funeral, and thus, according to this logic, someone who is gay cannot attend their own marriage, as marriage has been historically constituted heterosexually in law and culture.

But Shell adds another paragraph indicating the likely backlash militant homosexuals will engender through their hardcore gay marriage advocacy:

American citizens should not have the sectarian beliefs of gay-marriage advocates imposed on them unwillingly. If proponents of gay marriage seek certain privileges of marriage, such as legal support for mutual aid and childbearing, there may well be no liberal reason to deny it to them. But if they also seek positive public celebration of homosexuality as such, then that desire must be disappointed. The requirement that homosexual attachments be publicly recognized as no different from, and equally necessary to society as, heterosexual attachments is a fundamentally illiberal demand. Gays cannot be guaranteed all of the experiences open to heterosexuals any more than tall people can be guaranteed all of the experiences open to short people. Least of all can gays be guaranteed all of the experiences that stem from the facts of human sexual reproduction and its accompanying penumbra of pleasures and cares. To insist otherwise is not only psychologically and culturally implausible; it imposes a sectarian moral view on fellow citizens who disagree and who may hold moral beliefs that are diametrically opposed to it.

Keep in mind that Shell argues this point with the acknowlegment that political libertarianism would accord homosexuals the same rights that accrue to traditional couples, such as adoption. And as we saw in the Newsweek survey, on every other gay rights issues outside of marriage equality majorities of Americans are tolerant and expansive in affording full inclusion for same-sex partners.

But the current militant authoritarianism for same-sex marriage rights - which we've seen demonstrated with nauseating clarity in the No on H8 attacks following the passage of California's Yes on 8 initiative - will almost certainly generate the kind of backlash against gay marriage equality that Shell envisions.

So, while there may indeed by a growing generation tolerance for full-blown same-sex marriage equality, the logical extension of full public affirmation of such marriage rights may well create the the kind of reaction capable of setting back the clock on gay rights altogether.

Lesbians Can Be Expelled From Private Religious Schools

California's 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego has upheld the right of a private Lutheran school to limit the enrollment of students whose conduct is inconsistent with the religious beliefs of the institution. The case represents the assertion of judicial protection of freedom of association.

Note this from the Los Angeles Times story:

In ruling in favor of the school, the appeals court cited a 1998 California Supreme Court decision that said the Boy Scouts of America was a social organization, not a business establishment, and therefore did not have to comply with the Unruh Civil Rights Act. That case also involved a discrimination complaint based on sexual orientation.

"The school's religious message is inextricably intertwined with its secular functions," wrote Justice Betty A. Richli for the appeals court. "The whole purpose of sending one's child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework."

On its face, the case seems a straightforward confirmation of the bedrock First Amendment guarantees. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote for the majority in the precedent-setting Roberts v. United States Jaycees:

... the Court has concluded that choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships must be secured against undue intrusion by the State because of the role of such relationships in safeguarding the individual freedom that is central to our constitutional scheme. In this respect, freedom of association receives protection as a fundamental element of personal liberty ... The Constitution guarantees freedom of association of this kind as an indispensable means of preserving other individual liberties.

Despite such basic principles of human freedom, the response to the 4th District's ruling on the left has been entirely predictable. Freddie de Boer of the Extraordinary Bloggers has this:

Hey, why would someone like me be more invested in building a legal defense of gay marriage specifically and a larger lattice of rights to defend gay people generally? Why, maybe because of things like girls getting kicked out of their private high schools because the administration of said high school believes them to be lesbians.

This is why I am concerned with legality, rights and government first. Because right now, today, gay people are the subject of explicit, systematic discrimination. As we have said several times, these are of course connected phenomena, and I want to change both law and culture.

Notice the ultimate totalitarianism here, where Freddie wants to control both law and culture.

It's okay, though, right? That's expected of the International ANSWER-sponsored progressive gay-rights steamroller. It's what's been going on all along since November 5th and the No on H8 Stalinism that has attacked, boycotted, and excoriated regular folks who expressed a legitimate policy preference at the polls, peaceably. The progressive nihilists want their culture war - and they want it now!, even if there's little substantive connection on the issues other than excessive emotion and juvenility.

Notice how Freddie's discussion at the post is all about "discrimation" and "rights," but the rights discussed only favor the two lesbians who were expelled for behavior inappropiate to the norms and values inherent to a private sectarian educational establishment. Just forget the First Amendment rights of those "Christianists," naturally, those torture-loving bigots.

What's especially interesting is Freddie's spurious extrapolation to gay marriage. Gays do not face discrimination on questions of marriage. Same-sex marriage is not a civil right, and has yet to be considered one in U.S. constitutional jurisprudence. Homosexuals are free to marry, in any case, as is everyone else. They cannot, however, simply strongarm their way to a same-sex right that society does not recognize nor want, for fear of cultural destabilization and anti-social licentiousnesss. Moreover, the plight of the two girls can hardly be taken as representing a larger social climate of intolerance toward gays. Poll after poll finds phenomenal support for equal treatment under the law, as Newsweek recently found:

Seventy-four percent back inheritance rights for gay domestic partners (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 73 percent approve of extending health insurance and other employee benefits to them (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 67 percent favor granting them Social Security benefits (compared to 55 percent in 2004) and 86 percent support hospital visitation rights (a question that wasn't asked four years ago). In other areas, too, respondents appeared increasingly tolerant. Fifty-three percent favor gay adoption rights (8 points more than in 2004), and 66 percent believe gays should be able to serve openly in the military (6 points more than in 2004).

The same poll found that just 31 percent "support FULL marriage rights for same-sex couples," to quote from the language from the questionnaire.

To gain said rights, secular progressives demand that the great majority of Americans capitulate to their coercion and hostility. And if they don't - as we've seen - marriage traditionalists involuntarily subject themselves to Soviet-style show trials and aggressive boycotts designed to stifle freedom of speech and association, which are exactly the same issues that the District court protected by ruling in favor of the Lutheran school.

