Oh drat! The Rainbow Shirts have their panties in a bunch, AGAIN!!

The Left likes to claim free speech as their issue, until someone dares disagree with them, or dares say something they disapprove of. Matt at Conservative Hideout has the latest outrageous outrage the Rainbow Shirts AKA Gay Mafia is flipping their lids over

The forces of tolerance are once again on the offensive.  Focus on the family has a movie coming out with the topic of traditional marriage.  The gay mafia doesn’t like it, so they have decided that no one is allowed to see it.  You know, tolerance!

The Christian organization Focus on the Family is releasing a movie in theaters May 6 called “Irreplaceable” about the value of traditional families, the importance of fathers being engaged in their children’s lives and the healing power of forgiveness.

But apparently to some advocates for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, community, that’s a cardinal sin.

LGBT advocates have launched an effort to disparage themovie onlinepetition against it and work to make sure“Irreplaceable” isn’t seen in your local theater.

Focus President Jim Daly reports in a blog post that some of the more than 700 theaters nationwide scheduled to showthe film in a one-night-only event are starting to back out, intimidated by homosexual activists.

“Some of those who disagree with us are calling ‘Irreplaceable’ ‘anti-gay propaganda,’” Daly writes, “and demanding that theaters refuse to show the film.”

Efforts to shut down the movie are being coordinated through Facebook, Twitter and a Change.org petition begun by Shalom Rosenberg, a homosexual middle school teacher from Belmont, Calif.

The rise of the Rainbow Shirts?

Rainbow Shirts? Hmmm, I guess someone has to coin a name for the Gay Gestapo

According to Oregon Live, a farmer who is opening a store in Sellwood, had the unmitigated gall to twice post her personal opposition to gay marriage on her private, personal FaceBook page.  That means the Gay and Tolerance Gestapo have to spring into action to make sure the store owner knows she is being watched, and she might not find this tolerant community so welcoming. No kidding. Here’s a quote from the story from a Disingenuous White Progressive:

“They’re choosing to open a business in a very open-minded neighborhood,” said Tom Brown, owner of Brown Properties and president of the Sellwood Moreland Business Alliance. “I think their personal views are going to hurt.”

Open-minded? Sure, and tolerant too. Well, as long as you toe the line and express only thoughts that are pre-approved by the “open-minded”. Donald Douglas has more

Now get this, the neighborhood homosexual Torquemada Sean O’Riordan made a seven-minute YouTube clip attacking Ms. Childs for her opinions, in what essentially worked as a shakedown racket. He removed the video once Ms. Chauncy made her contribution to the homosexual foundation. At KGW Portland, “Man takes down video that sparked gay rights controversy.”

O’Riordan’s statement is here.

And here’s Ms. Childs’ confession and apology for her thought crimes, “A MESSAGE FROM THE OWNERS OF THE MORELAND FARMERS PANTRY“:

You may be aware that the media has been asking questions about the personal opinions of the owners regarding gay marriage and freedom of expression. We understand that this is a sensitive topic for many. We would like to reiterate our position that we will not discriminate against anyone in any form. We support diversity and anti-discrimination in all business practices. As a gesture of goodwill we donated $1,000 to the LGBTQ Youth program of the Equity Foundation in Portland. This program supports safe communities for LGBTQ individuals where sexual orientation and gender identity should not be the basis for social alienation or legal discrimination. We encourage others to make additional donations to this worthy cause at: Equity Foundation…

I hope this lady is smart enough to realize she can not buy respect for her right to have a view different from the Rainbow Shirts. So, what exactly did this lady say on Facebook? Here you go

From the Oregonian‘s story yesterday:

Childs said she is religious and has a libertarian view that government should not be allowed to dictate whom a business does or doesn’t serve.

“We’re not going to refuse to serve anybody,” she said. “But we believe a private business should have the right to live their conscience.”

Predictably, this set off calls to boycott the soon-to-be-opened market. It’s also inspired an interesting discussion about how much a business owner’s personal beliefs should affect how we patronize them.

Perhaps the most-vociferous voice in the “business owners are allowed to think how they want” camp: Local restaurateur Nick Zukin, owner of Mi Mero Mole and co-owner co-founder of Kenny and Zuke’s.

 

And now: Maybe the ol’ Portland Boycott Train is swinging in Zukin’s direction? Conversation has been lively on Facebook today, after local culture maven Byron Beck took issue with the restaurateur’s response. That led to Zukin defending himself in a still-going comment thread, asking individual people why they’ll now be boycotting his eateries, and accusing the lot of Portlanders of being no better than Childs if we’d seek to ruin her for not having the same views.

Yep, it is all about enforcing conformity now isn’t it?. The Rainbow Shirts are proving that with the Left, all “rights” are totally self-centered. Again, conform or be targeted by the Rainbow Shirts. But, in the end, the “Gay Rights” folks are dooming their own cause. People who might support Gay marriage are seeing exactly how militant these self-proclaimed champions of equality are. Matt Walsh predicts a big fat L for these miscreants

Dear gay rights militants, dear progressive tyrants, dear liberal fascists, dear haters of free speech, dear crusaders for ideological conformity, dear left wing bullies:

You will lose.

I know you’ve got legions of sycophants kowtowing to you these days, and the rest you’ve set out to destroy — but you will lose.

So, you’ve tracked another dissident and skinned him alive. You’ve made an example ofBrendan Eich, and now you dance joyously around his disemboweled carcass. You have his head on a spike, and you consider this a conquest in your eternal crusade to eradicate diversity and punish differing opinions. You launched your millionth campaign of intimidation, and now another good man has been dragged through the mud, to the sounds of taunting and jeering and death threats.

You found out that the CEO of Mozilla gave a few dollars to support a pro-traditional marriage ballot measure several years ago, and you proceeded to publicly tar and feather him until he was forced to ‘resign’ in disgrace.

You again chose to forgo debate, in favor of coercion and bullying.

You again attempted to end the ‘gay rights’ argument by defrocking your opponent.

Hey, good for you.

Enjoy the spoils of your cowardice.

It won’t last.

Go read it all

I do not often agree with Andrew Sullivan, but…………

….he is right in what he says about the Mozilla CEO dust up

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

Sullivan is correct here. Persecuting people for speaking their minds, or for supporting a ballot measure is despicable. If Gay activists demand tolerance, let them practice some tolerance of their own.

You might also read some of the comments Sullivan has received on this, and read his retorts, including this gem

When people’s lives and careers are subject to litmus tests, and fired if they do not publicly renounce what may well be their sincere conviction, we have crossed a line. This is McCarthyism applied by civil actors. This is the definition of intolerance. If a socially conservative private entity fired someone because they discovered he had donated against Prop 8, how would you feel? It’s staggering to me that a minority long persecuted for holding unpopular views can now turn around and persecute others for the exact same reason. If we cannot live and work alongside people with whom we deeply disagree, we are finished as a liberal society.

