Cyber-Stalking Harassment Troll Bill Schmalfeldt

At The Other McCain, "June 3: Bill Schmalfeldt Begins Cyberstalking Aaron Walker."

Schmalfeldt began trolling Aaron Worthing shortly after the latter published his magnum opus on Brett Kimberlin's legal harassment. Robert has screenshots of some of Schmalfeldt's tweets, and he writes:

this is liberal grouch, serial block an report abuser. Stalking me again @ The_Book_Jerk (remove the space)
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) December 9, 2012

What was Schmalfeldt seeking? Some way to discredit Walker, to create a narrative in which Kimberlin could be portrayed as the victim.

This is the “accuse the accusers” motif that has added layers of unnecessary confusion to this story: By a sort of narrative ju-jitsu — minimizing the deliberate harmfulness of Kimberlin’s actions, while depicting his targets as unethical, selfish or motivated by purposes of political revenge — the “accuse the accusers” strategy creates a false equivalence between victim and victimizer. This method of online obfuscation is effective because few people (including law enforcement officials and judges) have the patience necessary to trace the conflict to its origins, nor do they seem willing to contextualize any particular aspect of the conflict by studying it as part of an overall pattern of behavior.

Schmalfeldt began his involvement by declaring to Melissa Brewer (@catsrimportant) — an ally of Kimberlin and Rauhauser — that he wanted coverage of the Walker case not written by “some right-wing shithead.” He then started to hector Walker, questioning whether the convicted bomber Kimberlin had done anything threatening. Schmalfeldt offered as his motive his “strong views about the First Amendment.”

Keep in mind that, on May 20, Schmalfeldt evidently got himself banned from Daily Kos, where he’d been a diarist less than six months. Schmalfeldt’s stint as a blogger at the Examiner was terminated May 2, after he was accused of abusive conduct toward fellow Examiner contributor Joe Newby. (Shmalfeldt resurfaced June 22 as Examiner columnist “Bill Matthews,” only to be terminated again Aug. 6 after his deception was discovered.) His “strong views about the First Amendment,” we may suppose, involve Schmalfeldt’s antisocial belief that he should be able to say anything to anyone in other people’s privately-owned online space, without regard for the proprietors’ rules or even basic human decency. (See “Bill Schmalfeldt: Too Disgusting For Daily Kos,” Nov. 25, by Lee Stranahan.)

That sounds familiar. Progressive stalking trolls claim a "free speech right" to harass someone even after they have been told repeatedly to cease and desist. This is why I reported Walter James Casper III to the authorities: "Intent to Annoy and the Fascist Hate-Blogging Campaign of Walter James Casper III." As we've seen for some time, progressives have quite a different view of how free speech works, the most important manifestation being the notion that left-wing free speech includes the right to suppress political views that contradict the left's radical agenda.

For example, when I posted on Pamela Geller's new SOIA campaign yesterday, I linked the hideous left-wing fascist website "The Animal." The pigs there exhorted their readers to take their spray cans to the subways to deface Pamela's advertisements, with the reminder, "you know what to do." And right on cue, criminal harasser Repsac3 found "The Animal" links here and promptly put out his endorsement of that brown-shirted vandalism on Twitter, even quoting approvingly the method of the hate-fueled revisionist attack:

"Any war between man is savage." fb.me/1MVgYq1VJ
— J. Casper (@repsac3) December 8, 2012

Clearly these are not the tweets of someone committed to the free flow of ideas. Like Bill Schmalfeldt, Repsac3 does not go away, even after the authorities have been alerted to his criminal activities. I've blocked him at every turn, here at the blog's new comment system and on Twitter. And I've exposed his obsessive email stalking campaign and provided evidence of those attacks to the police. Even after all of that --- even after the hate-addled Repsac declared that I'd "won the Internet" --- this clinically-deranged asshole still can't keep away, he just can't let it go. His putrid attack-and-harassment blog is still up and running, now being updated daily by the flaming bunghole baker-boy Kevin "Rim-Station" Robbins.