As a red herring, the plaintiffs alleged that the school master sat too close to the girls during their questioning, "intimidating" the students in an "prurient fashion," although the court rejected such claims outright. Pam Spaulding's playing this "abuse" angle in a classic leftist victimology shake-down grab. As for the Extraordinary Brotherhood of Traveling Bloggers, Freddie's post is one in a series labeled "Same Sex Marriage and Nomenclature," so no doubt we'll be seeing more jackbooted opposition to the traditional majority dripping like death from their page.

I'll have more on the august work from this extraordinary bunch, with special attention to the extra-extraordinary blog-master Mark Thompson, who was once considered a freedom-loving libertarian, but who now cheers the rationality of Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli citizens, and who has now apparently joined forces with a some ultra-orthodox gay-marriage ayatollahs who want to ram down cultural change on the rest of us.

Dissecting Nihilism and Gay Marriage

Robert Stacy McCain has written on Ta-Nehisi Coates' essay, "Nihilism and Gay Marriage," where the latter attacks oponents of gay marriage as bigots and homophobes. Ta-Nehisi is responding the Andrew Sullivan's long essay excoriating Rod Dreher's social conservatism, "Be Not Afraid, Rod." I saw Sullivan's piece earlier, but I've covered this ground so much in the last six months that I skipped over the piece as nothing really new. Not only that. I'm currently reading Sullivan's Virtually Normal, so as to get a sense of this man's thinking prior to his mental deterioration over the last few years (in the Bush era). Plus, the gay marriage debate's picking up steam by the day; so long's as Sullivan's own sexual proclivities don't kill him before society reaches some satisfactory equilibria, we'll certainly be hearing more from the barebacked narcissist.

In any case, McCain has a great takedown, where he notes in particular:

Sully and his friends insult conservatives by supposing us to be cowards. If we disagree on what is, at heart, a question of policy, we are accused of vicious hatefulness. Indeed, we are said to be suffering from a psychological disorder, homophobia. To this insult - and their arrogant supposition that we are too stupid to know when we are being insulted - I quote one of the great heroes of cinema.

"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."
- The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

The discourse Sully means to have with us:

Sully: You're stupid.
Us: Excuse me?
Sully: You're mentally ill, too.
Us: What the . . .?
Sully: Hatemonger!
Us: Boy, I'm about to whup you.
Sully: Fascist!

He does not argue in good faith. We have on our side ancient tradition and religious orthodoxy. He has on his side the prestige of the intellectual elite. Ergo, we are ignorant rabble, and he is so infinitely superior to us that he can insult us with impunity, and we dare not even take notice of the insult.

Actually, I don't think Sullivan has "intellectual prestige" anymore. Ross Douthat, maybe so? Sullivan's mostly getting pulled along for the ride at the Atlantic, where's he's now an embarrassment to that previously august publication.

What's interesting here is actually Ta-Nehisi Coates' elaboration of the "bigots" and "homophobes" meme. It's just a dumb attack, first of all, and pure intellectual cowardice on top of that. The slam on conservatives as "bigots" and "homophobes" simply attempts to shut down debate, not encourage dialog or understanding. What's really bad about Ta-Nehisi is how he reverts to the infantile comparison of gay marriage activists today to black Americans during Jim Crow, Americans who faced the enormity of this nation's system of racial apartheid. There's is very little support for the analogy that Ta-Nahisi attempts, for example:

... in the white male paranoid mind, the deepest ambition of all black men lay between the two legs of some white woman--any white woman ....

Bigotry, in all forms, requires a shocking arrogance, a belief that other communities deepest desires revolve around your destruction. It is the ultimate narcissism, a way of thinking that can only see others, through a paranoid fear of what one might lose. The fears are almost always irrational. To go back to Chuck D, perhaps he was too cold when he said, "Man, I don't want your sister." But there was deep truth in it, the idea was, "Fool, this ain't about you and your fucked-up sexual hangups." In much the same vein when I read people complaining that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, I think, "Fool, these gay motherfuckers ain't thinking about your marriage. This ain't about you and your hang-ups."

Bigotry is the heaping of one man's insecurity on to another. Sexism, racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-Islamism, anti-immigrantism, really all come from the same place--cowardice. In his history of lynching, Phillip Dray notes that mob violence against black men wasn't simply about keeping black men in their place--it was about keeping white women in their place. Lynching peaked as white women went to work outside the home in greater numbers, developing their own financial power base. White men, afraid that they couldn't compete with their women, would cowardly resort to lynching. I am not saying that the anti-gay marriage crowd is a lynch mob. But in tying opposition to the sexual revolution what you see is, beyond a fear of gay marriage, a fear for marriage itself. A fear that their way of life can't compete in these new times. It's ridiculous, of course. But bigotry always is.

Well, yes, Ta-Nehisi, you are alleging traditional Americans to be a lynch mob, because you are conflating the kind of earlier racist bigotry with today's program of moral right that supports the normative conception of the traditional marriage union.

I wrote a post on all of this last November following the violent gay rights protests against Proposition 8, "Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right." I link there to Eugene Rivers and Kenneth Johnson's, "Same-Sex Marriage: Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy," where the authors note that:

There is no evidence in the history and literature of the civil rights movement, or in its genesis in the struggle against slavery, to support the claim that the "gay rights" movement is in the tradition of the African-American struggle for civil rights.

And:

It is precisely the indiscriminate promotion of various social groups' desires and preferences as "rights" that has drained the moral authority from the civil rights industry.

Ta-Nehisi Coates descends to the same level of invective found in Sullivan's "Christianist" slur. There's really no underlying argument in support of these claims. Such attacks as "bigots" or "Christianists" are either totally disconnected from historical facts and circumstances, or are just epithets of genuine nihilist hysteria seeking to bully those who hold majoritarian views on the appropriate role of tradition in society.

