Bill Quick’s announcement

The Daily Pundit is a great blog, and Bill Quick is an asset to the Right. But, Bill has become disillusioned with the Social Conservatives. I understand his frustration, I have been rubbed the wrong way by many of them myself. His issue with them seems to be my issue with them. Too often they wish to talk of small government, until something offends them on TV, and then they turn into Statist starter kits.

Frankly, I disagree with Bill on one thing. I do not think most Conservatives are wired that way, even Social Conservatives, but, the Rick Santorum’s of the GOP are a problem. Sorry but what people do in their bedrooms is their business, no matter how disgusting you or I might find it. We are a Christian nation, with a secular government, which is how it ought to be. Too often Social Conservatives blur that distinction.

And of course some Libertarians go too far as well. What I long to see is for Libertarians and Conservatives to come together on some core principles. Small government, strong support for Constitutional rule, low taxes, low regulation, and less government in our personal lives. We cannot let an issue like Gay marriage split us apart. I can see both sides of that argument. It is to me a state by state decision, but something must be done to protect states, and churches, and businesses than recognize traditional marriage from the zealots who wish to use this issue to radically change America through lawsuits and thuggish intimidation.

Sadly, the Gay activists are not looking for equality. They are looking to use the issue to attack people of faith. For me it is like this. I do not care if you marry your Gay lover. I do care if you try to force churches and businesses into accepting your lifestyle. To me, liberty is the most important thing, nothing matters more. And yes, that includes our liberty to discriminate if we choose.

Bill says he might quit visiting certain blogs. I really hope that does not include this one.

 

Media Blackout: No Coverage On Massive ‘March For Marriage’ In Washington DC

Media Blackout: No Coverage On Massive ‘March For Marriage’ In Washington DC – Gateway Pundit

Once again the mainstream media proves itself to be nothing more than an extension of the DNC.

Major mainstream media outlets totally ignored the massive March for Marriage today in Washington DC.

It’s like it never happened.

Here are pictures from the March for Marriage today, via National Organization for Marriage website today:

There was also a rally at the end of the march.

Obviously, the march did not fit the media’s narrative on the subject.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Liberal logic: gays cannot be truly equal unless we teach pre-schoolers to cross dress

Batshit Crazy!

Homosexuality is a natural facet of mammalian life. It occurs in most species to some extent, but there is a biological reason for it. It occurs within a small minority and the biological reason is one of nature’s ways of  implementing population control.

There is no moral judgement in that. Gays should be entitled to equal rights, be free from all forms of discrimination and Gay marriage can actually be beneficial for society.

But it’s a far cry from that to saying homosexuality, something that occurs in about 2% of the population, is ‘normal’ or that gender is something that can be a choice.

These ideas are part of the idiocy fostered in places like the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education where some programs are comprised of majority Gay students and staff, and by their willing accomplices at Ontario’s Ministry of Education and by the ridiculous leadership of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB).

Among the latest absurd attempts at social engineering, the TDSB wants to encourage cross-dressing in children as young as pre-school.

Pre-school?

Among the books recommended to kids in pre-school to Grade 3 by the TDSB’sPositive Spaces Resources is a book called My Princess Boy, the protagonist of which is a young boy who wears dresses and a tiara.

Evidently being Gay-positive isn’t enough for the TDSB, it now wants, at the youngest age, to encourage boys to be flaming queens.

In a system where most children can’t name all Canada’s provinces and provincial capitals, it’s heartening to know that they spend so much time emphasising  `gender choices.“

It`s hardly any wonder that so many university professors are noticing that students entering post-secondary studies don`t even know how to properly punctuate a sentence.

But at least Toronto`s public schools are giving them a head-start on learning how to accessorize.

Remember folks what the Left calls education, is actually indoctrination.

 

Obama Justice Department: Children Don’t Need Mothers, And Have No Right To Them

DOJ: Children Do Not Need, And Have No Right To, Mothers – CNS

The Obama Justice Department is arguing in the United States Supreme Court that children do not need mothers.

………

The Justice Department’s argument on the superfluity of motherhood is presented in a brief the Obama administration filed in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended California’s Constitution to say that marriage involves only one man and one woman.

The Justice Department presented its conclusions about parenthood in rebutting an argument made by proponents of Proposition 8 that the traditional two-parent family, led by both a mother and a father, was the ideal place, determined even by nature itself, to raise a child.

The Obama administration argues this is not true. It argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers is just as good as having one of each.

“The [California] Voter Guide arguably offered a distinct but related child-rearing justification for Proposition 8: ‘the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father,’” said the administration’s brief submitted to the court by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.

“As an initial matter, no sound basis exists for concluding that same-sex couples who have committed to marriage are anything other than fully capable of responsible parenting and child-rearing,” the Department of Justice told the court. “To the contrary, many leading medical, psychological, and social-welfare organizations have issued policy statements opposing restrictions on gay and lesbian parenting based on their conclusion, supported by numerous scientific studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.”

“The weight of the scientific literature strongly supports the view that same-sex parents are just as capable as opposite-sex parents,” says the administration.