Bravo!

The cold hard truth about the hijacking of the St. Patricks Day Parade

First some background from Donald Douglas

And at the New York Times, “Guinness Withdraws Sponsorship of St. Patrick’s Day Parade“: 

Guinness USA has dropped its sponsorship of the St. Patrick’s Day parade in New York, joining protests of a ban on public expression of gay pride.

“Guinness has a strong history of supporting diversity and being an advocate for equality for all,” the brewer, based in Norwalk, Conn., said on Sunday in a statement.

“We were hopeful that the policy of exclusion would be reversed for this year’s parade. As this has not come to pass, Guinness has withdrawn its participation. We will continue to work with community leaders to ensure that future parades have an inclusionary policy.”

The parade is expected to proceed as planned along Fifth Avenue in Manhattan on Monday despite the withdrawals of major sponsors like Guinness, the Dublin brewer known for its stout, and of city leaders, including Mayor Bill de Blasio, over the issue of inclusiveness.

Organizers of the annual parade have said gay groups could march in the procession but could not carry signs or identify their sexuality. Organizers could not be immediately reached by telephone Sunday night.

Guinness’s decision was applauded by gay rights groups that had threatened to boycott its products. The Stonewall Inn, widely regarded as the birthplace of the gay rights movement, canceled plans to cease selling Guinness starting on Monday.

More at Memeorandum.

Basically, you’re going to support LGBT “equality,” and you’re going to like it — or else.

Douglas nails it. It is not about tolerance. It is, rather about forced acceptance. The fact is any Homosexual can march in that parade, the organizers likely care little. BUT, it is a St. Patrick’s Day parade, not a Gay parade, or anything else. The problem is not that Homosexuals are not welcome, it is the way those that are trying to force their way into the parade act. And the Irish, like me, would have the very SAME issue with any group, or any person that dressed, or acted in some explicit fashion. In short, if you wish to take part in some one ELSE’s parade, then you need to RESPECT their rules of conduct! If you cannot, then YOU are the problem!

Why does Gay marriage mean I have to celebrate a Gay wedding?

The debate over Gay marriage is fairly simple, or should be fairly simple. But, the activists, no matter what issue, tend to screw up any chance at compromise, and in this case the Gay activists are using Gay marriage, and “equality” as tools not to achieve a better society, or to bring more understanding. Instead, they are using the issue to push THEIR agenda, which serves THEIR purpose. And what is that purpose you might ask. Well, to put it bluntly, I believe that the ultimate goal is much like the goal of any Leftist activist. To hijack the “equality for Homosexuals” cause, and use that issue to push the country farther Left.

Think of it like this, the Left has a history of hijacking causes and then twisting them into attacks on Capitalism, individual liberty, the Constitutional principles that made America great. The Left has hijacked the civil rights movement. They hijacked the women’s suffrage movement. They hijacked the anti-slavery movement to destroy State sovereignty. The labor movement? Yep, they hijacked that too to form powerful unions that are nothing more than Communist cells. Name an issue the Left has embraced and championed and observe how they use that issue to further their Marxist agenda. Ans so it is with Gay marriage. Stacy McCain, has it right

Betsy Childs at First Things:

In a column called “Conservative Christians Selectively Apply Biblical Teachings in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate,” Kirsten Powers and Jonathan Merritt accuse Christians who refuse to provide goods and services for gay weddings of being hypocritical cherry pickers. According to their argument, consistency dictates that vendors who refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings should also boycott “unbiblical” heterosexual weddings. . . .

The fact is this, every business owner should have the right to NOT do business with anyone. You or I may disagree with the reasons a business gives for refusing service. We might even ourselves choose not to shop at that business any more. Freedom of association does cut both ways after all. But, something is very wrong with the idea of a government, be it local, state or federal forcing businesses to buy from, or sell to anyone, or any other company they would rather not be involved with. To be very specific, if a Gay couple owns a bakery and chooses to ONLY cater to Gay couples, that is their perfect right.

A same-sex wedding is the ceremonial blessing of behavior the Bible condemns. Affirmation of homosexual practice is intrinsic to gay nuptials. There is no need to ask the history of the couple or their reasons for marrying in order to figure out whether or not the marriage is one that God would approve. In contrast, while two heterosexuals wishing to marry may or may not be obeying God’s commands, the institution itself is one that God has affirmed.

Let me add here that if said bakery chose not to bake a cake for a couple whose behavior and morals offended them, that ought to be their right. Believe it or not, in a free country, there is freedom of association, and ought to be a right for a business to refuse service based on whatever they choose.

Of course, I can hear the Liberals, and some Conservatives now. What if a business refuses to serve people based on race, or religion, or gender? What then? Well, in those cases I would say that  if you run a business that ought to be your choice. Of course it would be terrible business management, and most people would avoid your store after word got out that you were such a bigot. And, frankly, I would never darken the door to your business if you had such policies. In short the marketplace would decide your fate, and I doubt you would be in business very long. Now back to the piece

Things that are obvious from a common-sense perspective — if somebody’s asking for two grooms on a wedding cake, this is not a “marriage” that any Bible-believer could be expected to endorse — are obscure to those blinded by ideological abstractions. Chief among these is the Left’s idolatrous devotion to Equality:

Gay activists do not construe their “rights” in terms of liberty, but in terms of radical and absolute equality. They insist that same-sex relationships are identical to — entirely analogous to and fungible with — traditional marriage.
Common sense resists this assertion, perceiving something fundamentally false in the gay marriage argument. Yet it seems common-sense resistance can only be justified by resort to religious faith, through the understanding that men are “endowed by their Creator” with rights. Eliminate the Creator from discussion, and it becomes impossible to refute the activists’ indignant demand for equality.

In closing, I must say the religious nature of the opposition to Gay marriage is not one I tend to get into. I am more concerned with the Homosexual activists that are pushing to take choice AWAY from individuals and business owners. The writing on that wall is very clear. If left unchecked this activism will result in churches being forced to host Gay weddings. Again, if a church wants to, fine with me, it is about liberty and free choice to me. But, I can scarcely think of a more egregious violation of liberty than to force one person, or business, or church, to associate with, or do business with someone they do not wish to. Yes, such exclusions might result in hurt feelings, and bruised egos. And it might not fit the Left’s perverse definition of equality. But that happens sometimes when we have liberty. And let me say, I will take liberty over some government forced “equality” any day!