Of course, It's actually pretty disgusting how low this debate has devolved (to demential and demonism). But that's what you're going to get from folks like Andrew Sullivan and his allies, who are determined to force gay marriage on the rest of society, or die trying.

There's more of this debate at Independent Gay Forum, "Dreher's Conversation With No One." And also Memeorandum.

Gay Marriage and Young Republicans

Meghan McCain's in the news again with her comments on gay marriage and the GOP. According to Ms. McCain, for "progressive" Republicans, the gay marriage issue is "about reaching a wider base and redefining what it means to be Republican, and leaving labels, stereotypes, and negativity by the wayside."

Read the whole thing, here. Ms. McCain argues that Ronald Reagan, in 1978, championed gay rights during a California initiative battle what would have prevented gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools.

The problem for Ms. McCain, and other advocates of same-sex marriage, is that Americans do not hold discriminatory views of homosexuals. Polls repeatedly find widespread support for the extension of equal protections to gay Americans. The problem is not the extension of rights to same-sex couples per se, but the redefinition of marriage itself. And huge majorities are opposed to changing the historical conception of society's normative tradition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Much of the meme on the left (alleging conservative bigotry) is in fact progressive totalitarianism and intolerance toward the traditional culture. That's why so many regular folks get turned off by the debate: They are hesitant to wade into the culture wars for fear of being attacked and browbeaten as homophobic when they are anything but.

Interestingly, Kristen Soltis, at The Next Right, finds some empirical support for Ms. McCain's argument on gay marriage and young Republicans. But a careful look at numbers offered by Soltis, drawn from the General Social Survey, reveals that youth voters are not all that sold on the acceptablility of homosexual relations, much less gay marriage:

I recently completed research on the topic of young voters and the GOP: where the Republican Party is losing young voters, how serious the threat is to the party, and how the Republican Party should respond. And on this point, Ms. McCain has it right - the issue of gay marriage is one on which young voters and the Republican Party diverge significantly ....

Yet issues relating to homosexuality find vast differences between the young and older voters. In terms of the issue of whether or not homosexual sex is wrong, 44.3% of respondents to the General Social Survey 18-34 believe it is "never wrong" compared to 33.5% of respondents overall. Furthermore, 47.3% of respondents 18-34 said homosexual sex was "always wrong" compared to 55.6% of respondents overall.

Eh, hello? "47.3% of respondents 18-34 said homosexual sex was "always wrong ..."

That statistic sticks out like a sore thumb. This is 2008 data. If nearly half of those 18-34 think that homosexual intercourse is always wrong, it's not a particularly robust statement on youth support for gay rights, much less same-sex marriage. Futher, for all the talk of society moving toward more acceptance of gay lifestyles, that's got to be a troublesome statistics for the radical homosexual activists. Indeed, numbers like these explain precisely why the gay nihilists browbeat tradtionalists into submission: Radical leftists know that their agenda violates the deepest sense of social propriety, and so they must portray traditionalists as bigots and religious "extremists" to make the sale for their own licentiousness.

I just checked Google for my post from January on the radical gay of the political left: "Gay Activists Plan Obama Inaugural Celebrations." At that entry I discussed the inaugural celebrations among gay activist groups, which included the deployment of "rimming stations" by those celebrating at the Doubletree Hotel in Washington. But note that a Google search for "rimming station gay" pulls up all kind of links to gay male sexual pornography. With all due respect to Meghan McCain, I seriously doubt these are the kind of "moderate conservative" views the GOP should be pushing. Or, at least, a look at young gay lifestyles reveals anything but a socially conservative outlook, and I'd wager Ronald Reagan would roll over in the grave at the thought of it.

Besides, as gay conservative Charles Winecoff argued recently, the gay rights agenda is really not about "inclusion" or "full acceptance." It's about social revolution:

Eight years after 9/11, the LGBT community gets its activism fix by indulging in nostalgic, anti-establishment indignation over petty domestic slights. Ganging up on an annoying little old lady carrying a cross at a Prop 8 rally satisfies the itch between workouts and White Parties. But wouldn’t it be genuinely awe inspiring to see masses of musclebound gay men taking on, say, a congregation of homophobic Islamic “thinkers” (who, BTW, love the idea of pushing gay men off cliffs to their death)? ....

Civil unions already offer gay couples the same basic legal status as married couples in several states, including California (and they’re a lot easier to get). But as a result of the gay community’s mass hissy fit to usurp marriage, the religious right has been re-ignited in its holy war against legal recognition of any gay relationships at all ....

40 years after the Stonewall Riots, it’s time for the LGBT community to reconnect with what made us rebel in the first place: the right to live not as conformist dhimmis, but as social, intellectual, and artistic pioneers. Instead of stirring up resentment trying to snatch a piece of a stale pie we don’t really need - and setting back our cause in the process - we need to keep moving forward, not “separate but equal,” but different and equal.

There's a lot to think about for the GOP in acceding to the demands of "progressive" Republicans for a wholesale cultural change that is nowhere near supported by a majority of Americans. Not only that, the youth demographic is open to political persuasion toward more conservative ideals on lifestyle and families.

There's been some talk lately of the formation of third political party, which would in effect be a splinter movement breaking away from today's GOP. So far that chatter's been associated with the Tea Party protests springing up around the country, but if the national Republican Party capitulates to the Megan McCain's and David Frums, it's not unlikely that the push for a new conservative party outside of the traditional two-party system would pick up even more steam.

**********

Related: Gay Patriot looks at the same data from Next Right, and then adds:

I don’t think the GOP need be pro-gay marriage to win the youth vote. I do think it needs [to] offer a vision of choice and opportunity to contrast the Democrats’ preference for government solutions and one-size-fits-all approaches.

That said, I think the best path for the party would be take a more neutral stand on gay marriage and favor a state-by-state approach, consistent with the federalist principles which once undergirded the GOP.

It's interesting that had Iowa taken the "federalist" route this last week, we would not have seen the approval of same-sex marriage in that state.