To support this argument, one of the documents the administration cites is a “policy statement” by the American Psychological Association. This statement claims that some studies indicate same-sex parents might be “superior” to mother-and-father families, but then concedes there is little actual data on the results of raising children in two-father households.

“Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners,” says this APA policy statement the administration cited to the court. “The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers’ and gay fathers’ parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

“Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents,” says the APA policy statement. “However, few data regarding these concerns are available for children of gay fathers.”

The Obama administration further argues that because California law already permits domestic partnerships in which same-sex couples are allowed all the “incidents” of marriage – including the right to adopt children and be foster parents – that Proposition 8 only denies same-sex couples the use of the word “marriage” and does not change the status of child-rearing in the state.

“Moreover, as the court of appeals determined, ‘Proposition 8 had absolutely no effect on the ability of same-sex couples to become parents or the manner in which children are raised in California,’” says the administration. “As explained, California law, both before and after Proposition 8, grants registered domestic partners the same parental rights and benefits accorded to married couples. And Proposition 8 does not alter California’s adoption, fostering, or presumed-parentage laws, which ‘continue to apply equally to same-sex couples.’

“In light of California’s conferral of full rights of parenting and child-rearing on same-sex couples, Proposition 8’s denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry bears no cognizable relation, let alone a substantial one, to any interest in responsible procreation and child-rearing (however defined),” says the administration. “Indeed, because a substantial number of California children are raised in households headed by same-sex couples.”

In effect, the administration is arguing that California had already conceded the administration’s point that children do not need a mother or a father when it enacted laws treating same-sex couples the same as married couples in its adoption, foster-parenting and other laws–which Proposition 8 did not seek to overturn.

So far in the history of the human race, no child has ever been born without a biological father and mother. Now, in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Executive Branch of the federal government is arguing that, regardless of the biological facts of parenthood, states have no legitimate and defenisble interest in ensuring that children conceived by a mother and a father are in fact raised by mothers and fathers.

The brief that the Justice Department presented to the Supreme Court discussed children only as items controlled by others, not as individual human beings who have God-given rights of their own. It simply assumes that a child has no inherent right to a mother or father and that the only right truly in question is whether two people of the same-sex have a right to marry one another and that that right encompasses a right to adopt and foster-raise children.

To take this view and be consistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence – which recognizes the ultimate authority of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and says that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” – the Obama Justice Department must advance the assumption that natural law and Nature’s God give children no right to a mother and father and no right not to be legally handed over by the government to be raised by same-sex couples.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

When I Was A Kid: Reflections Of A 50-Year-Old American (Edward L. Daley)

When I was a kid…

If you mouthed off to an adult – even a teacher in school – you’d more than likely get the taste slapped out of your mouth, and anybody who saw you get smacked would assume you had it coming.

Doctors made house calls, and they were usually paid in cash for that service.

Boosting a kid’s self-esteem was maybe the last thing any teacher cared about. Forcing their students to study and get good grades was the top priority, and accomplishing that goal naturally led to kids feeling better about themselves.

Climate change was a concept we were keenly aware of, although, back then we just called it weather.

Black folks were called blacks, colored people or negroes by most whites and blacks alike. There was no such thing as an African-American. Even immigrants from Africa who had passed their citizenship tests weren’t called African-Americans, they were just Americans like the rest of us.

There wasn’t a single kid in my school who couldn’t read, write, do basic math or recite the Pledge of Allegiance by the time they were eight years old… not one.

The word gay just meant cheerful.

Wearing a helmet while riding your bike was far more dangerous than not wearing one, because if other kids saw you in sissy gear like that, they’d beat the crap out of you.

Israelis were known as the survivors of the worst genocide in modern history, and Palestinians were thought of as just a bunch of Arab Nazis pretending to be the victims of Jewish tyranny.

A rich person was somebody you aspired to be like, not somebody you sought to punish.

Communism was an almost treasonous concept that only doped-up, America-hating hippies experimented with.

Every classroom in my grammar school had a Christmas tree in it at Christmas time, and if any parent had complained and tried to force us to remove them, that person’s car would have ended up with sugar in its gas tank, a busted windshield, four flat tires and the words ‘Merry Christmas’ spray-painted on its hood.

Our heroes were people like George Washington, Neil Armstrong, Mother Teresa, Thomas Edison, Amelia Earhart, Martin Luther King Jr., Susan B. Anthony, General George S. Patton and Albert Einstein.

We understood that the Vietnam War wasn’t lost by U.S. military forces, it was lost by incompetent politicians in Washington DC.

Only wimps played tee-ball.

Most folks had home computers, although they were more commonly known as calculators.

After school, on weekends and during the summer months – unless the weather was particularly bad – kids could be found outside playing with their friends. We didn’t hang around inside, watching TV or playing board games before dinner, and even if we’d wanted to do that, our parents would have forbade it.

Most black voters were Republicans.

Popular music was incredibly diverse, and most performers knew how to play instruments, compose complex melodies and lyrics, and sing entire songs without proving to their audiences that some notes can, indeed, be strangled to death.