And we know why. Like those of the Kimberlin-Rauhauser axis, Walter James Casper III is marinated in progressive evil, and he too believes that harassing those who speak truth to the radical left agenda is simply just one more acceptable element of the vicious drive to maintain Democrat-Socialist power. These people will stop at nothing. It's no coincidence that Repsac3 was a ringleader for the attacks on my workplace, coordinating his actions with Carl Salonen, and widely endorsing and facilitating the harassment by others, such as the notorious dirtbag (O)CT(O)PUS, a.k.a. David Hillman, the f-king perverted proprietor of The Swash Zone.

Robert Stacy McCain identifies this left-wing pathology as "troll rights":

“Troll Rights” may be an interesting legal concept, but it’s a lousy career strategy. Schmalfeldt entered early June with more than one burnt bridge behind him, and his apparent plan for redemption was to make himself the white knight who would slay the dreaded Aaron Walker dragon that was threatening that noble progressive, Brett Kimberlin.

“The Narcissist as Self-Imagined Hero” — Schmalfeldt isn’t the first such character we’ve encountered. Incapable of accepting responsibility for his own errors and misfortunes, the narcissist instead externalizes blame for his failures, demonizing and scapegoating others. Unwilling or unable to emulate successful people, the narcissist envies them. Viewing success as a zero-sum game, he convinces himself that the game is rigged against him, and that the success of others results from their unfairly taking advantage of the “system,” thus wrongly cheating him out of the rewards and admiration he believes he deserves.

Exactly. Walter James Casper III is another "such character we've encountered." A failed blogger who gets no more than 20 hits a day, he's for years harassed people better than him --- happy and attractive people like Tania Gail --- for no other reason than political disagreement. Repsac3 isn't content to just demonize people and lie about them, he goes so far as to hunt them down and help those launching workplace harassment campaigns. Again and again he's claimed that he will not be rebuffed, that it's his right to ram his noxious opinions down the throats of his enemies. He habituates the comment threads, spiking the football, at all the most reviled progressive attack blogs, from LGM to Sadly No! And it's all just more fun and games. But for the victims, it's online terrorism. Never ---- not once ever ---- has he stood against these attacks. While purportedly all about free speech, he supports trolls and attackers who mount campaigns of online lawfare against political enemies. But take note. Those who ask why bother? Why even deal with people like this, it's not worth your time? Think again. Turning a blind eye to evil simply empowers it by indifference. Robert Stacy McCain has been faced with this question:

Narcissists crave attention, and some people think that the best way to deal with Bill Schmalfeldt is to ignore him. Schmalfeldt started cyberstalking Aaron Walker in June, and I tried to ignore him. It wasn’t until September that his name was first mentioned on this blog. We keep re-learning the same sad lesson:

“It is very easy to decide ‘this isn’t any of my trouble’ and permit vicious behavior. . . . Who wants to get involved? Easier, and surely safer, just to duck one’s head and hide, and hope the danger visits someone else.” – Ace of Spades, May 22

Evil is persistent. Duck your head, shrug your shoulders — “Gosh, too bad what happened to Aaron Walker” — and never mind who will be visited next by this particular specimen of evil. Never mind what innocent person the monsters will choose to victimize, because nobody can be bothered to pay attention to what’s happening.

Head over to Robert's for the full post.

In some ways I've been lucky. I had pro bono legal representation that helped me defend against the literally unimaginable workplace attacks. I'm also a tenured professor with legal protections against the idiot progressives who repeatedly try to have me fired for my conservative beliefs. But from Scott Eric Kaufman to E.D. Kain to Carl Salonen and more, it's been quite the trial. These stupid demons think they can strike me down only to see me emerge stronger and more committed to exposing their deeds. And such moral clarity has only emboldened idiot narcissist Walter James Casper III. He just doesn't know when to quit. Indeed, he can't quit because he's in the grip of a malevolent fever. If he were to vanquish me, silencing my voice, he'd simply notch the victory and move on to his next victim ---- all part of the progressive campaign of demoralization and demonization of right-wing beliefs and traditional values.