Gay Rights Militants to Push for Same-Sex Marriage Following DADT Victory

I knew this was going to happen. Indeed, one of the reasons I haven't extensively engaged the debate on gays in the military is because while supportive, the overall agenda dovetails with the militant same-sex marriage movement to which I'm opposed. Aggressive lobbying for it would be basically helping the other side, and I draw the line at gay marriage, which is against both nature and moral right. This is something that's been discussed here many times. And just today I added an important update on the debate, "Real Marriage is the Union of Husband and Wife." And now with the DADT repeal, we'll be seeing not just a flurry of activity in the militant gay community, but a campaign of gay marriage cheerleading in the left's Democratic-Media-Industrial-Complex. We have this at the New York Times tonight, for example, "One Battle Won, Activists Shift Sights" (via Memeorandum).

And also at this morning's Los Angles Times, "Gains Outweigh Setbacks in a Landmark Year for Gay Rights":

Today the military, tomorrow the marriage altar?

In an era when gay Americans have seen stunning progress and many setbacks in the quest for equality under the law, many believe 2010 will go down in history as a watershed that will lead inexorably to more legal rights.

Saturday's vote in the Senate to allow the repeal of the federal law banning gays from openly serving in the military is "one of the greatest, if not the greatest, victory in the history of the movement for gay and lesbian equality," said Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a UC Santa Barbara think tank that studies the issue of gays in the military. "Going back thousands of years, the marker of a first-class citizen has always been someone who's been allowed to serve in the military."

Most countries that allow gay marriage, he added, lifted their military bans on gays first.

Still, the wrangling in the halls of Congress, in courts and at ballot boxes about how gays are treated shows no sign of abating anytime soon.

"All social justice movements are two steps forward, three steps back," said Fred Sainz, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group. "It's always been a lot of highs and sometimes more lows, but the highs tend to be more momentous than the lows."

Social conservatives, though disappointed with the Senate vote, disagree that there is a link between the military and marriage.

"It's a tragic day for America," said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council. "But I don't think this will really affect the marriage issue very much. It's been rejected by voters in 31 states."

Indeed, the most important victories for gays have been won this year in the courts and Congress, rather than through the electorate.

RTWT.

RELATED: At Sense of Events, "What Makes Marriage, Marriage?"

And from the gay militant commentary: Pam's House Blend, Towleroad and, AMERICAblog Gay.

Obama Backs Comprehensive Gay Rights Agenda

Via Protein Wisdom and Right Wing Sparkle, it turns out that Barack Obama, during the campaign, discounted LGBT issues on the official website prior to the election, but now the president-elect has a full gay-rights page up declaring fealty to the same gay marriage ayatollahs who are now conducting post-Proposition 8 Stalinist show trials, intimidating blacks with the "n-word," and smearing Mormons as the new Nazis.

Here's this from a homosexual rights blog:

A few weeks ago I was getting dozens of emails about President-elect Barack Obama's Change.gov website and its lack of any mention of the words 'gay' or 'lesbian'. That has now changed, and the site, which echoes Obama's campaign positions, features a civil rights agenda for LGBT Americans more comprehensive than anything we've seen from an incoming president. There is no doubt, however, that demands for marriage equality from the masses will only grow stronger, and at a certain point the leader of this nation will need to take the proper route and stand behind equality in action and name for all Americans.

In other words, Obama's gay rights agenda does not include a plank on the promotion of gay marriage, so we'll harass his administration with intimidation and mayhem until he toes the line to our extremist agenda.

Folks can quibble with the significance of Obama's proposed gay agenda (which includes repealing "don't ask, don't tell," a surprisingly bad idea politically, considering the ghosts of the Clinton White House now haunting the presidential transition), but what's important in the context of the current gay marriage protests is Obama's pledge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA).

The DOMA says that the federal government will not recogize same-sex marriages as coequal to traditional marriages, and it holds that states need not recognize same-sex marriages that have been lawfully authorized by legislatures of other states.

Should the Obama administration repeal DOMA, the gay marriage movement will become legitimized under a creeping federalism of No on H8 intolerance, as more and more states recognize same-sex weddings across the nation - that is, an Obama administration will give the green light to the destruction of this country's traditionalism by legitimizing claims to homosexual marriage equality.

This would be a huge step toward consolidating a national religion of secular humanism at the federal level of American government and politics. Indeed, this is exactly the outcome demanded by radical same-sex activists. We will see a new national polity built on an ideology of cultural relativism, no longer that great shining City on a Hill, but just one more run-of-the-mill postmaterialist industrial state with an anything-goes program of amoralism nationalism.

Here again, are the stake before us the the nation's future.

See also, "Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right."

Polling on Gay Marriage

Nate Silver has done a sophisticated analysis of polling trends on gay marriage, "Fact and Fiction on Gay Marriage Polling." He concludes that:

Support for gay marriage ... is strongly generational ... Civil unions have already achieved the support of an outright majority of Americans, and as those older voters are replaced by younger ones, the smart money is that gay marriage will reach majority status too at some point in the 2010's.

Not so fast, actually.

Note this methodological note from Silver's plotted-data of PollingReport surveys:

This chart includes all surveys in the PollingReport.com database, except those where the respondent was given a three-pronged choice between gay marriage, civil unions and nothing.

This is problematic. Recent surveys, from Iowa Iowa and nationally, have queried support for gay marriage outside of this binary formulation (gay marriage/civil unions). Here's Newsweek's key question item, with only 31 percent favor full same-sex marriage rights:

Thinking again about legal rights for gay and lesbian couples, which of the following comes CLOSEST to your position on this issue? Do you support FULL marriage rights for same-sex couples, OR support civil unions or partnerships for same-sex couples, BUT NOT full marriage rights, OR do you oppose ANY legal recognition for same-sex couples?