Able-bodied people who received public assistance were pitied by other folks, and most of them felt shame for allowing themselves to become dependent on the government for their sustenance.

Nobody played any game just for the fun of it. That’s why we always kept score. If you weren’t playing to win, the game was pointless.

If you saw a grown man cry, it was probably because either his mother or his dog had just died.

It was mostly Europeans who thought of Hitler’s Nazi party as a right-wing political movement. Americans generally understood what the term National Socialist implied.

Reality TV shows included Mutual Of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom, Candid Camera and The Undersea World Of Jacques Cousteau.

We didn’t need government warming labels on everything. We knew that electrical appliances were dangerous if used improperly, that smoking was bad for you, that swallowing things like marbles and those little, plastic, toy soldiers could choke you to death, and that placing a scalding hot cup of coffee between your thighs while riding in a car was as good a way as any of proving to emergency room staff just how freakin’ stupid some people can be.

Books were more popular than food stamps.

Respect was something that your parents were entitled to, your friends earned, and politicians pretended they deserved.

Gas station attendants didn’t just take your money, they pumped your gas, washed your windshield, checked your oil level and even applied a pressure gauge to your tires if you asked them to. And their service didn’t cost you a penny extra.

Only teenage boys bragged to their friends about having sex, especially when they hadn’t. Most teenage girls denied that they’d had sex, especially when they had.

Heavy drinkers didn’t have a disease, they simply lacked self-control. Diseases were things you had no control over.

A liberal was an open-minded, intellectually honest individual who looked at all sides of an issue before arriving at a thoughtful conclusion, not a scatterbrained, reactionary jackass whose natural inclination was to spout socialist theory as a default position on practically every topic.

Everybody who was born in America was a native American.

Men were builders, risk-takers, hunters, warriors, protectors and heads of their households. Women were refiners, nesters, nurturers, teachers and disciplinarians who were usually willing to let their male counterparts delude themselves into thinking that men were the heads of their households.

Most folks understood the difference between discrimination and bigotry.

Marriage was an institution that a man and a woman entered into when they wanted to exhibit their commitment to one another, their willingness to accept adult responsibilities, and their desire to legitimize their offspring. It had nothing to do with making a political point.

Teenagers bringing guns to their high schools was commonplace – especially during hunting season – and anyone who complained about such a thing was generally considered a nutcase.

Illegal aliens were called illegal aliens by practically everyone, because that term best described foreigners who’d snuck into our country in defiance of our laws.

The greatest movie ever made was The Great Escape.

On the scale of human trustworthiness, the vast majority of politicians fell somewhere between used car salesmen and coke whores. In fact, the only people who ever exhibited any level of trust in politicians were the people who had enough money to buy them off.

Plumbers were more respected than Harvard law students.

My friends and I genuinely cared about nature because we spent a lot of time hanging out in it. We went into the woods and built forts, fished in streams, and made campfires, employing the lessons we’d learned in the Boy Scouts and from studying American Indian cultures. We respected nature because we knew what nature really was; a hostile, unforgiving place that would kill you if you didn’t know your way around it. We loved the challenge of the wilderness, and soldiering through it made us appreciate our cushy home lives all the more.

Making fun of other kids or calling them names – while generally frowned upon – wasn’t considered bullying. A bully was a guy who punched you in the head and took your lunch money.

The President of the United States wasn’t a father figure to anybody but his own kids.

Mainstream news reporters were pretty much the same sort of biased, dim-witted, arrogant, assclowns that they are today, only we didn’t have the internet at our disposal to easily prove just how unreliable they were.

Video games were things you played at arcades, unless you were lucky enough to get an Atari Pong console for Christmas.

Abortion wasn’t a privacy issue, it was a moral issue, and people who committed abortions weren’t “pro-choice”, they were baby killers.

The application of oil and its byproducts to run machinery and generate electricity was widely understood to be as important to the advancement of human civilization as the discovery and utilization of fire, the practices of cultivating crops and breeding livestock, and the development of a written language.

Nobody I knew gave half a damn what people in other countries thought about anything.

Concepts like honor, integrity, courage and chivalry were alive and well.

The United States of America was the greatest nation in the history of the world, bar none, and just about every American school kid knew why. Our brilliantly conceived Constitution, Judeo-Christian ethic, free market economic system, adherence to the rule of law and willingness to embrace people from every culture on Earth made us great, and we were conspicuously proud of that fact.

By Edward L. Daley

Wacky college students in Berkeley want Salvation Army banned from campus

Once again, the far Left exposes just how discriminatory, and ignorant they are

The student government at the University of California-Berkeley (CAL) passed a resolution last month that would ban Salvation Army bell ringers and their iconic red kettles from campus this Christmas because of the Christian organization’s alleged bias against homosexuality.

In other words, because the Salvation Army dares to be a Christian charity, that helps anyone who needs it by the way, thy must be prevented from raising funds to help the needy. Odd, as much as the Left throws around the charge of extremism against anyone they disagree with, it is the Left that is truly extreme.

The resolution, cleared on November 14, accuses the charity of openly discriminating against gay individuals.

