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."

New York Broome County Clerk Resigns Over Same-Sex Marriage Law

She's probably had it up to here with the rim station freaks.

See New York Daily News, "N.Y. clerk Laura Fortusky resigns in protest of gay marriage; refused to sign same-sex licenses." Also at New Yorker's Family Research Foundation, "Barker Town Clerk Resigns, Rather Than Compromise Convictions."

And Forutsky's resignation letter is at New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, "First Town Clerk Announces Resignation in Light of Gay 'Marriage' Legislation":

“The Bible clearly teaches that God created marriage between male and female as a divine gift that preserves families and cultures. Since I love and follow Him, I cannot put my signature on something that is against God. Deuteronomy 10:12 says, ‘…What does the Lord your God ask of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and soul, and to observe the Lord’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good.’”

“I would be compromising my moral conscience if I participated in the licensing procedure. Therefore, I will be resigning as of July 21. I wanted you to know my position as I understand the marriage law goes into effect on July 24.”

Also at New York Times: "Settled in Albany, Gay Marriage Draws Opposition."

Lady Gaga's Gay Pride Gig in Rome?

I had no idea? Much less the fact that the State Department sponsored. Rim-station diplomacy. Who knew?

At CNS News, "Hillary: State Dept. ‘Instrumental in Sealing Deal’ For Lady Gaga’s Gay Pride Gig in Rome":

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday that the State Department played an instrumental role in “sealing the deal” for pop-rock star Lady Gaga to perform at a gay pride rally in Rome, Italy.

Clinton specifically pointed to a letter that David Thorne, the U.S. ambassador to Italy, sent to Lady Gaga urging her to participate in the event.

“And then there is the work that our embassy team in Rome has been doing,” Clinton said. “Two weeks ago they played an instrumental role in bringing Lady Gaga to Italy for a Euro Pride concert.

“Now as many of you know Lady Gaga is Italian American and a strong supporter of LGBT rights,” said Clinton. “And the organizers of the Euro Pride event desperately wanted her to perform and a letter to her from Ambassador Thorne was instrumental in sealing the deal.”

Via Memeorandum and Weasel Zippers.

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?"

Erik Kain of Forbes: Wishy Washy Pussy

Well, if Alex Knapp only knew!

And E.D. Kain responds, at Ordinary Gentlemen, "Classical Liberalism in America":

So, for many readers of my work there’s a sense that I am wishy-washy on a number of issues (though hopefully they also notice where I am consistent: against the war on drugs, for non-interventionism, gay rights, immigration, civil liberties, etc). In my humblest of opinions there are certain tangible truths and certain areas of dispute where the issues become quite a bit more murky. There are also times when the truth and the realm of possibility are not always aligned. So I write a lot about how to reconcile these things (if only to placate myself), and I try to strike a balance.

Well, no. I'm calling bullsh*t.

Readers will remember from 2009 that Erik Kain launched a campaign of workplace harassment and intimidation against this blog, "E.D. Kain Alleges Defamation: True/Slant Blogger's Workplace Intimidation Attempts to Shut Down American Power!" And, "E.D. Kain Contacts Department Again: Intimidation Campaign Escalates; Fake 'Apology' Seals Moral Indictment Against True/Slant Blogger!"

All the background at the links.

E.D. Kain's a sleaze-blogger. Contacting someone's place of work, to silence them, or to get them fired, is un-American. And for me it's unforgivable. I think I've had six episodes of these now, and I'll be writing more about the latest of these soon. Just let it be noted that E.D. Kain changes his position from week to week because he's a sycophant. He keeps a finger to the breeze to see how the debates are going, and makes careful moves not to alienate his rim-station allies. Indeed, here's E.D. at Forbes, on the same-sex marriage vote this weekend: "New York Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage" (which links to his man-crush, RawMuscleGlutes' Milky Loads). The tragedy is the guy's actually got some talent. But to be a good writer takes conviction, and that stuff just doesn't grow on trees. Too bad. Losers. All of them.

New York Legalizes Gay Marriage

Well, six down and 42 to go.

At Los Angeles Times, "New York Legislature passes gay marriage bill."

With the forceful backing of a newly elected Democratic governor, the New York State Legislature gave final approval late Friday to a bill permitting same-sex marriage, enabling gay couples to head for the altar in late July.

After a sometimes emotional hourlong debate, the 62-member, Republican-controlled Senate approved the measure, 33 to 29. Earlier in the evening, the Democratic-led Assembly had amended its version of the bill to match the Senate's, which carried additional exemptions for religious organizations that do not want to acknowledge or extend benefits to gays who marry.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who made the issue a centerpiece of his election campaign last year, signed the bill just before midnight. It will take effect in 30 days, making New York the sixth state, and the most populous by far, to permit same-sex marriage.