Now, while there is evidence for the notion that the liberal youth cohort will replace older voters less tolerant of gay marriage (see, for example, "Explaining the Growing Support for Gay and Lesbian Equality Since 1990"), the nature of question wording, as well as the environmental political influences (gay rights protest extremism, activist political mobilization strategies, and so forth), will determine the levels of support for same-sex marriage in the years ahead. With these facts in mind, it seems a bit premature to suggest, as does Silver, "that gay marriage will reach majority status" in just a few years.

Political Scientists May Boycott Over Gay Rights

I received the e-mail from the American Political Science Association on the decision of the leadership to reject calls to move the 2012 annual meeting from New Orleans, where a strict municipal ban on same-sex marriage is in place, but the story's been picked up by Inside Higher Ed:

The American Political Science Association moved its 2006 annual meeting from the original site of San Francisco, where hotels were then in the midst of protracted disagreements with unions, to Philadelphia.

On Friday, the association announced that it was rejecting calls to move its 2012 meeting from New Orleans. Many gay and lesbian political scientists had called for the convention to move because Louisiana has adopted one of the most stringent bans on gay marriage, applying the ban also to any proposed legal relationship such as civil unions that could be seen as resembling marriage. Supporters of moving the meeting said that it is not safe for gay academics or their partners to travel to cities where their relationships have no legal status. A boycott is now being organized of the 2012 meeting.

The association announced that, in a shift, it would in the future consider state-level actions when evaluating sites for meetings. Association policy has been to consider local conditions (such as the labor strife San Francisco had experienced), but not state policies. However, the association stopped short of saying it would stay away from states with anti-gay constitutional amendments.

A letter to political scientists from Dianne Pinderhughes, a professor at the University of Notre Dame who is president of the association, stressed that state policies need not eliminate a city from contention to host a meeting. “[C]onditions at the local level can mitigate these circumstances and ... communities hosting APSA meetings will be expected to assure the civil rights and safety of all APSA members,” she wrote.

In addition, she pledged that the 2012 meeting would feature “scholarship and intellectual engagement” on such issues as “same-sex unions” and “the economic development of meeting cities.” Some academics have been encouraging their associations to meet in New Orleans as a way of supporting the city’s recovery from Hurricane Katrina.

The statements about considering state policies and scholarship on the issues are nothing more than “a crumb thrown by the association,” said Daniel R. Pinello, a professor of government at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, of the City University of New York. Pinello, author of America’s Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage (Cambridge University Press), said he would view it as dangerous to attend a meeting in New Orleans with his partner since, if either were to be hospitalized, the other would have no rights at all.

The issue is not hypothetical, he stressed, but one that gay people and their partners face — sometimes with tragic results. He noted a lawsuit filed just last week, by a lesbian who was denied access to the hospital room of her dying partner in a Florida hospital where she’d been taken when she suffered a stroke while they were on vacation.

Pinello said that planning has started to organize a boycott of the 2012 meeting, and that at this year’s meeting — next month in Boston — political scientists who support gay rights would try to encourage a variety of steps to oppose the 2012 meeting. He acknowledged that any boycott would be difficult for groups such as graduate students, who are interviewed by hiring departments at the annual meeting. But Pinello said it was fundamentally unjust for the association to consider some issues (such as labor conditions) but ignore others (such as gay rights).

“Our national association will not protect our safety and security and rights,” he said. “If the Louisiana constitution had an amendment that said people of color may not marry, or Jews may not marry, or people with disabilities may not marry, I would guarantee that we would not be going to New Orleans in 2012.”

According to the APSA, 850 people sent letters offering views on what to do about the proposal to move the meeting. Pinderhughes said in an interview that the letters represented a wide range of views and that there was no clear majority for one side or the other. She added that while the letters informed the APSA board’s review, they were not treated as a referendum.

She acknowledged that the decision of the association’s governing board would upset some members, but rejected Pinello’s statement that it was a “crumb.” Pinderhughes said that for the association to actively engage with local officials about the issue, and to plan related programming, represented a significant shift for the political scientists, who normally don’t see their annual meetings as having any political goals. “We’re not anthropology and sociology, but we’re not economics either,” she said, citing disciplines that tend to be seen as more left-leaning, and less so, among the social sciences.

Pinderhughes also said that there were real questions about whether New Orleans deserved to be boycotted. She said that the association consulted with several experts who viewed the city as “gay friendly,” despite the state vote. In addition, she questioned whether a boycott strategy could be effective. Pinderhughes said that if only a few states held a particular position, it would be easier to oppose it with a boycott. “It’s harder to boycott when you don’t have a place to go,” she said. “If you don’t have a lot of allies, you have to engage.”

The political science association has only once apparently moved a meeting because of a state policy — when the membership (against the advice of the governing board) voted to move the meeting out of Chicago to protest the failure of Illinois to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Pinderhughes said that the association “paid a price” for that shift because it could not get out of a contract requiring large payments to the hotel scheduled for the meeting. Pinderhughes said that the association had to hold meetings for about 10 years in the same hotel chain as part of a deal to settle the claim.

Some political scientists have spoken out against moving the meeting. The blog Marquette Warrior noted that the association says it will not take positions that commit its members on issues of public policy. Gay marriage is such a policy, and so the APSA shouldn’t be taking a stand one way or another, the blog said, adding: “This, of course, will be a test case to see whether a bunch of liberal academics can act in even a minimally principled way.”

There's more at the link.

Two things caught my attention here: Pinderhughes' mention of anthropology and sociology as "more left-leaning," and the statement by the Marquette Warrior that the issue's a "test case" on the power of a "bunch of liberal academics."

I'm reminded of the recent New York Times article, "The ’60s Begin to Fade as Liberal Professors Retire."

The threat of boycott sounds serious, and I'm wondering how many of the association's left-wing professors would show solidarity in staying away from the convention should the boycott take effect. This could be an interesting case study on whether the '60s generation's faded, as well as on the authenticity in praxis of the new post-Vietnam-era professoriate.