 

 

Why I struggle with the issue of Gay marriage

To start let me be very clear, I do not give a flip about anyone’s sex life, that is their own business I have always defined marriage as one man and one woman, to me that is what marriage is. But, I have always thought that states should decide that definition for themselves, and I still do, it is Federalism at its best. But, I also recognize that allowing state legislatures to decide will never be enough for the activists on the Left. Neither will allowing the voters of a state to decide for themselves. Neither would a federal law enshrining civil unions. As always with the Left nothing is enough.

So, I find myself in a strange place here. Thinking on one hand that allowing States to decide this issue is right. And, knowing on the other hand that the Left will only use that to push their agenda even harder. Knowing that leaving it to the States will only lead to lawsuit after lawsuit, eventually forcing upon those states the definition of marriage they rejected. Knowing that eventually no business will be allowed to refuse service to a Gay wedding lest they be sued into oblivion, or charged under some inane “human rights” law. Knowing the one day even churches would be forced to perform Gay weddings against their wishes.

I hate this feeling, having to weigh principles against practicality. But, I understand the nature of the Left. So, will I let go of a long-held principle? Or embrace that principle knowing the eventual cost will be very high? 

Stacy McCain has his thoughts on the Left’s constant push towards Totalitarianism, it is worth the read

One of the things we must understand about the Left is the essentially totalitarian nature of their ambitions. There is no logical stopping point on the progressive road to the Utopia of Equality that they insist is always ahead of us, a destination never reached.

Grant all their demands today, and they will return tomorrow with a new list of demands. What do they want? More, always more.

Yesterday, a federal judge struck down Virginia’s state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, because obviously (a) the Fourteenth Amendment was intended for such a purpose, and (b) never mind the will of voters expressed in a referendum

That, in the end is my problem. I know how evil, yes, I said evil, the Left is. I know their end game, and I have resolved to fighting that as well as I can. I know they latch onto even just causes, eventually hijacking and perverting those causes to push for more Statism. I know there is no compromise with them. There are only two options, fight or be crushed. To me, the issue of Gay marriage is simple, but to the Left it is merely a tool, another step towards their “Utopia”. Well, no Utopia for me, and no surrendering my principles either. I understand many things about the Left, and chief amongst those things is this. Surrendering your principles is a recipe for disaster. That is what the Left wants, and I will never give that to them!

Cracker Barrel carefully chooses who to offend

Cracker Barrel chose to stop selling some Duck Dynasty merchandise, that is fine, their business, their call, but their statement bothers my common sense.

The statement reads:

Cracker Barrel’s mission is Pleasing People. We operate within the ideals of fairness, mutual respect and equal treatment of all people. These ideals are the core of our corporate culture.

We continue to offer Duck Commander products in our stores.

We removed selected products which we were concerned might offend some of our guests while we evaluate the situation.

Mutual respect? What a silly thing to say. They made a decision that will please some folks and offend others. Had they chosen differently, they would have gotten similar results, just in reverse. I am really tired of this fake sensitivity. Cracker Barrel knew they would offend fans of Duck Dynasty by pulling merchandise, but, to Cracker Barrel, offending Christians, and those of us sick of bullies like GLAAD, is obviously preferable to offending publicity whores. In an effort not to offend, Cracker Barrel ends up offending many more people. I really wish these corporations would start realizing that appeasing emotional terrorists, yes, GLAAD, that would be you, is not a worthwhile aim.

And no, I man not going to boycott Cracker Barrel over this. First I have a strong distaste for boycotts no matter who does them. Secondly, I have been boycotting Cracker Barrel for years over their horrible food.

 

Wow, MSNBS is like so deep man

As intellectually deep as your nearest dried up mud puddle

I am confused here, I thought the Left desired tolerance? Is Mr. Robertson not able to ask a question? I mean considering that about 98 or 99% of people prefer heterosexual intercourse to, well, what Chris Hayes’ guest obviously prefers, is it that odd that Robertson might pose such a question? As for me, I have often said I do not give a rip about who you sleep with, but I do not understand Homosexuality. I mean how would a man watch Salma Hayek dance in From Dusk Till Dawn and NOT have dirty thoughts? Does asking such a question make me Homophobic? Of course not. But, of course, the aim here is not really inclusion or tolerance, it is rather to destroy freedom of speech. Not by legislation,  but by intimidation. If we are afraid to speak, the Left will have won, so, therefore I stand with Robertson, and I stand against the bullies on the Left.

What? Oh, OK, I will offer, strictly for context, the Salma Hayek scene I referenced.

 

The Left uses issues to push their twisted agendas

The Left has a long history of latching on to worthy issues, ending slavery, ending segregation, raising awareness to stop sexual harassment, unfair labor practices, etc. to push for radical changes in our nation.The issues I listed above are a few examples. The Left used those issues to destroy state sovereignty, create a perpetual racial divide in America, which the Left exploits for electoral victories. they used them to create unions that have morphed into Left wing anti-Capitalist thugs. And they have created work environments where so many rules exist employees walk on virtual minefields of political correctness where any joke that offends, no matter how innocent could cost you your job.

I could also talk about how the Left has bastardized “zero-tolerance” policies in schools to create the insanity of kids being punished for have aspirin, or drawing a picture of a soldier. The Left has done similar damage to freedom of speech and worship. Where their unquenchable thirst for “tolerance” and “inclusion” have created things like a war on Christmas, and all public displays of religion, and speech codes on college campuses.

The Left cried for an income tax, that was, initially one percent. Yes, one percent! Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are also great examples of how the Left uses issues to instill more Socialism into our nation. No matter how noble, or worthwhile an issue is, once the Left latches onto it, it begins to, as Dennis Prager says, to  metastasize, and the results can be seen in every issue the Left has championed.

Why is this? Many reasons could be listed. The inherent greed and thirst for power that afflicts the Left are two reasons. The Left’s disregard for Individualism, and natural rights is another reason. I bring these up because there is another issue now, the issue of Gay marriage. Whether or not you agree with allowing Gay’s to marry, you must admit that the Gay activists, who are Leftists. are using this issue to further change our country.

Allowing Gay’s to marry bothers me not. But, this issue will be used, and in fact IS being used to both radically change how we define marriage. It is being used to force not just tolerance for Homosexuals, but to force businesses like wedding photographers, and bakeries to do their business with Gay couples wanting to marry. That is not about liberty, that is about the Left forcing their will onto everyone. Again, the Left’s appetite for power knows no bounds. Evidence of this can be found at American Power, where Donald Douglas links to a piece at Front Page magazine by Daniel Greenfield

From Daniel Greenfield, at FrontPage Magazine:

And yes. Turning gay marriage into a thing paves the way for legalizing polygamy. As everyone with a brain predicted. Polygamy, unlike gay marriage, was actually a thing. It has thousands of years of history behind it. So this was bound to happen.