"What this state did today brings marriage equality to a new plane," Cuomo told reporters. "We reached a new level of social justice." Outside the Senate chamber, many opponents sat on the floor and prayed aloud for the state.

The amazing thing is how anti-climactic this is.

Gay marriage is coming to America, but it's not coming through a wave of popular, down-home demand. It's coming through the ram-it-down-your-throats progressive politics on the coasts, and the Berkeley-esque enclaves in the major urban areas across the heartland. If there was ever a case for letting federalism prevail, this is it. States should be free to decide their own policies on same-sex marriage. The Blankenhorn and Rauch manifesto is workable, and vital in preventing a progressive tyranny at the federal level from crushing the states. See: "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage." And the progressive sensationalism on this is deeply offensive, for example, "The arc of history bends towards justice in N.Y." Actually, gay marriage is not a civil right. Gay Americans are not an oppressed minority, but one of the most affluent and powerful interest groups in American politics. That's why a federal solution to the gay marriage issue remains vital. The gay radical lobby will browbeat kind and reasonable Americans, folks who don't want to put up with the fuss of being hammered over the head or dragged before Stalinist show trials. It's pretty bad, but it's the way things are going around here.

Image Credit: Good as You, "Photo: Stonewall. Right now. 42 years later" (via Memeorandum).

RELATED: Rim-station radicals celebrate in New York.

Census Data Reveal Strong Increase in Nontraditional Households

A fascinating report, but the way the Times sought to spin it is, well, a little weird.

See Los Angeles Times, "California families are changing, U.S. Census data show":

On a leafy drive in west Los Angeles, at a newly renovated home with cathedral ceilings and a backyard pool, 4-year-old Kate Eisenpresser-Davis' friends have been known to pose an intriguing question: "Why does Kate have three mommies?"

Lisa Eisenpresser, 44, and her partner, Angela Courtin, 38, share custody of Kate with Eisenpresser's ex-partner.

When asked to describe their life, Eisenpresser and Courtin respond with the same word: "Normal." Days are spent searching for the right balance between work and home, and zigzagging through Mar Vista to meetings, school and gymnastics.

Courtin is pregnant. Kate will soon have a sister, Phoebe, conceived from Eisenpresser's egg and sperm from a donor — the same 6-foot-1 Harvard grad, who scored a 1580 on the SAT, who served as Kate's donor.

"It's almost like I'm too busy to be thinking too deeply about being gay and different," Eisenpresser said.

Maybe she shouldn't bother. According to a Times analysis of new U.S. Census figures, the Eisenpresser-Courtin-Davises are on the leading edge of change — of a steady evolution in the meaning of "family" and "home" in California.

It's not "evolution" but "erosion," but read on:

New census figures show that the percentage of Californians who live in "nuclear family" households — a married man and a woman raising their children — has dropped again over the last decade, to 23.4% of all households. That represents a 10% decline in 10 years, measured as a percentage of the state's households.

Those households, the Times analysis shows, are being supplanted by a striking spectrum of postmodern living arrangements: same-sex households, unmarried opposite-sex partners, married couples who have no children. Some forms of households that were rare just a generation ago are becoming common; the number of single-father households in California, for instance, grew by 36% between 2000 and 2010.

For centuries, "family" connoted a sprawling, messy, almost tribal identity. Industrialization, wealth and mobility allowed, even encouraged, the family unit to shrink. The term "nuclear family" didn't enter the lexicon until the boom after World War II — a suggestion that the immediate family, built on a foundation of marriage and traditional gender roles, was the nucleus of social structure, even of American morality.

That paradigm, though, began to fray even before "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet" went off the air in 1966. Today, California is a stark reflection of a new dynamic: the traditional Hallmark card image is hardly obsolete, but it is the minority. And new sorts of households — blended families; bands of middle-class singles who live and vacation together; families that were once called "broken" — are increasingly the standard.

More at the link, but that's a shamefully exhuberant report. What's so great about less than one-quarter of California's households being "traditional nuclear"? Well, not so much, as the Times grudgingly concedes:

The preservation of what is viewed by many as the traditional family has long been a hot-button political issue. There is little dispute that some modern living arrangements, particularly the growth of single-parent households, often result in financial burdens and other challenges.

Ron Haskins, the co-director of the Brookings Center on Children and Families who once served as President Bush's senior advisor for welfare policy, said that children born to unmarried parents or raised in a single-family household, in particular, are more likely to be poor and to commit crimes. He said there is a national movement to promote marriage, such as marriage education requirements in some high schools.