“Salvation Army church services, including charity services, are available only to people ‘who accept and abide by the Salvation Army’s doctrine and discipline,’ which excludes homosexuality,” reads the bill, SB 176.

This charge is patently false. it would seem that ignorance, gross ignorance in this case is part of the Left’s bigotry.

“Allowing the Salvation Army to collect donations on campus is a form of financial assistance that empowers the organization to spend the money it raises here in order to discriminate and advocate discrimination against queer people,” it adds.

In a statement to Campus Reform, the Salvation Army adamantly denied these charges, saying the allegations are based solely on “internet rumors.”

“The notion that we require those we help to ‘accept and abide by the Salvation Army’s doctrine and discipline which excludes homosexuality’ to receive assistance is totally false,” wrote Kathy Lovin, a spokeswoman for the Salvation Army.

She added that “the only requirement for service from The Salvation Army is demonstrated need and our ability to meet it.”

So, in fact, the Salvation Army helps anyone regardless of who they do the Horizontal Bop with. Of course the willingness to believe the charges the student government of Cal make are part of the Left’s problem. Leftism, and Liberalism are ideologies of pessimism. Largely, Liberals and especially leftists are very pessimistic people. They seem to enjoy hearing that climate change will kill us all, Try telling one of them that the ice caps in the South pole are growing sometime. Not only will they not believe you, they will get angry at you. Of course, the Left also is addicted, or so it would seem, to being, or at least feeling like a victim. So, their pessimistic view of life is fed by internet rumors that anyone ought to see as bogus. It also explains why they are so easily fed the propaganda that the Democratic Party dishes out.

 

Because only CERTAIN political causes are political to the Left

RS McCain looks at how the Left looks at “political” causes

You see, not all “political causes” are created equal:

After her daughter’s eighth grade math teacher wore an anti-gay marriage pin to school, Cynthia Deford, a gay parent in Port Angeles, Washington, started an online campaign to ban teachers from promoting political causes in the classroom.
The Steven’s Middle School teacher, who has remained unnamed, wore a button to class in the days before the Nov. 6 election that stated “No on 74: one man + one woman = marriage,” according to Deford. The political message refers to Washington’s Referendum 74, which legalized gay marriage in the state, passing with 52 percent of the vote.
Although Port Angeles School District Superintendent Jane Pryne told the Peninsula Daily News that the issue has been addressed, and the school district already has policy regarding politics in the classroom in place, Deford wants more to be done; she is calling for an official apology and sensitivity training for teachers.
“It just shocked me that it happened here,” Deford told the Peninsula Daily News.
In her online petition on SignOn.org, Deford wrote that her daughter came home upset after seeing a teacher — who she once thought highly of — wear such a discriminatory button in class.

She wants to “ban teachers from promoting political causes in the classroom,” but tolerance toward homosexuality . . . Well, that’s notpolitical. That’s just the way things are. Unless you question “the way things are,” and then you’re evil.

So the agenda now is compulsory approval. Everyone must pledge allegiance to the Rainbow Flag, and once you are forbidden to disapprove of homosexuality, logically, your refusal to participate in gay sex will be classified as an unacceptable form of “discrimination.”

This isn’t about “equality” or “liberation.” No, it’s about homo hegemony, as the fanatics seek to secure a privileged and superior status for themselves and their preferences. That’s not disco music you hear, it’s the sound of hobnailed boots marching over broken glass.

Tolerance gradually reveals itself as totalitarianism, and it’s amazing that people acquiesce to such bullying. According to a recent Gallup survey, 3.4 percent of Americans identify themselves as “LGBT,” to use the de rigeur acronym. Why should 96.6 percent be compelled to kowtow to the sensibilities of the 3.4 percent?

The most important part, to me anyway, is that last paragraph, especially these words Tolerance gradually reveals itself as totalitarianism. Truer words have never been uttered, tolerance, and its bastard cousins, inclusion and sensitivity are used by the Left not to create a more forgiving atmosphere, or to urge folks to be more polite. Instead these words have been rebranded by the Left, to have completely different meanings than they traditionally have. Tolerance is not tolerance anymore, or acceptance, it is now used as a weapon to silence ideological beliefs the Left finds distasteful. Sensitivity has become a tool to force Liberalism on those that dare holds views that are not Liberal. Inclusion? HA! That is a word used to “include” only certain viewpoints, all others are demonized, ostracized and most certainly excluded from debate. 

For example, take what McCain writes above. there is nothing hateful, or bigoted in his words, but, since he makes solid points that might persuade people he is correct, the Left must either silence his message or assassinate his character. And since The Other McCain will never stop expressing his views, or defending his principles, he must be discredited so that no one listens to anything he says. Further, look at what I wrote here, nothing Homophobic there. In fact I do not have issue with Gay marriage, or with Gay adoption, or with civil unions. But, that will not matter, any Leftist reading my words will attempt to paint me as an evil homophobe, because only certain views are to be tolerated by the “tolerant Left”!