If we’re not going to have any standards for marriage except “People in a relationship of some kind” then there’s no reason not to recognize polygamy. Or any of the crazier stuff coming down the pike. And that was why the left pushed the gay marriage scam to begin with.

Can’t say we didn’t warn you.

Continue reading

This is the problem with the Left, they can never be trusted to not use every issue to “reform” America “reeducate” our children, or to “redefine” American traditions and culture

Shep Smith is Gay? Yeah, we knew that

RS McCain has the news, which is shocking, but not because Smith is Gay

So, no, it’s not “news” that Shep Smith is gay.

What is news is that a reasonably attractive 26-year-old guy named Giovanni “Gio” Graziano was willing to have intimate contact with that scrawny orange-skinned 49-year-old anchor-thing.

All together now: Eee-eww, gross!

It’s not necessarily homophobia to feel an overpowering sense of nausea at the mental image of Shep’s squealing paroxysms of erotic ecstasy while getting sodomized by his studly boy toy.

Our deepest sympathy to the Graziano family.

Frankly, I never thought, or cared about Shep’s proclivities. That is his business, and believe me I do NOT want to know, but it is funny to listen to Liberals rant as if a Gay Fox anchor somehow defeats Conservatism. Of course now that we “know” how far away is a Shep Smith sex tape?

There is a damned good reason we have age of consent laws

That reason? To protect kids, yes kids, from sexual predators. Also to give parents  a tool to protect their kids. And yes, if you must ask, I agree that not all kids of 14 or 15 are necessarily innocent or not culpable, but the people have a right to draw a line, a line that says HANDS OFF at a certain age, I think most states draw that line at age 16, and that seems about right to me. And yes, yes, if Lesbians wish to be “equal” then they should get to follow the same laws as Heterosexuals. Stacy McCain has much more

 

Anyone who has followed the arguments surrounding the case of Florida sex offender Kaitlyn Hunt knows how her supporters in the so-called “Free Kate” movement have justified Hunt’s crimes against a 14-year-old girl. You are a bigoted hater, say the Free Kate crowd, if you think the parents of a 14-year-old have a right to prevent their daughter’s corruption by a tattoo-covered dildo-wielding she-hooligan.

“But it was consensual! They were in love!
It’s normal! It’s harmless! Everybody does it!”

Every parent — no, every decent human being — who heard those rationalizations must have strained to resist the urge to grab a shotgun and hunt down the twisted freaks who make such excuses.

Why do you think they call it “jailbait”?

It’s very simple: Age-of-consent laws empower parents to protect their own children, and the fact that some parents don’t give a damn whether their kids are screwing around (hello, Kelley Hunt Smith) cannot be used to argue for a “right” to have sex with minors.

Must the citizens of Indian River County  let a pack of wretched white trash like the Hunt family set the moral standards of their community? Is Florida soon to be infamous as the Teen Sex State, where every child becomes “fair game” as soon as they start high school?

Happy 14th Birthday! (Batteries not included.)

Disagree with these sex-crazed perverts and you will be accused of “vengeance, spite, fear, denial, sadness, insanity, whatever.”

These bizarre accusations should not only offend us because they are false, but intelligent citizens should be alarmed at the cultural shift that makes these creeps unashamed to defend perversion by such twisted logic, presuming to lecture decent law-abiding people this way.

However, nothing should outrage and offend you more than the knowledge that there has been (and still is) a relentless political movement to normalize sex with minors, a fact that left-wing activists in Germany are just now being forced to admit:

[I]n the 1970s and 80s, numerous gay-oriented magazines brazenly promoted sex with children, even running pictures of naked boys. The magazine “Don” presented five sympathetic reports on the experiences of pedophilic men. The headline read, “We’re not child rapists!”
In recent months, many in Germany have been discussing the extent to which the Green Party in the 1980s allowed itself to be manipulated by pedophiles. The party came under such intense pressure that it hired political scientist Franz Walter to look into its own history relating to the issue.
Yet it’s now clear that the gay movement in Germany must also come to terms with this chapter of its history. Anyone who searches through archives can find ample evidence of the alliance between gay rights organizations and pedophile activists. If pedophiles got into trouble with the law, they could rely on legal advice from a group called “Gay Lawyers.” Many politicians in the Green Party also made sure that calls for legalizing sex with children had an audience. . . .
[M]any gays didn’t want to be the ones to judge others for their deviant sexual inclinations. In a climate of general tolerance, the movement lost its moral compass. The gay movement did not distance itself from men who acted on their desire for children; rather, it took them under its wing.
Then there was the remarkable idea that underage boys should not be denied the chance to have sexual experiences with grown men. Even today, the Association of Lesbians and Gays in Germany (LSVD) claims on its website that in the 1980s, the only men who spoke up were those who had enjoyed sex with adults in their youth.
For the pedophiles, the alliance with the gay movement was nothing but beneficial. They had a platform from which they could formulate objectives.
The gay movement helped pedophiles in entirely practical ways. In the pamphlet “Justly gay. Legal advice for gays,” there is a one-and-a-half page “argumentation aid.” It’s an instruction on how men who are charged with child sexual abuse can best escape punishment.

To emphasize, in case you missed the key passages:

“The gay movement did not distance itself
from men who acted on their desire for children;
rather, it took them under its wing. . . . The gay movement
helped pedophiles in entirely practical ways.”

You can read the whole thing, which reveals a sordid history that the gay rights movement — and the Left, in general, both in Europe and America — have attempted to suppress by angrily denouncing as “bigots” and “witch hunters” anyone who dares to mention it.

The left is great or should I say successful at two things. Demonizing their ideological opponents, and hijacking legitimate causes to further their own Marxist agendas. In this case, we have a very legitimate ideal of allowing gay people to live their lives, as everyone else does. I have no issue with gay people, what they do with other consenting adults is up to them, But, the Gay movement has not always guarded against allowing itself to be hijacked. For instance, arguing for allowing Gay marriage is one matter, one I really do not care about. But, that issue has been hijacked by those who wish to use the Gay marriage issue to force churches to host Gay weddings, and to force private bakeries, florists, photographers, etc. into doing Gay weddings even if that violates their faith.

Likewise, Stacy McCain lays out the case that pedophiles would try, and in some cases succeed, in hijacking cases like the Kaitlyn Hunt to further THEIR agenda. And that agenda is to normalize sex with underage kids. And part of their strategy to reach that goal is to demonize anyone who opposes them. McCain lays out more examples, so go read the rest of his piece, especially if you are a parent of a teenager.

Rights? You want rights? Only if the Left approves you Homophobic Homphobes!