It's interesting that the Times dropped that information so far down below the fold. But it's the key bit of information most important for social policy. Unless someone's a fanatical bigot, folks ought not disagree too much with a family like the Eisenpresser-Courtin-Davises --- they look happy, their kid loved and well cared for, and their household is apparently financially stable. (And the Eisenpresser-Courtin-Davises aren't the model for same-sex families in California, in any case. The extremist gay radical rim-station freaks are, the ones constantly in the news, ramming their gay rights agenda down the throats of average Californians, at the expense of poor and minority communities. Gay progressives are a violently selfish demographic disgrace.) The fact is almost half of households headed by a single parent live in poverty, and that's based in 2009 data. It's no doubt higher now, amid the Obama Depression. Society needs to find a way to promote healthy stable families, all around. We shouldn't downplay or ignore the worst family tragedies and denigrate the historic nuclear model by glorifying nontraditional structures with non-representative images of "cutting-edge" same-sex households.

Obama Heckled at LGBT Democrat Fundraiser in Manhattan!

BWAHAHA!

He's such a pussy.

Gay rights extremists thought Obambi was their man back in 2008, and since his election it's been one disappointment after another. And in recent weeks the gay pushback against the administration has been relentless (progressives threw Obama under the bus at Netroots Nation).

Anyway, the pain's not going away. See NYT, "Obama Speech Is Interrupted by Gay Marriage Supporters":

President Obama said he expected some heckling and he got it. More than 600 gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people paid $1,250 each to attend a Democratic fund-raising dinner in Manhattan on Thursday and, to the vocal disappointment of some, they did not hear him endorse same-sex marriage generally or the bill that would legalize it in New York State.

Mr. Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney, had said early in the day that the president would not announce any shift in his longstanding but “evolving” position on same-sex marriage — that it is a matter for states to decide. Even so, some in the mostly male audience at the hotel ballroom seemed to hang on his words as if waiting for just such a shift.

Gay bloggers are debating Obama's fundraiser, but check this clip to see what a puss the president is. It's no wonder they mock this guy as TOTUS. Obama's speech is already measured, but it's like EACH. AND. EVERY. WORD. has to be checked at the front door of the cerebellum before being uttered. What an idiot. Just come out for it. Scared or something? Just come out for gay marriage. We know you back it. You're just chicken, despite polls showing a newfound and clear majority backing gay marriage nationally. And it must suck being a progressive when the president, from your own party, is such a spineless slimeball. Really sucks.

Snark aside, HRC's Fred Sainz sounds reasonable at the clip, but right on cue John Aravosis shows himself to be the classic gay thug we've witnessed since at least the passage of Prop. 8. The dude's a rank rim-station progressive bully.

RELATED: "HONESTLY, IS JOHN ARAVOSIS A PIECE OF EXCREMENT OR WHAT?"

Pam Spaulding Promotes 'Barebacking' Blog Post With '1000 Load F**k (NSFW)' Videos

Call it milestones in gay rights.

First is the news that the Obama administration has chosen the first-ever homosexual man to be the next White House Social Secretary. It's one thing for this to be about appropriate gender roles, but the dude's gay, so that complicates things a bit. Perhaps that's a sop to the radical gay left-wing lobby. Lord knows Obambi's been dealing these folks a cold cucumber since he took offfice. But second is Pam Spaulding's mainstreaming of the radical gay sex culture of "barebacking," which is the practice of condomless homosexual sodomy: "It's Time to Get Angry About the Promotion of Unsafe Sex in the Gay Community." The author claims to be upset by the breakdown of safe sex norms in the radical homosexual community, but what's quite revealing is the depth of this dude's expertise on the gay fringe sexual culture of non-commitment and the extreme left's bareback/rim-station hookup scene. I mean seriously. I'm reading the comments, at Pam's House Blend and at the cross-post to Daily Kos (natch). It turns out for the gay left, non-infected HIV-negative is the new virginity. There's progressive self-loathing for you. Let's just f**k until we're dead, y'all. But again, what really tripped me out is that if the diarist is so angry about the rejection of the healthy norms that followed the gay plague of the 1970s, you think he'd avoid links to the extreme gay porn websites that aggressively extol the culture. Labeling this stuff NSFW is hardly warning enough. Folks would be advised to rethink their kids' Internet usage after this. Just think, young middle school students looking for information on same-sex marriage might just pull this up and then find 1000 loads of cum dumped up some guy's behind. Is this the art and culture that new White House Social Secretary Jeremy Bernard is now going to promote?

“Jeremy shares our vision for the White House as the People’s House, one that celebrates our history and culture in dynamic and inclusive ways,” President Obama said in a statement, “We look forward to Jeremy continuing to showcase America’s arts and culture to our nation and the world through the many events at the White House.”

See that? Inclusive ways. Wouldn't want to alienate the gay radical barebacking community.

And for those who click through to Pam's House Blend, EXTREME RADICAL BUNGHOLE WARNING! TOTALLY NOT SAFE FOR ANYONE, MUCH LESS KIDS.