The Left’s war on freedom

I think we all have made choices about where to eat, stay, shop, etc haven’t we? Sometimes those decisions are financial, or sometimes maybe it is about location, and yep, sometimes, that decision might be based on poor service, or what we think is poor quality. For instance, there are four chains of steakhouses around me, no matter the names, and I refuse to go to two of them because their food is subpar, another I will go to for a drink after work, the beer is ice-cold, the service is good, but I only eat the few things that are good there. The other chain, Texas Roadhouse, I love, the food, and service rock, the atmosphere is good, and it does not have that chain restaurant feel that I loathe. It is head and shoulders above the others. Clearly I have made choices. Seems fair doesn’t it? So what does any of my dining choices have to do with freedom and Lesbian marriage?

Well, it seems that some folks are not satisfied with choosing NOT to do business with certain businesses. They prefer to try to force businesses to do business with them. This strikes me as strange. There are businesses I refuse to go to, because I or some family member has been treated in a shabby fashion. I do not wish to sue these businesses because they hurt my feelings, I simply stop doing trade with them. Hey if you do not want to sell me something, fine, someone else will, seems fair doesn’t it?

Well, increasingly, we are seeing Gay couples, rather than taking their business elsewhere, turn to lawsuits. We have seen bakeries, photographers, and now businesses that host weddings, threatened with lawsuits, or actually sued, because they refuse to do businesses with Gay couples. Isn’t it the right of a business to refuse service? It certainly ought to be, but, this simple truth seems to escape some folks

Two New York women who say they were turned away from a potential wedding site because they are lesbians have filed a discrimination complaint.

Advocates say the complaint filed with the state Division of Human Rights is among the first of its kind since New York legalized same-sex weddings last year.

Melisa Erwin and Jennie McCarthy, of Albany, say they filed the complaint Oct. 11 after Liberty Ridge Farm told them they could not use the site for their wedding next summer.

“When we asked why [the owners told us], ‘That’s what my husband and I decided. We’ve been married a long time and it’s great you’re getting married and all, but you can’t do it here,’”McCarthy told WNYT-TV.

The farm has had a growing presence of weddings on its premises. This year, alone, 15 nuptials were booked. But with gay marriage being so new in New York State — and with this being one of the first cases of alleged discrimination – there’s no telling how the legalities will play out.

Despite critique, owner Robert Gifford is adamant about not hosting gay marriages at Liberty Ridge.

“I think it’s our right to choose who we market to, like any business,” he said in an interview with WNYT last week. ”We are a family business and we just feel we ought to stay down the family path.”

We often hear how those darned Christians are forcing their religion on others, yet, in these cases it seems it is Homosexual activists that are trying to use force of law. Again, this reminds me Atheists who want to join the Boy Scouts, but want the Scouts to completely change THEIR pledge, which mentions God, before they join. Talk about an entitled mentality! Again, pretty simple, if you REALLY want to join the Scouts, then YOU accept THEIR rules. If you really believe in freedom, then do not attempt to force a business into catering to you. Find somewhere else to get married, or buy a cake, or to get photographs made. 

Federal Court In Hawaii: No Constitutional Right To Redefine Marriage

Federal Court In Hawaii: No Constitutional Right To Redefine Marriage – National Review

There has been a well-publicized string of cases lately in which federal courts have struck down marriage laws like the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. It remains to be seen whether a decision issued yesterday by a federal District Court in Hawaii will be treated as newsworthy.

……..

In this case, the court comprehensively rejected the claim that the U.S. Constitution mandates same-sex marriage in the State of Hawaii. From the court’s synopsis (I’ve omitted the citations):

Carefully describing the right at issue, as required by both the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit, the right Plaintiffs seek to exercise is the right to marry someone of the same-sex. The right to marry someone of the same-sex, is not “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and thus it is not a fundamental right.

Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden [of showing that Hawaii had no rational basis for its marriage definition].

Specifically, the legislature could rationally conclude that defining marriage as a union between a man and woman provides an inducement for opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby decreasing the percentage of children accidently conceived outside of a stable, long-term relationship. The Supreme Court has stated that a classification subject to rational basis review will be upheld when “the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not.” It is undisputed opposite-sex couples can naturally procreate and same-sex couples cannot. Thus, allowing opposite-sex couples to marry furthers this interest and allowing same-sex couples to marry would not do so.

The legislature could also rationally conclude that other things being equal, it is best for children to be raised by a parent of each sex. Under rational basis review, as long as the rationale for a classification is at least debatable, the classification is constitutional. Both sides presented evidence on this issue and both sides pointed out flaws in their opponents’ evidence. Thus, the Court concludes this rationale is at least debatable and therefore sufficient.

Finally, the state could rationally conclude that it is addressing a divisive social issue with caution.

What explains the different outcome? As a legal matter, it was more careful attention to the actual Constitution and relevant precedent. This case may also be a better indicator of the validity of these claims. The other cases have been brought in carefully selected jurisdictions by national activist groups with any eye on strategy. The Hawaii case seems to have developed somewhat spontaneously and so may give us a better indication of what courts might do that are not predisposed to the same-sex marriage conclusion.

Dale Schowengerdt and the attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom are to be congratulated for stepping in to defend the case when the governor refused to do so.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day: Half A Million To Show Up At Restaurants

Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day: Half A Million To Show Up At Restaurants – Christian Post

Wednesday marks Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day and Christians across the country plan to express solidarity with the restaurant following the fallout over gay marriage.

According to the Support Chick-fil-A Facebook page, more than 550,000 people have committed to visit the fast-food restaurant.

……..

Led by former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day has gained the support of influential Christian leaders including evangelist Billy Graham.

The public event was created in response to the backlash the restaurant was facing after its president, Dan Cathy, affirmed his belief in traditional marriage, or the “biblical definition of the family unit.”

His comments were made to the Biblical Recorder, a Baptist publication, and they have been met by protests from the LGBT community, with some elected officials, including the mayor of Boston, threatening to block the company from opening a restaurant in their city.

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary President Daniel Akin has encouraged students to join the action and be a patron Wednesday and expressed gratitude to Cathy and his family for “taking a stand that reflects their biblical convictions” and doing so “with grace and kindness.”

“This entire situation is a sad commentary on the moral slide of our nation and the ‘bully politics’ that too often rears its ugly head,” he said in a blog post. “It is one thing to be a hatemonger and seek the hurt of another. It is something altogether different to take a gracious stand, rooted in biblical conviction, that only wants the best for another, and be labeled as intolerant and a bigot. The intolerance of those screaming for tolerance has become deafening. It is also, in many instances, dishonest.”

Chick-fil-A issued a statement earlier this month saying its “culture and service tradition” is “to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.”

It also stated, “[W]e plan to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the political arena.”

Dr. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, pointed out the irony in that people were calling for the exclusion of Chick-fil-A “in the name of inclusion.”

“The threats made against Chick-fil-A betray the principle of religious liberty that is enshrined within the U.S. Constitution,” Mohler said in a commentary on CNN. “Civic officials in some of the nation’s largest and most powerful cities have openly threatened to oppose Chick-fil-A for the singular reason that its president openly spoke of his Christian convictions concerning marriage.”

“When [Chicago Mayor Rahm] Emanuel and [Chicago Alderman Proco] Moreno tell Chick-fil-A to stay out of Chicago, are they audacious enough to deliver that same message to the churches, mosques and synagogues of their city that also oppose same-sex marriage?”

Huckabee has also criticized the “vitriolic assaults” on the restaurant, saying, “Only a puppet would have a problem with free speech.”

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day is not being launched by the Chick Fil-A company and no one from the company or family is involved in proposing or promoting it.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

66-Year-Old Gay Rights Icon Arrested Over Horrific Child Porn Allegations

66-Year-Old Gay Rights Icon Arrested Over Horrific Child Porn Allegations – The Blaze

66-year-old Larry Brinkin, the first man to use the phrase “domestic partner” in a lawsuit, was arrested in California Friday in connection with felony possession of child pornography, police said. The district attorney’s office will reportedly decide Tuesday whether to file charges.

………………

Media reports are offering more details on the horrific charges, and are also providing a picture of who Brinkin is and how he’s been viewed. The Huffington Post republished an SF Weekly post that concludes with Theresa Sparks, the executive director of the Human Rights Commission, saying:

“It’s almost incredulous, there’s no way I could believe such a thing… He’s always been one of my heroes, and he’s the epitome of human rights activist – this is man who coined phrases we use in our daily language. I support Larry 100 percent; hopefully it will all come out in the investigation.”

But while there is a certain degree of disbelief, other sources are pointing out that the evidence against Brinkin certainly warrants investigation.

Caution: what follows is extremely disturbing.

The San Francisco Chronicle describes the allegations:

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

Representatives of America Online contacted authorities after coming across e-mail attachments from one of its subscriber’s accounts containing what they believed to be child pornography.

The Los Angeles Police Department, which was assigned to the case, traced the IP address associated with the account, Zack3737@aol.com, to Brinkin, a San Francisco resident, according to court records. Los Angeles police forwarded the case to San Francisco police.

San Francisco investigators say the account was registered to Brinkin, and that he paid for the e-mail service with his credit card.

Police provided two examples of e-mail messages from last year in which Zack3737 provides disturbing descriptions of the exploitative sexual acts.

The e-mail account also is linked to Yahoo discussion groups on sexual exploitation of young boys and girls, according to the search warrant.

Though the Huffington Post links to part of an article from the SF Weekly, the updated article has far more graphic details:

Zack3737@aol.com – whom the police allege is Brinkin – provided graphic commentary on the photos of interracial adult-child sex. Comments included “I loved especially the ni**er 2 year old getting nailed. Hope you’ll continue so I can see what the little blond bi*ch is going to get. White Power! White Supremacy! White D*ck Rules!”

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

The news follows the conclusion of “Pride Week,” where Brinkin has been honored in the past. After he retired from his 22-year tenure at the Human Rights Commission, the Board of Supervisors even declared the week of February 1, 2o10 “Larry Brinkin Week” in San Francisco.