At times it seems that America has lost its mind, or at least that the concept of “rights” as our Founders understood and defined them is slipping away. RS McCain reports that the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that everyone in New Mexico must do anything that Gay couples looking to get married say because human rights you Homphobe!

Gosh, it seems like just a few years ago that allegedly serious people were warning about how the “christofascist godbags” of the Religious Right were an existential threat to freedom in America, and if you disagreed with these allegedly serious people, you were just a hateful bigot.

Now? Well, you’re still a hateful bigot, but freedom’s just another word for “nothing left to lose”:

New Mexico’s Supreme Court rules that people must set aside their religion in order to avoid creating the slightest inconvenience for gay people. . . .
No, by all means, let’s use the power of the state to reach as deeply as possible into people’s lives instead of just telling the gay couple to “Look online for ten minutes and find someone else.”

Just how they reached such a fundamentally flawed decision is frankly, inexplicable. Can the government now FORCE a business to provides goods or services against their will? Apparently the Leftists on that court think so. It is the price of citizenship apparently!

On Thursday, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that religious wedding photographers could be forced to photograph same-sex weddings. “When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the [New Mexico Human Rights Act, or NMHRA] in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races,” the court ruled unanimously.

The court said that Elaine Huguenin, the photographer, had discriminated against gay customers for not photographing their weddings, even though she had said she would be happy to take their pictures in different contexts. The court also refused any differentiation whatsoever between homosexual and heterosexual conduct under the law, despite the fact that same-sex marriage is not licensed in the state of New Mexico. Justice Edward Chavez wrote, “The difficulty in distinguishing between status and conduct in the context of sexual orientation discrimination is that people may base their judgment about an individual’s sexual orientation on the individual’s conduct. To allow discrimination based on conduct so closely correlated with sexual orientation would severely undermine the purpose of the NMHRA.” In other words, orientation and conduct are so intertwined that to discriminate against activity would be to discriminate against the person — an odd line of logic, given that it would then follow that discriminating against religious activity would constitute discrimination on the basis of religion, making the court’s logic self-defeating.

Justice Richard Bosson wrote, in concurrence, that the Huguenins are “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.” He concluded, “The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.” That “compromise,” he wrote, “is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.”

Talk about making it up as you go along! And note the word “tolerance”. How odd that the Gay couples must have, as in must have or else, “tolerance” but what of the “tolerance” for the wedding photographer? I guess some tolerance is more equal than others? Since when the Leftist definition of tolerance become part of our Constitution? I suppose, as McCain puts it, our moral superiors are to decide our every action now

Do you see what this is really about? If not, let me tell you that this is really about, “We, who are Your Moral Superiors, have authority to dictate your behavior, your words and, indeed, your thoughts.”

The language of “rights” is not about freedom, but rather power.

As I have said before, Gay marriage is a legitimate issue to debate, and, I think for states to decide. But the Gay activists and other Leftists will not let that happen. They are using this issue, as they have used many others, not to liberate, or to achieve equality of opportunity, but to create their version of what America ought to be. And understand me when I tell you that in their version of America, there will be no rights, only Leftist Totalitarianism! the Left’s thirst for power, TOTAL power, can never be slaked.

 

Gay couple seeks to force churches into hosting gay weddings

So sad, another quest for “tolerance” “acceptance” “equality” is hijacked by the Left and used as a tool to force their views onto others. Protein Wisdom has the story

Wealthy gay dad, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, says he and his civil partner Tony will go to court to force churches to host gay weddings. He told the Essex Chronicle that he will take legal action because “I am still not getting what I want”. A Government Bill legalising gay marriage passed Parliament recently but it included measures to protect churches from being forced to perform same-sex weddings. Mr Drewitt-Barlow said: “The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the church. “It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognise us.” He added: “It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away. “As much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want. 

That last line says it all. He is not getting his way, so he will throw a tantrum. Where in the world does this whiner think he gets a right to be “recognized”? This is the reservation I have with Gay marriage. I do not give a flip about who someone sleeps with, or wants to be with, that is their choice. But, it is not about that for the activists is it? Instead it is about forcing everyone to do what they want them to, or else. This guy is a bully, as are most activists. A bully obsessed with his personal crusade against some imagined oppression. And he will end that oppression no matter who he has to oppress. Get the irony? 

By the way, if you think this cannot happen in America, think again. Ask the bakeries who refused to make cakes for Gay weddings. Ask this florist in Washington.  How about wedding photographers who will not do Gay weddings?That is the Left though isn’t it? Rights, are secondary to feelings. Hurt someone’s feelings, lose your rights to do business with whom you choose. That is what this is all about. Liberal activism is about one thing, using the shield of mantle of “equality” to destroy anyone who dares disagrees with them. It is not equality these activists seek, it is dominance.

Allow me to give these activists an example of how freedom works. A church in North Carolina is refusing to do heterosexual weddings.

The Green Street United Methodist Church in Winston-Salem, N.C., is taking a stand for marriage equality by refusing to conduct marriages for heterosexual couples until United Methodist polices are changed to allow pastors to officiate at marriages for same-sex couples as well.

According to the Winston-Salem Journal, the church’s 18-member leadership council is instead “asking pastors to conduct relationship blessings rather than marriage ceremonies in the sanctuary.”

“On the matter of gay marriage, the church sees injustice in the legal position of state government and the theological position of our denomination,” the church’s spokespeople said in a statement. “North Carolina prohibits same-sex marriage and all the rights and privileges marriage brings. The leadership council has asked that their ministers join others who refuse to sign any state marriage licenses until this right is granted to same-sex couples.”

Guess what? That is their right! Again, rights trump feelings, at least they do in a sane society, and any couple that sought to force this church to do straight weddings would be wrong. Any straight couple that was refused a wedding cake, or flowers for the wedding would be wrong to sue those businesses. Businesses have EVER RIGHT to refuse NOT to sell or provide a service to someone. And, AGAIN if that hurts someone little feelings, guess what, rights trump feelings!

Daniel Greenfield has some good thoughts

This comes from the UK, but sooner or later the same European madness will end up here as well. Obama already demonstrated total contempt for freedom of religion with the mandate. And there is no doubt that worse is coming.

Exactly, the Left’s thirst for complete power is unquenchable. Nothing but complete control of everything people can say, do, and think is ever going to sate the Left Wing Statists.

 

The real problem with the Gay marriage issue

I have said before that the issue of Gay marriage should be a state by state decision, and that those state decisions ought to be respected by both sides. And, in theory, such a state of affairs would work out well. Ah, but you see, the driving forces behind the Gay marriage push, do not want to live and let live. They will never be satisfied with true equality, their definition of equality being far removed from the actual definition, they will use this issue to force others to bow to them. Donald Douglas declares that the war on religion, yes ALL religion, not just Christianity, is under way, and links to this piece at All the Right Snark

As Ben Shapiro wrote today at Breitbart, this ruling by the Supreme Court has opened the door to the IRS revoking tax-exempt status to any church that would refuse to permit two homosexuals to hold their “wedding” within its walls.