This is the scourge of contemporary American politics. These battles are the those at the ramparts of freedom, and often the left has been winning. The lines are clearly drawn and progressive are on the march, but clear-eyed patriots know what's coming and the progressives are overplaying their hands in hubris and conceit.

Never cave to these people. They will not stop their attempts to put you under, but the tide is turning back, little by little, to decency and righteousness. The stakes for our nation have never been higher.

I'm Thinking North Dakota or Montana Might Be Nice Places to Retire

Yeah, it's a while before I'll be able to retire, and then my wife will be working for some time after that. But we talk about it. Maybe California's a lost cause and it's time to start thinking about a nice place to live, lower taxes and a more traditional social environment.

A couple of weeks back Gallup mentioned North Dakota as one of the most conservative states in the union. See, "Alabama, North Dakota, Wyoming Most Conservative States." I'm not sure about Alabama, but Wyoming might be nice.

And what about Montana? Next to North Dakota it's got the lowest percentage of self-identified homosexuals, so my wife and I won't be bombarded with the radical left's depraved rim-station ideologies all the time. See, "LGBT Percentage Highest in D.C., Lowest in North Dakota." North Dakota's at 1.7 percent homosexual self-identification, and Montana's at 2.6 percent. Check the piece for the full results. Most of the Mountain States look excellent. And of course it's not just the numbers, but the culture. California's trending away from American exceptionalism. That's not cool. We're not quite like the Nation's Capital yet. But it's not for trying.

(Note: Nevada's a little on the homosexual high side, but it's a no income tax state, so in the end it'll be a balance of factors. It ain't teh gays so much as the crushing collectivist ideologies that they're so hopelessly identified with.)

Nudity Group in San Francisco Promotes Radical Gay Public Sex

At New York Times, "Protesters Bare All Over a Proposed San Francisco Law." Apparently folks hang out all day in the buff, at restaurants even. I doubt that'd be so appetizing.

Anyway, Zombie was on hand: "San Francisco’s naked protest and the ethics of public nudity." It turns out the "nude in" was sponsored by Bare Naked in Public. Zombie has a link to the website, which features all kinds of pictures of public homosexual sex acts. Naturally, all the San Francisco progressives are blabbering on about how this is just "free speech." Free public radical gay sex is more like it. I mean c'mon, it's not like decent middle class families are excited about raising their kids in the Castro. It's a gay red light district. These are same types pushing for homosexual marriage in California --- and mounting extremist hate campaigns against their opponents, the folks still standing for some old time values. What a disgrace, sheesh.

The Zombie post is probably NSFW, by the way. And that's say nothing of the rim-station blow jobbers at Bare Naked in Public.

Scott Wiener, of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Takes Truvada to Prevent Contracting AIDS

From homosexual Josh Barro, at the New York Times, "San Francisco Official Says He Takes Truvada to Prevent H.I.V., and More Gay Men Should, Too":

Scott Wiener, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, made an unusual public announcement on Wednesday: He takes Truvada, a daily antiviral pill, to greatly reduce his risk of contracting H.I.V.

Taking the pills is a practice known as pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, and some researchers believe it may reduce the risk of infection by 99 percent if patients take their medication daily as prescribed. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2012, PrEP has increasingly been embraced by public health authorities and is one of three planks of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s plan in New York to sharply cut new H.I.V. infections.

But it carries a stigma in some parts of the gay population, and Mr. Wiener appears to be the first public official to disclose that he’s personally on it.

“A much larger segment of gay men should be taking a close look at PrEP,” Mr. Wiener, who represents the same Castro-based district once held by Harvey Milk, said in an interview on Wednesday. “I hope that my being public about my use of PrEP can help people take a second look at it.”