For more on this, see the Marquette Warrior's essay, "American Political Science Association: Fudging the Issue of a Pro-Gay Boycott":

It’s well known that college professors are not merely liberal or left, but that they are increasingly intolerant of views at odds with their own.

See also, Duck of Minerva, "Human Wrongs."

Kennedy and Scalia Likely at Odds on Homosexual Rights

Well, this is pretty much exactly what I argued on Friday.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Supreme Court showdown expected over gay rights decisions." Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, both 76 years-old, will be battling it out:

The two have much in common. Born in 1936, they graduated from high school in the early 1950s and excelled at Harvard Law School, where they were a year apart. They were Republicans who rose through the legal ranks. When appointed to the court, both bought homes in McLean, Va.

They agree on much. Both voted to strike down President Obama's healthcare law as an overreach by the government. Scalia joined Kennedy's majority opinion in the Citizens United case that freed corporate and union spending on political ads.

But Kennedy, the libertarian, and Scalia, the social conservative, clash fiercely over the court's role in deciding moral controversies.

The two split 20 years ago when the court's conservative bloc was poised to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the ruling that legalized abortion. Though personally opposed to abortion, Kennedy switched sides in spring 1992 and cast a crucial vote to uphold a woman's right to choose. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code," Kennedy wrote.

In the past, Scalia has accused Kennedy of having "signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda." Scalia is likely to have the votes of fellow conservatives Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and probably Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to uphold state and federal laws that exclude gays from marriage.

But Kennedy has the much stronger hand. He ranks third in seniority after the chief justice and Scalia, and he has four liberal justices on his left. Because the senior member of the majority decides who writes the opinion, Kennedy could decide who writes the opinions if he votes with the liberals. And he could take the assignment for himself.

His past writings provide clues as to how he might see the issue.

In a New York case, the justices will decide whether the federal government can deny legally married same-sex couples the benefits that go with marriage. These include filing joint tax returns and receiving survivors benefits from Social Security.

Gay rights advocates challenged this exclusion in the Defense of Marriage Act as discriminatory, and they have won rulings from judges in New England, New York and Northern California.

Kennedy is likely to agree with the challengers, and he explained why in 1996, the same year Congress passed the marriage act. The court then faced a Colorado voter measure that repealed gay rights ordinances in several cities. Kennedy spoke for the court in striking it down. He said that the measure was "born of animosity" toward gays, he said, and that the Constitution "prohibits laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships."

If Kennedy and the court strike down the federal benefits provision of the marriage act, it would be a major victory for gay rights, but it would not affect the 41 states where same-sex marriage is forbidden.

The California case on Proposition 8 could be far more significant because it involves the right to marry. Ted Olson and David Boies, the attorneys who led the challenge, plan to argue broadly that marriage is a fundamental right and that excluding gay couples from marriage denies them the equal protection of the law.

A Kennedy-Scalia clash from a decade ago gives a preview. When two gay men challenged a Texas anti-sodomy law, Kennedy wrote a glowing opinion taking their side. "They are entitled to respect for their private lives," he said, and "the state cannot demean" them by treating them as second-class citizens.

In a moment of high drama, Kennedy gave a professorial reading of his opinion on the last day of the court term in 2003. When he finished, Scalia's voice cut through the room as he delivered an angry dissent.

Kennedy's opinion left the laws against same-sex marriage "on pretty shaky grounds," Scalia said at the time. "If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples?"

That's the question now before the court in the California case.

More at the New York Times, "Sidebar: Court Enters Same-Sex Fray With Uncharacteristic Speed" (via Memeorandum).

Larry Brinkin, President of the California Association of Human Relations Organizations (CAHRO), Gay Rights Icon, Arrested on Child Pornography Charges

This is the kind of guy that Walter James Casper III champions and defends. You know, if you call out the gay radical extremists for their inherent criminal perversions, you will be attacked as a bigot who hates "teh gays". F-king progressive assholes. This is 100 percent in sync with what these people are all about.

See the San Francisco Chronicle, "S.F. gay rights advocate arrested over child porn":

San Francisco police have arrested veteran gay rights advocate Larry Brinkin in connection with felony possession of child pornography.

Brinkin, 66, who worked for the San Francisco Human Rights Commission before his retirement in 2010, was taken into custody Friday night. He spent the night in jail before he was released on bail, according to a spokeswoman for the sheriff's department.

The district attorney's office will decide Tuesday whether to file charges. "We're still reviewing the case," district attorney's spokeswoman Stephanie Ong Stillman said Monday.

Police say that Brinkin had pornographic images, some that appear to show children as young as 1 and 2 or 3 years old being sodomized and performing oral sex on adult men, in e-mail attachments linked to his account, according to a search warrant served by San Francisco police.

More at the link.

And have a barf bag ready for this description from SF Weekly, "Larry Brinkin, S.F. Gay Rights Icon, Arrested on Child Porn Charges":

According to the search warrant, SFPD acted after receiving a tip from the Los Angeles Police Department, which obtained from AOL an e-mail exchange between a Los Angeles user and zack3737@aol.com. Police say they linked the AOL address to Brinkin’s IP address; he is owner of the account and paid for AOL service with his credit card.

The warrant claims these e-mails contained images of children as young as perhaps a year old being sodomized by and performing oral sex on adult men. Zack3737@aol.com — whom the police allege is Brinkin — provided graphic commentary on the photos of interracial adult-child sex. Comments included “I loved especially the nigger 2 year old getting nailed. Hope you’ll continue so I can see what the little blond bitch is going to get. White Power! White Supremacy! White Dick Rules!”

The AOL e-mail account was also linked to Yahoo! Groups centering around discussions of child porn, according to the search warrant. Investigators say they additionally found e-mails sent from Brinkin’s now-defunct city e-mail account to zack3737@aol.com.