Don’t think that will happen?

Think again.

As it is, homosexual couples are suing bakeries, florists and other businesses for refusing to provide them with the trappings of their upcoming nuptials.

You don’t think homosexual couples won’t pursue lawsuits against churches for refusing to “marry” them?

Really?

Come on.

We’re living in Obama’s America — where in the name of “fairness” it’s open season on anyone you don’t like.

And if you think that the “Take that bitches” crowd will be respectful of those who disagree on religious grounds with homosexuals “marrying,” then, think again.

The United States Supreme Court didn’t nullify an unconstitutional law yesterday. They nullified the will of the people. The nullified the Separation of Powers. They nullified the religious freedom in this country.

Five unelected individuals in a nation of over three hundred million just paved the way for state-approved HATRED against anyone who recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Five unelected individuals believe that opposition to homosexual “marriage” is motivated by frothing-at-the-mouth hatred. Therefore, supporters of homosexual “marriage” can go to town!!

That lays it out pretty well. As I said, I would be fine with live and let live, but the Gay marriage activists are not OK with that. They despise religion, again ALL religion, and will not stop until everyone is forced to support gay marriage. This is not about equality, or rights. What of the rights of the florist, caterer, or photographer to say no to doing a Gay wedding? And yes, eventually, churches and other houses of worship will be targeted if they say no to having a gay wedding in their sanctuary.

So, it is with regret that I say to those Gays and Lesbians who really JUST want equality, and who do not wish to force anything on any business or church, that they have allowed haters and totalitarians to take over their cause. It is sad because, I have nothing against Gay people, frankly, you could scarcely find anyone who cares less about what people do in their bedrooms than me. But, I cannot abide activists destroying the religious freedoms, and the rights of businesses. If you want equality then great, but if you want to steamroll freedom of thought, then  I do not say no, I say HELL NO!

 

Not So Fast: Prop 8 Is Still California Law

Not So Fast: Prop 8 Is Still California Law – Big Government

News reports that California’s Prop 8 has been struck down as unconstitutional are completely false.

.
……….

Proposition 8 is the amendment to the California Constitution that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. A federal trial judge – Vaughn Walker – held that Prop 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that only the losing defendants in that case – the governor and attorney general of California–had standing to appeal that decision. When they refused to do so, Prop 8′s official sponsors filed the appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and pursued it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Since the official sponsors lacked standing to defend Prop 8, the Supreme Court refused to rule on the merits, and also vacated (i.e., threw out) the the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

But that means Prop 8 is still the law in California. Section 3.5 of the California Constitution specifically commands:

An administrative agency… has no power:

(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;

(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;

(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.

As of today, there is no appellate opinion (meaning an opinion issued by a court of appeals) against Prop 8. The Supreme Court refused to issue one, and threw out the only other one (the Ninth Circuit’s). There is only a trial court opinion. So every agency in California is legally bound to regard Prop 8 as binding law.

Since no one who wants to defend Prop 8 has standing to appeal rulings on it to the Ninth Circuit, there will never be such an opinion in the federal court system. So the only way to get an appellate opinion would be in the California state court system. So someone would have to file a lawsuit regarding Prop 8, and then appeal it to a California court of appeals and then maybe to the California Supreme Court. Only when one of those courts hold Prop 8 unconstitutional can the public officials in that state regard it as stricken from the books.

That litigation could take years. And in the meantime, supporters of traditional marriage can continue making the case for marriage.

And so the struggle continues.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Bill Clinton Praises Supreme Court For Basically Calling Him A Bigot And A Homophobe

Clintons Praise Supreme Court Reversal Of Bill Clinton’s Gay Marriage Ban – Daily Caller

Bill and Hillary Clinton praised the Supreme Court’s reversal of a key provision in the Defense of Marriage Act Wednesday, calling the 1996 law “discrimination.”

.
……….

“By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union,” the Clintons said in a statement posted on the Clinton Foundation website. “We are also encouraged that marriage equality may soon return to California.”

The former president and his wife, the former secretary of state, concluded, “We applaud the hard work of the advocates who have fought so relentlessly for this day, and congratulate Edie Windsor on her historic victory.”

Left unmentioned was the fact that Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law while president. The 1996 Clinton-Gore ticket ran ads on Christian radio stations taking credit for the legislation, which prevented federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

The Defense of Marriage Act also allowed states to withhold recognition of gay marriages that were legal in other states. Senate Democrats voted 32 to 14 in favor. House Democrats supported it by a margin of a margin of 188 to 65.

Liberal stalwarts Joe Biden, Paul Wellstone and Barbara Milkulski were among the Democratic “yes” votes.

Democratic strategist Robert Shrum has said that Clinton urged John Kerry to support state-level gay marriage bans during the 2004 presidential campaign. Clinton has denied the charge.

Hillary Clinton also supported DOMA as a Democratic senator from New York. Even as she argued against a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, she described marriage as “not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” She cited her own troubled marriage with Bill as a reason for that belief.

Clinton then invoked “the fundamental bedrock principle that [marriage] exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history as one of the founding foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principle role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.”

Early in her presidential campaign, Clinton insisted to the YearlyKos convention that “DOMA served a very useful purpose.”

Both Clintons now favor gay marriage. Hillary Clinton is considered the frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

U.S. Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Complete Dissenting Opinion Of Justice Antonin Scalia

Justice Antonin Scalia: Dissenting Opinion – Cornell Law

.

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. EDITH SCHLAIN WINDSOR, in her capacity as executor of the ESTATE OF THEA CLARA SPYER, et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit
[June 26, 2013]

Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, and with whom The Chief Justice joins as to Part I, dissenting.

This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.

I

A

The Court is eager—hungry—to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case. Standing in the way is an obstacle, a technicality of little interest to anyone but the people of We the People, who created it as a barrier against judges’ intrusion into their lives. They gave judges, in Article III, only the “judicial Power,” a power to decide not abstract questions but real, concrete “Cases” and “Controversies.” Yet the plaintiff and the Government agree entirely on what should happen in this lawsuit. They agree that the court below got it right; and they agreed in the court below that the court below that one got it right as well. What, then, are we doing here?

The answer lies at the heart of the jurisdictional portion of today’s opinion, where a single sentence lays bare the majority’s vision of our role. The Court says that we have the power to decide this case because if we did not, then our “primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law” (at least one that “has inflicted real injury on a plaintiff”) would “become only secondary to the President’s.” Ante, at 12. But wait, the reader wonders—Windsor won below, and so cured her injury, and the President was glad to see it. True, says the majority, but judicial review must march on regardless, lest we “undermine the clear dictate of the separation-of-powers principle that when an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role.

This image of the Court would have been unrecognizable to those who wrote and ratified our national charter. They knew well the dangers of “primary” power, and so created branches of government that would be “perfectly coordinate by the terms of their common commission,” none of which branches could “pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” The Federalist, No. 49, p. 314 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). The people did this to protect themselves. They did it to guard their right to self-rule against the black-robed supremacy that today’s majority finds so attractive. So it was that Madison could confidently state, with no fear of contradiction, that there was nothing of “greater intrinsic value” or “stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty” than a government of separate and coordinate powers. Id., No. 47, at 301.

For this reason we are quite forbidden to say what the law is whenever (as today’s opinion asserts) “ ‘an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution.’ ” Ante, at 12. We can do so only when that allegation will determine the outcome of a lawsuit, and is contradicted by the other party. The “judicial Power” is not, as the majority believes, the power “ ‘to say what the law is,’ ” ibid., giving the Supreme Court the “primary role in determining the constitutionality of laws.” The majority must have in mind one of the foreign constitutions that pronounces such primacy for its constitutional court and allows that primacy to be exercised in contexts other than a lawsuit. See, e.g., Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Art. 93. The judicial power as Americans have understood it (and their English ancestors before them) is the power to adjudicate, with conclusive effect, disputed government claims (civil or criminal) against private persons, and disputed claims by private persons against the government or other private persons. Sometimes (though not always) the parties before the court disagree not with regard to the facts of their case (or not only with regard to the facts) but with regard to the applicable law—in which event (and only in which event) it becomes the “ ‘province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ ” Ante, at 12.

In other words, declaring the compatibility of state or federal laws with the Constitution is not only not the “primary role” of this Court, it is not a separate, free-standing role at all. We perform that role incidentally—by accident, as it were—when that is necessary to resolve the dispute before us. Then, and only then, does it become “ ‘the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ ” That is why, in 1793, we politely declined the Washington Administration’s request to “say what the law is” on a particular treaty matter that was not the subject of a concrete legal controversy. 3 Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay 486–489 (H. Johnston ed. 1893). And that is why, as our opinions have said, some questions of law will never be presented to this Court, because there will never be anyone with standing to bring a lawsuit. See Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208, 227 (1974) ; United States v. Richardson, 418 U. S. 166, 179 (1974) . As Justice Brandeis put it, we cannot “pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, non-adversary, proceeding”; absent a “ ‘real, earnest and vital controversy between individuals,’ ” we have neither any work to do nor any power to do it. Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346 (1936) (concurring opinion) (quoting Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 345 (1892) ). Our authority begins and ends with the need to adjudge the rights of an injured party who stands before us seeking redress. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992) .

That is completely absent here. Windsor’s injury was cured by the judgment in her favor. And while, in ordinary circumstances, the United States is injured by a directive to pay a tax refund, this suit is far from ordinary. Whatever injury the United States has suffered will surely not be redressed by the action that it, as a litigant, asks us to take. The final sentence of the Solicitor General’s brief on the merits reads: “For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed.” Brief for United States (merits) 54 (emphasis added). That will not cure the Government’s injury, but carve it into stone. One could spend many fruitless afternoons ransacking our library for any other petitioner’s brief seeking an affirmance of the judgment against it. 1 What the petitioner United States asks us to do in the case before us is exactly what the respondent Windsor asks us to do: not to provide relief from the judgment below but to say that that judgment was correct. And the same was true in the Court of Appeals: Neither party sought to undo the judgment for Windsor, and so that court should have dismissed the appeal (just as we should dismiss) for lack of jurisdiction. Since both parties agreed with the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, the suit should have ended there. The further proceedings have been a contrivance, having no object in mind except to elevate a District Court judgment that has no precedential effect in other courts, to one that has precedential effect throughout the Second Circuit, and then (in this Court) precedential effect throughout the United States.

We have never before agreed to speak—to “say what the law is”—where there is no controversy before us. In the more than two centuries that this Court has existed as an institution, we have never suggested that we have the power to decide a question when every party agrees with both its nominal opponent and the court below on that question’s answer. The United States reluctantly conceded that at oral argument. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 19–20.

The closest we have ever come to what the Court blesses today was our opinion in INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919 (1983) . But in that case, two parties to the litigation disagreed with the position of the United States and with the court below: the House and Senate, which had intervened in the case. Because Chadha concerned the validity of a mode of congressional action—the one-house legislative veto—the House and Senate were threatened with destruction of what they claimed to be one of their institutional powers. The Executive choosing not to defend that power, 2 we permitted the House and Senate to intervene. Nothing like that is present here.

To be sure, the Court in Chadha said that statutory aggrieved-party status was “not altered by the fact that the Executive may agree with the holding that the statute in question is unconstitutional.” Id., at 930–931. But in a footnote to that statement, the Court acknowledged Article III’s separate requirement of a “justiciable case or controversy,” and stated that this requirement was satisfied “because of the presence of the two Houses of Congress as adverse parties.” Id., at 931, n. 6. Later in its opinion, the Chadha Court remarked that the United States’ announced intention to enforce the statute also sufficed to permit judicial review, even absent congressional participation. Id., at 939. That remark is true, as a description of the judicial review conducted in the Court of Appeals, where the Houses of Congress had not intervened. (The case originated in the Court of Appeals, since it sought review of agency action under 8 U. S. C. §1105a(a) (1976 ed.).) There, absent a judgment setting aside the INS order, Chadha faced deportation. This passage of our opinion seems to be addressing that initial standing in the Court of Appeals, as indicated by its quotation from the lower court’s opinion, 462 U. S., at 939–940. But if it was addressing standing to pursue the appeal, the remark was both the purest dictum (as congressional intervention at that point made the required adverseness “beyond doubt,” id., at 939), and quite incorrect. When a private party has a judicial decree safely in hand to prevent his injury, additional judicial action requires that a party injured by the decree seek to undo it. In Chadha, the intervening House and Senate fulfilled that requirement. Here no one does.