Brinkin, who reportedly has a longtime partner and teenage son, was not taking questions Monday, but several blogs have risen to his defense. According to PJ Media blogger Zombie, the “Lez Get Real” blog was the first to do so, writing:

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

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

Brinkin’s co-workers and supporters seem just as stunned as everyone else by the arrest. The vice president of the California Association of Human Relations Organizations said Brinkin was always a consummate professional, and Bevan Dufty, who authored the board resolution for “Larry Brinkin Week,” said: “I have admired and respected his work for the LGBT community… I respect and am confident that there will be due process.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

——————————————————————————————————-

Related video

.

.

Heartache! First Gay President not Gay enough for Barney Frank’s Big Gay wedding

Apparently, Barney has issues with protection?

Although Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) earlier this month said he is “pleased” with President Obama’s decision to publicly support same-sex marriage, in a new interview the congressman revealed the president will not be on the guest list when Frank marries his longtime partner this summer. 

Gay, but not Gay enough for Barney!

“If he and Michelle wanted to come, I would be delighted and honored to have him, but he will bring the Secret Service,” Frank said in an interview that will air Sunday as part of C-SPAN’s “Newsmaker” series. “I would be flattered to have the president do that, [but] it would ruin the party to have the Secret Service. I’m not critical of them, but they can go take their layered protection of the president somewhere else. Not to my party.”

*VIDEO* Barack Obama: America’s First Gay President

Your Daley Gator Anti-Leftist Picture O’ The Day

North Carolina Governor: I hate Mississippi, and I do not like my own state much either.

North Carolina Bev Perdue is not too pleased with the people of her state for voting, overwhelmingly, for an amendment to the state constitution, that defines marriage as one man and woman. Sister Toldjah has the ugly remarks of the governor

Eastern North Carolina news station WITN scored a major quote from outgoing NC Governor Bev Perdue on the overwhelming passage of Amendment One earlier this week:

Greenville, NC (WITN) — North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue says Tuesday’s passage of Amendment One makes the state look like Mississippi. Perdue made the remarks in response to a question from WITN’s Brittany Gunter while in Greenville Friday morning.

On Tuesday, 61% of the state’s voters approved the constitutional amendment which bans same sex marriages. State law already prohibits gay marriages.

The governor, a Democrat who said leading up to the vote that she was against the amendment, told WITN that the result is wrong for the state.

“People around the country are watching us, and they’re really confused to have been such a progressive forward thinking economically driven state that invested in education and that stood up for the civil rights people including the civil rights marches back in the 50s and 60s and 70s,” said Perdue. “People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi.”

Well Governor Perdue, I find it odd that you would describe people who have the audacity to think marriage might be best defined in the traditional manner in an unflattering way. Certainly, the voters of the Tar Heel State have a right to decide this issue, and they did. Frankly, I could not care less how the vote went. If it had gone the opposite way I would say the same thing. This issue is up to the individual states in my view. Personally, I think marriage would be best left alone. Nothing wrong with civil unions at all. Let people who are committed to each other regardless of gender alone. But there is something that bugs me Governor.

That something is your arrogant, snotty attitude. It is typical of most of the politicians in your party frankly. We heard similar declarations from many Democrats during the health care fight. It seems that, basically, Democrats do not want to hear from the people.  That is sad Governor. It is sad to hear the condescending tone that you and your fellow Democrats use towards the people when they dare disagree with your personal ideological views. Maybe your party is not familiar with the founding principles of this nation? Or perhaps you just think yourself smarter than the people? Either way, you have forgotten where the ultimate power lies Governor. It lies with the PEOPLE! Forgetting this basic American principle, you disparage the voters in your state, then you go after another common target for snotty Liberals like yourself, Mississippi! I am surprised you did not bash Alabama too, or the entire South.

We all are well aware of the disdain Liberals have for Dixie. And it is no wonder, the South is the, most Conservative portion of America, and that chaps an elitist Liberal like you doesn’t it Governor, or should I say soon to be former Governor Perdue?

Leftists Praised Former VP Cheney As Heroic Champion Of Gay Rights For Openly Supporting Same-Sex Marriage (Videos)

Oh wait… no they didn’t. In fact, they virtually ignored his statements on the topic, and to this day they still speak about Dick Cheney as if he were the quintessential evil Republican hate-monger.

Cheney in 2009:

.
Of course, now that President Obama has officially endorsed marriages between homosexuals, this position is being hailed as “historic” by leftists evrywhere, even though Barack has always held the opposite opinion, and only changed his mind a couple of days after gay rights groups threatened to withhold campaign contributions from him unless he flipped on the issue.

——————————————————————————————————-

Obama Reversal On Same Sex Marriage Comes Just Days After Donors Threatened To Withhold Funds – Washington Free Beacon

Left-wing blogger Greg Sargent reported on Monday that “leading gay and progressive donors” were angry with Obama over his increasingly convoluted position on gay rights and same-sex marriage, and were refusing to donate any more money to Priorities USA, the pro-Obama Super PAC. Sargent cited Paul Yandura, a political adviser to prominent Democratic donor Jonathan Lewis, who emailed that:

A number of gay and progressive donors, unsolicited, have indicated to us that they aren’t considering requests to donate to the Obama SuperPac because of the president’s refusal to the sign the order. And those are high-dollar asks, some in the seven digits. We have heard from at least half a dozen major gay and progressive donors that they stand united with us.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

——————————————————————————————————-

Obama in 2008:

Obama now:

.
Ya gotta love modern American leftists, especially those “principled” ones like President Barry… no?
.