Oh, preventing HIV carries a "stigma" in the homosexual population, you know, among the bare-backing rim-station demographic, folks who Walter James Casper thinks are just swell.

It's not a healthy lifestyle. Indeed, young homosexual men of color are the most likely demographic cohort to contract and die from AIDS. But hey, wouldn't want to discourage that kind of bare-backing promiscuity, because bigotry!!!

More at the link.

Reader Comment on W. James Casper Campaign of Misogyny and Criminal Harassment

Okay, I thought I was done with W. James Casper's ring of hatred, but reader Jan e-mailed. And she's right: RESPAC = CASPER = RACIST = MISOGYNIST = CRIMINAL HARASSER. The blog is a ring of organized hatred, and Kevin Robbins indicates that he'd rape commenter Jan if he wasn't homosexual. As always, this is what progressives are all about:

I've never been so disgusted!

I've been following this for awhile, but haven't been over to his site, until today. I went with an open mind, determined to try to see both sides of the story if I could, and what I saw was worse than I thought.

I don't know how anyone could say that his site is not one of hatred, ridicule, and pure maliciousness! If it is supposed to be humorous, as he claims, I wish someone would show me where to find the humor!

I certainly didn't find the comment from Kevin Robbins, in reference to me, humorous at all! And all because Repsac was commenting on a comment that I had posted on your blog last year. I had no idea that he had replied to that comment on his blog, but now they are milking it for all its worth, I guess.

They seem to take some delight in being as vulgar, evil, and hateful as possible, as evidenced by this comment from Mr. Robbins:

Kevin Robbins said...
So much hilarity Don. Really glad Reppy invented you.

'Some of my commenters, Jan for example, have risked their safety to enter into your comment threads to point out your evil.'

Don't worry Jan is safely tied up in the Rim Station basement. Soon as I get my Snidely Whiplash moustache grown out it's the railroad tracks for her. Hope Amtrak is on time.

Lucky we're all such fags over here or we'd be having our way with her. Well, late for mutual hummer time. Toodles Donnie! And don't worry you are still the wingnuttiest wingnut on the internet. Sorry was that derisive?

I think that pretty much demonstrates the calibre of his commenters, and their mindset.

Good luck, Professor, in ever getting an apology out of that bunch of....never mind. I won't say, because I don't want to sink to that same level.

I do wonder, though, if they would like to have anyone say such things about their wives, daughters, sisters, mothers, as Mr. Robbins said about me?

Maybe not, since they seem not to care how cruel, or unkind, they can be, anyway.

Background is here: "W. James Casper Continues Campaign of Intimidation and Criminal Harassment."

Rush to Judgment: Dina Temple-Raston 'Scoffed' at Possibility of 'Saudi National' Suspected in #Boston Bombing

Terror enabling troll rights harasser Walter James Casper III continues to lie about the media's disgusting rush-to-judgment blaming conservatives for the Boston terror attack.

For some reason, adult sick f-k loser (ASFL) Repsac3 insists that what Ms. Temple-Raston actually said doesn't matter, and thus he can just keep spinning this lie about how she was "reporting" the news rather than spewing hateful racist attacks on conservatives.

Folks can find Racist Repsac3's racist blog post on Google: "Creepy-clown Stalker Donald Kent Douglas Doubles Down on Media Conspiracy Theory." But one more time: No government official claimed that right wing conservatives were motivated to launch a terrorist attack on Boston, on April 15th, because of Adolf Hitler's birthday. That is plain nutbag conspiracy theorizing and it's disgusting, but that's Racist Repsac3 for you, the sick f-k. Of course, readers will recall that NPR's Steve Inskeep reported on how Temple-Raston "scoffed" at the idea that the suspect was a "Saudi national" --- you know, because we're just fresh out of Saudi Muslims inspired by the Saudi-based teachings of al Qaeda, or some such sh-t like that.