In classic Walter James Casperian fashion, the LezGetReal blog throws up a smokescreen:

There have been incidents where people have been arrested for possessing child pornography on their computer that turned out to be malware using the computer to launder the images. This can often be difficult for people to prove, however.

Do not be surprised that anit-LGBT organizations will use this arrest against the Community; however, it is important to remember that most pedophiles identify as straight, and there are many straight people who have been arrested, charged, and convicted for possession of child pornography.

Right. Just malware. And of course, the generic "everybody does it" excuse makes this the perfect Casperian defense.

But don't be fooled. While sure there will be heteros who do such evil. The difference is such criminal perversion and depredation is fundamental to the radical left's anything goes revolutionary sexual agenda. Call this shit out for what it is: endemic to radical progressivism.

Hat Tip: Memorandum and PJ Media.

ADDED: More about Brinkin at the CAHRO homepage.

Some Homo-Rights Activists Worry Supreme Court Could Set Movement Back in Time

Well, let's hope so.

In the case of Prop. 8 at least, the only reason there's a Supreme Court review is progressive thuggery and far-left judicial activism. It's not because of some kind of groundswell. Things are out of hand.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Prop. 8:Some gay rights activists nervous about Supreme Court review":

With the U.S. Supreme Court announcing it would rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, gay rights advocates settled in for at least a few more months in limbo.

By agreeing to review Hollingsworth vs. Perry, the justices could hand activists a historic victory and legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. But gay rights advocates are also well aware that the court could rule against them and set the movement back at a time when same-sex marriage has seen a series of election victories at the state level.

"I think it's the critical issue for gay and lesbian Americans today. It's the issue that signals full equality and respect. Not just acceptance -- respect," said Tom Watson, the board chair of Love Honor Cherish, a group that has advocated for a ballot initiative to repeal Proposition 8.

"The case goes directly to the scope of civil rights in this country, whether they're extended to everybody or defined very narrowly," Watson said.

Watson, a Los Angeles attorney, said he expected the justices to take the case, though it was tough to predict how the conservative-leaning court might rule. He noted that the court asked the parties to address whether supporters of Proposition 8 have standing, or the right to defend the measure. Normally, state officials would defend a state law being scrutinized by the Supreme Court, but California's leaders have declined to do so.

If the court found that Proposition 8 supporters do not have standing, the justices would not have to rule on the merits of the case. Under those circumstances, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the measure is unconstitutional would stand and same-sex marriages could resume in California.

"It would be winning on a technicality," Watson said.

Because of the uncertainty, Watson said his group would continue to consider pushing forward with a 2014 ballot measure to repeal Proposition 8. Either way, he said, California's gay and lesbian couples are in for a frustrating wait.

"We have kids growing up with parents that don't have the legal protections that marriage gives," Watson said. "And, let's face it, people die."

More here: "Gay couples in California excited, but worried, by court's action."

PREVIOUSLY: "Supreme Court to Rule on Gay Marriage."

Obama Was for Gay Marriage Before He was Against It

I've argued a couple of times that Barack Obama will capitulate in due time to the hard-left's demands for gay marriage rights. Obama's official "Change" website features the most comprehensive homosexual rights platform of any incoming presidential administration, and while Obama has argued against same-sex marriage while campaigning, by ideology and inclination he's favorably disposed to the gay marriage agenda.

It's no surprise, then, that the news this morning features a number of stories highlighting Obama's past endorsement of full-blown homosexual marriage rights:

In 1996, during his run for Illinois state Senate, Obama offered a progressive gay rights agenda, which is outlined in the memo above in a response to queries from the now-defunct newspaper, Outlines. The Windy City Times, the paper's successor, has the full story, "Obama Changed Views on Gay Marriage" (see also Ben Smith's report).

The Windy City Times claims that it searched its hard-copy archives for the "missing" questionnaires of the Chicago-area candidate positions for that year's elections. In the case of Obama, with the documents just now coming to light, this could be one of the most momentous bait-and-switch operations in American history.

I argued earlier that at some point, given Obama's language of tolerance and his inherent style of finessing the issues, we'd see a push for gay marriage under a new Democratic administration, starting with the repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law the relieves states of official recognition of the gay marriages of citizens of another state. As I argued:

The DOMA says that the federal government will not recogize same-sex marriages as coequal to traditional marriages, and it holds that states need not recognize same-sex marriages that have been lawfully authorized by legislatures of other states.

Should the Obama administration repeal DOMA, the gay marriage movement will become legitimized under a creeping federalism of No on H8 intolerance, as more and more states recognize same-sex weddings across the nation - that is, an Obama administration will give the green light to the destruction of this country's traditionalism by legitimizing claims to homosexual marriage equality.

This would be a huge step toward consolidating a national religion of secular humanism at the federal level of American government and politics. Indeed, this is exactly the outcome demanded by radical same-sex activists. We will see a new national polity built on an ideology of cultural relativism, no longer that great shining City on a Hill, but just one more run-of-the-mill postmaterialist industrial state with an anything-goes program of amoralism nationalism.

Here again, are the stake before us ...

It's only a matter of time before we see Barack Obama shift his position back to favoring the gay marriage agenda. Whether this begins with DOMA or with legal challenges to gay marriage bans in the states, my sense is that Obama's early statements on homosexual rights reflect his core beliefs, and he'll use his office to advance that agenda as a matter of personal principle. Strategically, he might delay this step until after reelection in 2012, but a first-term repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" could set the tone at the federal level for a major public relations campaign by the Obama administration in the years ahead.

Gay Rights Movement Seeks to Crush its Enemies

Gay marriage activists saw a substantial turnout of protesters for today's demonstrations against California's Proposition 8.

According to the Los Angeles Times, approximately 10,000 to 12,000 demonstrators marched in protest in downtown L.A.

"Tens of thousands" marched in San Francisco, according to this San Francisco Chronicle report.

In San Diego, roughly 20,000 showed up for that city's events, which moved TBogg to write, "This is not going to go away."