Most Overturned Leftist Court Predictably Ignores The Will Of The People, Declares CA Anti-Gay Marriage Law Unconstitutional

Federal Appeals Court Deems Prop 8 Unconstitutional – Slate

A federal appeals court in San Francisco on Tuesday deemed California’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, ruling that the state can’t revoke gays and lesbians’ imagined “right” to wed simply because a majority of voters disapprove.

…………..

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.

The 2-1 decision from a three-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals does not end the legal fight over gay marriage in California once and for all. While the ruling upholds a previous decision from a homoisexual U.S. district judge, the ban’s backers will still have the opportunity to appeal Tuesday’s decision to the full 9th Circuit or possibly take it directly to the Supreme Court.

While the ruling technically makes same-sex marriage in California legal again, gays and lesbians will not be allowed to wed while the appeals process continues, something that will likely last for at least the next several months. Prop 8 supporters have indicated that they are likely to continue their legal defense of the voter-approved initiative, and many observers have predicted it will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

The 2008 initiative that banned gay marriage passed with 52.5% of the vote, but in an August 2010 decision, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled the ballot measure was a violation of the Constitution’s equality guarantee. That decision however was put on hold while the 9th Circuit considered the case.

Conservatives had argued that Walker’s decision should have been overturned because the now-retired judge was found to be in a long-term same-sex relationship. Tuesday’s ruling found that Walker’s sexual orientation should not be considered a conflict of interest in the case.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Well, now that you put it that way

Rick Santorum, debating some snot-nosed college brats on Gay marriage had this line

“if that’s the case, then everyone can marry several people”

OK, in that case, I will marry Salma Hayek, KateBeckinsale, and Halle Berry. I am kidding of course, but seriously Santorum is right, marriage, once re-defined is bound to be re-defined over and over and, well you get the point. Personally, I doubt there will ever be a constitutional amendment defining marriage. I think too many of us just do not care if Gay people get married. If it were up to me it would be a state by state call. Of course, we all can see the problems with that can’t we? The lawsuits against those states NOT defining marriage the politically correct way would be filed by the ACLU, Gay rights activists, and others who want to force their ways upon the states.

We could go the route of allowing civil unions, but again, the activists would not be sated by that. Like most activists, they are control freaks who are really about forcing their will upon everyone else. So, what is the answer? Hell if I know folks, Hell if I know.

*LIVE STREAMING* Mike Huckabee / Fox News Republican Primary Forum – December 3, 2011 – 8pm EST

LIVE STREAMING FOR THIS EVENT HAS ENDED.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE ENTIRE EVENT ON VIDEO.

.

.
Fox News Live Stream – Link 1

Fox News Live Stream – Link 2

Fox News Live Stream – Link 3

Fox News Live Stream – Link 4

Fox News Live Stream – Link 5

.

Census Overestimated ‘Same-Sex’ Households

Census Overestimated ‘Same-Sex’ Households – Sweetness & Light

From some pickers of nits at the Chicago Tribune:

Census Bureau backtracks on number of same-sex households

By William Mullen
September 27, 2011

Mistakes made on some 2010 census forms led the U.S. Census Bureau to report an “artificially inflated” number of same-sex households in August, census officials said Tuesday.

While the Census Bureau reported 901,997 same-sex households nationally in August, new calculations of the 2010 census indicate there are 648,464 such households.

They were only off by 39%. But who’s counting? It’s not like it’s a census or anything.

Besides, if you don’t jack up the numbers your special interest group might not get all the federal benefits it’s due.

In Illinois, the same-sex household total was revised downward from 32,469 to 23,049. The revised state number is less than 1 percent more than the 22,887 figure reported in the 2000 census. Using the original census figures, the Tribune in August reported the statewide increase was 40 percent.

“What went wrong is something that we have known about for some time,” said UCLA School of Law demographer Gary Gates, whom the census called in to review the revised figures for accuracy.

Unclear census forms led heterosexual couples in some cases to check boxes identifying themselves as same-sex couples, Gates said…

Couples probably check the box thinking it is is asking if they have ‘some sex.’ (Newlyweds, anyway.)

“As scientists, we noticed the inconsistency and developed the revised estimates to provide a more accurate portrait of the number of same-sex couples,” Robert Graves, director of the Census Bureau, said in a statement.

‘Census scientists’ sound a lot like ‘global warming scientists.’

Which raises the question, why are the Census Bureau even ‘estimating’ in the first place? We thought the idea of a census was to actually count heads. (Or whatever.)

Gates said similar mistakes may have been made in 2000.

“In August, the figures showed the increase nationally in same-sex households to be in the neighborhood of 50 percent, and I really think that increase is probably about right if we had corrected figures for the 2000 census too,” he said…

Too late. They’ve already got their federal grants.

By the way, if two maiden aunts live together, does the government count them as a same sex household?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story