No, for racist conspiracy racist Walter James Casper III, Temple-Raston was "reporting" the news, like a prime-time evening news segment, not commenting on the news on an extreme left-wing NPR commentary show for an extreme left-wing NPR audience. Seriously. Folks can read the transcript. Temple-Raston was interviewed for NPR's commentary show "All Things Considered." Temple-Raston was spewing racist nutbag conspiracies about bulls-t Nazi birthdays being celebrated by the far right. In other words, she's speculating. The transcript is right here in all of its tin hat glory: "Boston Marathon Bombing Case Gains Momentum."

I know. This is some whacked sh-t, but that's Racist Rim-Station Repsac3 for you.

Stoaty Weasel's got his number, and how, "We set fire to a gypsy. You?:

“April is a big month for anti-government and right-wing individuals. There’s the Columbine anniversary, there’s Hitler’s birthday, there’s the Oklahoma City bombing, the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco.”

–NPR’s Dina Temple-Raston, speculating that the Boston Marathon bombers were home grown (before the Tsarnaev brothers started shooting up the place, obviously).

Okay. Wow. Let’s take those in reverse order. “…the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco…” was a really horrible episode in our history, in which a house full of religious nutcases were burned alive by federal agents for no good reason. It did indeed horrify all kinds of people, and someone out on the “here be dragons” fringe of the right did indeed retaliate with the Oklahoma City bombing. Which is a desperate embarrassment to the third or so of the country that is in the mainstream right and has been used as a stick to beat us for twenty years. It is not a day for celebration in any way, shape or form.

But…wait…dear lord, Hitler’s birthday?!? If you turned America upside down and shook her hard, I bet fewer than a hundred genuine neo-Nazis would fall out. A kind of right wing, I guess, because they always say so. But just…really, NPR?

Whoa, hang on, the Columbine anniversary? The hell? Two punk kids shoot up their high school? That’s not even…there’s nothing…that’s not right, left or anything. That’s just. No.

This all happened last week, obviously, when nobody knew nothing. Which is why I didn’t post about it then. I was in no mood.

Is it too much to ask our publicly-funded media not to accuse me of Hitler worship? And they wonder why we talk about defunding them every time we get a majority.

"The hell" is right.

Temple-Raston was shamelessly smearing conservatives ---- all while refusing to consider the possible legitimacy that an Islamic terrorist from Saudi Arabia might have been the perpetrator. Nope. It had to be a bunch of fanatical right wingers celebrating Hitler's birthday.

Whoopi. Let's sing the Horst Wessel song and blow the legs off beautiful 8-year-old American boys --- because that's right in the f-king wheelhouse of conservative right wing individuals!

My god. We've reached a milestone in Repsac III's troll rights harassment blogging: Walter James Casper III = Certified NPR Tinfoil Conspiracy Crackpot.

Get some help motherf-ker.

Jerry Buell, Florida History Teacher, Suspended for Posting His Personal Gay Marriage Opinions on Facebook

The guy was Mount Dora High School's Teacher of the Year. His peers obviously consider him excellent in the classroom. And his comments on gay marriage are nothing compared to the left's foul dirtbag death chants against conservatives. Seriously. He says gay marriage makes him sick to his stomach and is an attack on God. You think? See Orlando Sentinel, "Teacher suspended, reassigned for anti-gay Facebook comments." And Hot Air, "Florida teacher suspended for Facebook entry opposing NY gay-marriage law":

Do teachers in public-school systems have a “special ethics” code that prevents them from publicly speaking on policy issues? Lake County Schools in Florida suspended Jerry Buell, a high-school teacher with a reportedly impeccable record for 22 years, for posting his opposition to New York’s new gay-marriage law, and will start termination proceedings against him. The case will test First Amendment rights and encroaching political correctness.

You can say that again.

Here's the guy's comments:

“I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”

*****

“By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”

And here come the progressive thought police totalitarians. Lauren Ritchie, for example, also at The Sentinal, "Respect between teachers, students at heart of teacher's anti-gay Facebook rant":

Buell said last week that he started the Facebook discussion after watching a news story about New York legalizing unions for same-sex partners.

In most of it, Buell simply expounded on view that homosexuality is wrong because of his religious beliefs. All that was fine.

Where the teacher of the year went wrong was in saying he "almost threw up" when the story came on the screen and in comparing gay relations to a "cesspool."

His remarks were out of line, and they were made in a public forum. As a teacher of history and government, Buell should know that responsibility comes with freedom of speech.

Students — gay, straight or otherwise — have the right to come to school expecting a fair shake from their teachers. Can a student who makes a teacher want to vomit really expect equal treatment?

Of course they can? Progressives assume that people from different backgrounds are perpetual victims who can't think for themselves. And they assume that a teacher expressing a private opinion can't act professionally in the classroom. Hello people??!! It's called debating both sides of an issue. Thousands upon thousands of teachers do it every day inside the classroom. One doesn't have to agree with a political position to be able to discuss it and offer it up to students for critical analysis. Progressives assume that a conservative can't hold two conflicting opinions at the same time and offer them for debate. It's the left that's metastasizing from monochromatic thinking. Just this week, as part of my introductory discussions, I was helping students think about the stakes of the upcoming presidential election in 2012. Since Rick Perry's been in the news I hypothesized a presidential match-up between the Texas Governor and President Obama. I discussed the likely policy platforms the candidates might have, and especially how they would differ on the question of creating more jobs and getting the nation back to work. I don't agree with the Democrats' program, but I laid it out there and said that Obama inherited a collapsing economy and that so far his stimulus program hasn't had the desired effect of creating more jobs. He'll argue that he needs four more years to continue his work in generating economic growth. Then I mentioned that Rick Perry's been propelled to the top ranks of the GOP field because of Texas's record of job creation. I then suggested how both Obama and Perry might criticize the other. After that, I opened up the classroom for discussion, and students were able to raise additional points, not only about that hypothetical contest but anything else they thought relevant. Duh. That's called open inquiry and critical discussion. I'm not making my students agree with one program or another. And I'm not attacking President Obama as an Alynskite community organizer communist attempting to turn the U.S. into a corrupt bureaucratic European welfare regime. He is that. But we can get to whether progressive programs are productive without the more polarizing language. In other words, I don't teach my ideology. I teach based on critical thinking and helping students think for themselves. Shoot, sometimes my student evaluations criticize me as a bleeding heart liberal, which I find hilarious, since I'm one of the most outspoken conservative blogging professors in the United States.

Anyway, progressives are losers. They're ASFL totalitarian dicks. (And stupid too, like Racist Idiot W. James Casper.) If Jerry Buell posts about how gay marriage makes him sick on Facebook, so fucking what? No doubt he'd be reported for saying so much inside the classroom, and that's when school officials would be warranted in taking action. Outside of that, Buell's First Amendment rights are being violated. Basically, he's getting reamed up the you-know-what harder than two New York rim-station freaks overdosing on erection enhancement pills. (And hey, W. James Casper's down with that!)

RELATED VIDEO: "School Suspends Teacher After Gay Marriage Facebook Comment."

Gay Marriage and Sexual Exclusivity

David Frum gets all wishy washy, "I was wrong about same-sex marriage." (Via Memeorandum.) Frum indicates that he'd long opposed gay marriage, and he'd engaged Andrew Sullivan on the topic in online debates. But he's had a change of heart. Here's the gist of Frum's argument:

... I find myself strangely untroubled by New York state's vote to authorize same-sex marriage -- a vote that probably signals that most of "blue" states will follow within the next 10 years.

I don't think I'm alone in my reaction either. Most conservatives have reacted with calm -- if not outright approval -- to New York's dramatic decision.