Well, I couldn't agree more: The gay marriage ayatollahs never had any intention of accepting the will of the voters. The motivation driving the movement is apparently based in an extreme grievance at perceived injustice, which is resulting in a campaign of rage and recrimination, seeking not just marriage equality, but to brutalize those who stand in the way as well.

As Rod Dreher writes, with reference to the legal controversies surrounding Proposition 8:

Eugene Volokh, the UCLA law prof who supports gay marriage, once wrote that one of the key goals of the gay rights movement is to punish and marginalize people who in private life hold views they see as anti-gay.

This point seems unimpeachible, considering that gay activists have published the names of contributors to Proposition 8 at the website "Anti-Gay Blacklist," with the goal of boycotting and blacklisting regular citizens who exercized their democratic rights in the political process.

Pam Spaulding, who's been leading the leftosphere's backlash to Proposition 8, said this in response to the Mormon Church's political support of the initiative:

The factions of hate are now ready to take their well-oiled machine and work it on the rest of the country.

There's much more of this tone all over the blog, which is currently dedicated to the national campaign to overturn the will of a California majority.

The left's authoritarianism is evident in Jane Hamsher's post on the Mormon Church, which has a "they-had-it-coming" tone to it that confirms Dreher's thesis about crushing enemies:

It was awful enough that the Mormons (and Catholics) saw fit to fund an all-out blitz to amend the California constitution to outlaw gay marriage - but now, after breaking the hearts of millions of gay couples in California and across the country, they have the f**king nerve to act outraged when they face protests ....

Can someone show me where in the Constitution or Bill Of Rights it says that "people of faith" are somehow exempt from facing protests? That their "democratic right to express their views in the public square" trumps everyone else's?

The Mormons want to use the First Amendment as a one-way shield to protect their own right to free speech at the expense of everyone else's, while still reserving the right to cross the boundary between church and state whenever they see fit.

In a political battle like this, both sides will be outraged by the tactics of the other. But there's something about the No on 8 campaign that's downright anti-democratic. As Rick Moran says about the left's intimidation campaign against Yes on 8 backers:

Rather than trying to change [public] opinion, they are making these people enemies for life. And carrying out pogroms like this against people who oppose gay marriage based on their religious beliefs borders on bigotry.

There are other means of protest to make your displeasure known than targeting individuals. All the gay marriage advocates are doing is sealing their fate the next time such a measure goes before the [voters].

Lindsay Beyerstein: 'If You Oppose Equal Marriage, You're a Bigot' ... Now That's Original!

I haven't blogged much on same-sex marriage, although the holding pattern on Cal's Prop 8 trial will come to an end in June, when closing arguments are scheduled. And we'll see things pick up big time then, especially since hack Judge Vaughn Walker scheduled arguments to coincide with the LA PRIDE FESTIVAL, which celebrates the 40th anniversary of L.A.'s first gay pride demonstration. Not only that, I see folks like Lyndsay Beyerstein have kicked up with the extremist gay marriage agitation, which we find here is the not-so-original meme of defining conservative marriage traditionalists as bigots with no reason other than, well, they're supposed to be bigots. I know. Beyerstein's one Class A anti-intellectual. Still, she's apparently looking to break records with this entry, "If You Oppose Equal Marriage, You Are a Bigot":

By definition, bigots are people with unshakable baseless prejudices. There is absolutely no reason, besides blind prejudice, to deny same sex couples the right to civil marriage.

You can use religious language to express your belief that gays and lesbians are disgusting second class citizens unworthy of rights that heterosexuals take for granted, but it doesn't make your position any less bigoted. Logically, there is no reason to put same-sex relationships on a lesser legal footing than opposite sex unions, unless you think there's something wrong with them.

You can insist you don't wish gay people any harm. Perhaps not. But there were lots of pro-segregationists who didn't wish ill upon black people, but still didn't want to drink out of the same fountains. They too were bigots.

You can point out that discrimination against gays and lesbians is a longstanding tradition, but that doesn't excuse your bigotry. If anything, it makes it worse. It was one thing to fear what the expansion of gay rights might do when gays and lesbians had no rights. Today we're decades into gay liberation and none of the dire predictions have come true. For example, children raised by same-sex parents are at least as healthy and well-adjusted as those raised by opposite sex parents--and no more likely to identify self identify as gay.

So, if you're still clinging to those irrational fears in the face of evidence, guess what? That's bigoted. If, like the voters of California, you voted to break up families in the name of preserving family values, that makes you a hypocrite and a bigot.

As longtime readers know, I've debated this issue up and down to heaven and back. And I've yet to encounter anyone with a prevailing argument. The most folks can muster is that the much-esteemed youth demographic is supposed to carry the pro-gay marriage vote over the top any time soon. Well, the youth vote's petering out as Obama remorse hardens, and, frankly, the Stalinist actions of gay rights forces were so over the top as to alienate potential allies. That whole outing campaign, and the Google maps, etc. God, totally ridiculous, come to think of it, but desperation drives that kind of extremism, so understandable.

And now we've got this screed from Lindsay Beyerstein that's so bereft of anything substantial it's plain ludicrous. She holds herself up as a journalist, which is obviously hard to sustain when your MO is to completely ignore extant arguments against SSM while yammering "There is absolutely no reason, besides blind prejudice, to deny same sex couples the right to civil marriage." No, Lindsay, there are lots of reasons. You're simply too closed-minded, er, bigoted, to even entertain the idea that there might actually exist fundamental non-religious cultural norms, social folkways, and regenerative biological facts that easily repudiate the radical gay licentiousness and hedonism that's never far from the gay marriage program. I mean, sheesh. At least excitable Andrew "Milky Loads" Sullivan puts up some arguments when making the case, as whacked as he is. You're just proving yourself to be the more genuine bigot than anyone of those anti-SSMs you excoriate. It's all you've got (remember, dissent is the new racism).

For reference, see Susan Shell, "The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage," and David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage.