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

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

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

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

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

Universities as Left-Wing Seminaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More at that top link.

The professor is a Democrat Party apparatchik.

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

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

The quote is Samuel Alito's at the title.

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

Supreme Court Proposition 8 Oral Arguments

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

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

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

Nine Glorified Lawyers

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

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

From Megan McArdle, at the Daily Beast:

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

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

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

More at the link.

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

Via Memeorandum.

Family Members Make Gay Marriage Personal for Newfound Supporters

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

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

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

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

Okay, carry on!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also notice the discussion of upholding DOMA at the piece.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As David Blankenhorn has written:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More:

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

Right.

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

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

Escaping From Human Oppression

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still more at that top link.

I'm Reading Around on the Defense of Marriage Act

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

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

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

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

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

March for Marriage

An excellent clip, from the National Organization for Marriage:

Likely Outcomes on Homosexual Marriage at the Supreme Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIDEO: Pamela Geller on CNN Taking Down Islamic Supremacist Thug

At Atlas Shrugs:

Lots more counter-jihad at Pamela's blog.

The Coming Backlash Against Homosexual Marriage

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

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

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

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

The Left-Wing Stranglehold on Academia

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

Read it at the link.

The United States is Top Destination for Potential Immigrants Worldwide

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

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

Implications

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

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

Via Steve Sailor and Maggie's Farm.

What is the Resolution to the Homosexual Marriage Debate?

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

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

RTWT.

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

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