Why?

The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test.

Since 1997, same-sex marriage has evolved from talk to fact.

If people like me had been right, we should have seen the American family become radically more unstable over the subsequent decade and a half.

Instead -- while American family stability has continued to deteriorate -- it has deteriorated much more slowly than it did in the 1970s and 1980s before same-sex marriage was ever seriously thought of.

It keeps going like that, on the not-so-bad decline of the traditional family structure in America. But it's a lousy argument. I wrote on families the other day. In California just 23.4 percent of households include a traditional married family with children. The causes are complex, but making same-sex marriage easier will cause those numbers to further erode.

I don't think David Frum has a clue. More likely, he's just consolidating his shift away from the conservative right-wing. And this seems like a losing proposition, since it's not like there aren't enough incisive and influential commentators on the left, which is where Frum's headed. He's basically doing a Charles Johnson, except that he was a major pundit and conservative insider rather than a husky pony-tailed psychotic narcissist.

Anway, since Frum's using data from the mid-2000s, let's flash back to an article from 2004, by David Tubbs and Robert P. George "Redefining Marriage Away":

Conservative advocates of same-sex marriage insist that their goal is not a radical alteration of the institution itself. They favor the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships as marriages in order to secure "equal rights," they say. Their goal in redefining marriage is not to weaken or abolish it but to expand access to it, while leaving its core features intact. Far from harming marriage, they contend, the move to same-sex marriage would strengthen the institution.

Though this argument has a certain superficial appeal, it is profoundly mistaken. The issue is not one of equality or the right to participate in a valuable social institution. What divides defenders of traditional marriage from those who would redefine it is a disagreement about the nature of the institution itself. Redefining marriage will, of course, fundamentally change the posture of law and public policy toward the meaning and significance of human sexuality, procreation, and the bond between the sexes. Even more important, there are powerful reasons to fear that the proposed redefinition of marriage will destabilize and undermine this already battered institution.

To understand the destabilizing effects, consider this scenario. A young man and woman are engaged to be married. A month before the wedding, the man approaches his fiancée to ask whether she will consider an "open marriage," in which they will free each other from the duty to be sexually faithful.

Even today, the man's proposal is shocking, and his bride-to-be will almost surely be horrified by it. Nearly everyone would say that what the man has proposed is something other than a true marriage, since the norm of sexual exclusivity within marriage is essential to the institution. That is why the overwhelming majority of couples entering marriage do not even discuss whether they will follow the norm; they simply accept it.

Do most American husbands and wives honor the principle of sexual exclusivity in practice? The best evidence says yes. In their rigorous and acclaimed 1994 study on American sexual behavior, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann and his associates found that 65 to 85 percent of American men and more than 80 percent of American women (in every age group) had no sex partners other than their spouses while married. These figures are remarkable, especially if we recall the many ways in which popular culture has mocked or trivialized human sexuality and the demands of marriage in recent decades.

But do most same-sex couples accept the norm of sexual exclusivity? In a 1999 survey of such couples in Massachusetts, sociologist Gretchen Stiers found that only 10 percent of the men and 32 percent of the women thought that a "committed" intimate relationship entailed sexual exclusivity. An essay called "Queer Liberalism?" in the June 2000 American Political Science Review reviewed six books that discussed same-sex marriage. None of the six authors affirmed sexual exclusivity as a precondition of same-sex marriage, and most rejected the idea that sexual fidelity should be expected of "married" homosexual partners. For more than a decade, a wide array of authors who favor redefining marriage to include same-sex partners have advanced similar views. In a 1996 essay in the Michigan Law Review, University of Michigan law professor David Chambers even suggested that marriage should be redefined to include sexual unions of three or more people--so-called polyamorous relationships.

Sorry, David Frum. That's decidedly NOT keeping families stable. What an idiot.

Anyway, I cited news reports earlier that the battle for gay marriage has a long way to go nationwide, and I'll be writing more on this, since New York has energized the Democratic Party's rim-station base.

Meanwhile, Robert George had a major research paper out last year, which updates some of the arguments above, "What is Marriage?"

Irvine Great Park

This is a great piece. Of course, I live in Irvine so it's of natural interest to me.

That said, I had no idea about the raw politics surrounding this issue. It's pretty fascinating, actually. 

At LAT, "Irvine’s ultimate NIMBY fight: A cemetery for veterans deemed an undesirable blight":

In Irvine, every detail is intentional.

From the lush parks to the sparkling pools of its master-planned villages, the city offers a perfect balance of nature and suburban life.

Even the street names in its Great Park neighborhoods, which have popped up over the last decade around the former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, were developed in consultation with a feng shui master.

But there’s one amenity that Great Park neighbors say will never fit: a veterans cemetery.

A nearly decade-long battle over a military cemetery in the city has pitted veterans, residents and politicians against one another, with every side asserting support for their preferred location and myriad reasons why the plan hasn’t advanced.

The hostile reaction to the cemetery has stunned veterans, who point out the military’s historical role in the area — both with the El Toro base and the nearby Tustin base, both of which closed in the 1990s. To them, the cemetery is a fitting tribute to those who served, and Irvine’s central location would benefit loved ones who want to visit.

“The opinion on Irvine from veterans ranges from negative to hostile, with profanity thrown in,” Vietnam veteran Bill Cook said. “You’d think Irvine started with an F when I talked to these people.”

But the push to honor veterans proved no match for powerful forces in Irvine: a developer who had other plans, residents who worried about traffic and property values, and a sense that a cemetery simply didn’t fit into the community’s ideas for a place where homes now regularly sell for more than $1 million.

“When you buy a million-dollar home, you don’t want to open up your door and have a cemetery right there,” former Irvine Mayor Christina Shea said. “It just kind of gives a sense of sadness and a continual reminder of death and your own mortality. I wouldn’t buy a home next to a cemetery. I want a golf course, a lake, a park or something like that.”

In a county often criticized for its “not in my backyard” mentality, Irvine has long railed against anything that doesn’t fit with its idea of a master-planned community. When the El Toro base was decommissioned in 1999, residents successfully beat back a proposal to turn the land into an airport, instead opting to transform it into a park with athletic fields, a water park and plenty of open space. In 2018, a plan for a homeless shelter at the Great Park was nixed after vehement opposition.

The controversy over a cemetery has been brewing since at least 2014, yet veterans — thousands of whom settle every year in Orange County after retiring from the military — say they’ve largely been sidelined from discussions. Instead, they’ve been met with consternation from the Great Park’s closest neighbors and hand-wringing from the city’s politicians, they say.

Some are so frustrated by years of delays and fighting over a location that they’ve scouted a site on county land in Anaheim Hills instead. The Orange County Board of Supervisors gave the project a major boost on Tuesday by allocating $20 million from the county’s general fund for site development. The Anaheim City Council this month showed unanimous support for the cemetery.

In the years following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the U.S. military sought out the land that would eventually become the El Toro base as a place for Marines to train for battle in the Pacific Rim. Tens of thousands of service members and civilians moved through its gates annually, turning the base into a mini-city complete with homes, a church and a school.

For more than 50 years, El Toro played a critical role in conflicts across the world, including Vietnam and Desert Storm. It’s where men and women leaving for deployment said goodbye to their families — sometimes for the last time...

When I was just ten years old, when my family used to drive south from the City of Orange to San Juan Capistrano to visit my uncle and his family, we could see the Marine Corps Air Station El Toro from the 5 freeway, and the Tustin Marine Corps airbase is right next to Irvine where I live. When I was a kid you could see the "Huey" helicopters from the base flying all around Orange County, especially near the beaches.

Enough about that. Obviously this piece brings back a lot of memories.

Still more.