The majority’s discussion of the requirements of Article III bears no resemblance to our jurisprudence. It accuses the amicus (appointed to argue against our jurisdiction) of “elid[ing] the distinction between . . . the jurisdictional requirements of Article III and the prudential limits on its exercise.” Ante, at 6. It then proceeds to call the requirement of adverseness a “prudential” aspect of standing. Of standing. That is incomprehensible. A plaintiff (or appellant) can have all the standing in the world—satisfying all three standing requirements of Lujan that the majority so carefully quotes, ante, at 7—and yet no Article III controversy may be before the court. Article III requires not just a plaintiff (or appellant) who has standing to complain but an opposing party who denies the validity of the complaint. It is not the amicus that has done the eliding of distinctions, but the majority, calling the quite separate Article III requirement of adverseness between the parties an element (which it then pronounces a “prudential” element) of standing. The question here is not whether, as the majority puts it, “the United States retains a stake sufficient to support Article III jurisdiction,” ibid. the question is whether there is any controversy (which requires contradiction) between the United States and Ms. Windsor. There is not.

I find it wryly amusing that the majority seeks to dismiss the requirement of party-adverseness as nothing more than a “prudential” aspect of the sole Article III requirement of standing. (Relegating a jurisdictional requirement to “prudential” status is a wondrous device, enabling courts to ignore the requirement whenever they believe it “prudent”—which is to say, a good idea.) Half a century ago, a Court similarly bent upon announcing its view regarding the constitutionality of a federal statute achieved that goal by effecting a remarkably similar but completely opposite distortion of the principles limiting our jurisdiction. The Court’s notorious opinion in Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83–101 (1968), held that standing was merely an element (which it pronounced to be a “prudential” element) of the sole Article III requirement of adverseness. We have been living with the chaos created by that power-grabbing decision ever since, see Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U. S. 587 (2007) , as we will have to live with the chaos created by this one.

The authorities the majority cites fall miles short of supporting the counterintuitive notion that an Article III “controversy” can exist without disagreement between the parties. In Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank v. Roper, 445 U. S. 326 (1980) , the District Court had entered judgment in the individual plaintiff’s favor based on the defendant bank’s offer to pay the full amount claimed. The plaintiff, however, sought to appeal the District Court’s denial of class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. There was a continuing dispute between the parties concerning the issue raised on appeal. The same is true of the other case cited by the majority, Camreta v. Greene, 563 U. S. ___ (2011). There the District Court found that the defendant state officers had violated the Fourth Amendment, but rendered judgment in their favor because they were entitled to official immunity, application of the Fourth Amendment to their conduct not having been clear at the time of violation. The officers sought to appeal the holding of Fourth Amendment violation, which would circumscribe their future conduct; the plaintiff continued to insist that a Fourth Amendment violation had occurred. The “prudential” discretion to which both those cases refer was the discretion to deny an appeal even when a live controversy exists—not the discretion to grant one when it does not. The majority can cite no case in which this Court entertained an appeal in which both parties urged us to affirm the judgment below. And that is because the existence of a controversy is not a “prudential” requirement that we have invented, but an essential element of an Article III case or controversy. The majority’s notion that a case between friendly parties can be entertained so long as “adversarial presentation of the issues is assured by the participation of amici curiae prepared to defend with vigor” the other side of the issue, ante, at 10, effects a breathtaking revolution in our Article III jurisprudence.

It may be argued that if what we say is true some Presidential determinations that statutes are unconstitutional will not be subject to our review. That is as it should be, when both the President and the plaintiff agree that the statute is unconstitutional. Where the Executive is enforcing an unconstitutional law, suit will of course lie; but if, in that suit, the Executive admits the unconstitutionality of the law, the litigation should end in an order or a consent decree enjoining enforcement. This suit saw the light of day only because the President enforced the Act (and thus gave Windsor standing to sue) even though he believed it unconstitutional. He could have equally chosen (more appropriately, some would say) neither to enforce nor to defend the statute he believed to be unconstitutional, see Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes, 18 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 199 (Nov. 2, 1994)—in which event Windsor would not have been injured, the District Court could not have refereed this friendly scrimmage, and the Executive’s determination of unconstitutionality would have escaped this Court’s desire to blurt out its view of the law. The matter would have been left, as so many matters ought to be left, to a tug of war between the President and the Congress, which has innumerable means (up to and including impeachment) of compelling the President to enforce the laws it has written. Or the President could have evaded presentation of the constitutional issue to this Court simply by declining to appeal the District Court and Court of Appeals dispositions he agreed with. Be sure of this much: If a President wants to insulate his judgment of unconstitutionality from our review, he can. What the views urged in this dissent produce is not insulation from judicial review but insulation from Executive contrivance.

The majority brandishes the famous sentence from Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803) that “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Ante, at 12 (internal quotation marks omitted). But that sentence neither says nor implies that it is always the province and duty of the Court to say what the law is—much less that its responsibility in that regard is a “primary” one. The very next sentence of Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion makes the crucial qualification that today’s majority ignores: “Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.” 1 Cranch, at 177 (emphasis added). Only when a “particular case” is before us—that is, a controversy that it is our business to resolve under Article III—do we have the province and duty to pronounce the law. For the views of our early Court more precisely addressing the question before us here, the ma- jority ought instead to have consulted the opinion of Chief Justice Taney in Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251 (1850):

“The objection in the case before us is . . . that the plaintiff and defendant have the same interest, and that interest adverse and in conflict with the interest of third persons, whose rights would be seriously affected if the question of law was decided in the manner that both of the parties to this suit desire it to be.

“A judgment entered under such circumstances, and for such purposes, is a mere form. The whole proceeding was in contempt of the court, and highly reprehensible . . . . A judgment in form, thus procured, in the eye of the law is no judgment of the court. It is a nullity, and no writ of error will lie upon it. This writ is, therefore, dismissed.” Id., at 255–256.

There is, in the words of Marbury, no “necessity [to] expound and interpret” the law in this case; just a desire to place this Court at the center of the Nation’s life. 1 Cranch, at 177.

B

A few words in response to the theory of jurisdiction set forth in Justice Alito’s dissent: Though less far reaching in its consequences than the majority’s conversion of constitutionally required adverseness into a discretionary element of standing, the theory of that dissent similarly elevates the Court to the “primary” determiner of constitutional questions involving the separation of powers, and, to boot, increases the power of the most dangerous branch: the “legislative department,” which by its nature “draw[s] all power into its impetuous vortex.” The Federalist, No. 48, at 309 (J. Madison). Heretofore in our national history, the President’s failure to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” U. S. Const., Art. II, §3, could only be brought before a judicial tribunal by someone whose concrete interests were harmed by that alleged failure. Justice Alito would create a system in which Congress can hale the Executive before the courts not only to vindicate its own institutional powers to act, but to correct a perceived inadequacy in the execution of its laws. 3 This would lay to rest Tocqueville’s praise of our judicial system as one which “intimately bind[s] the case made for the law with the case made for one man,” one in which legislation is “no longer exposed to the daily aggression of the parties,” and in which “[t]he political question that [the judge] must resolve is linked to the interest” of private litigants. A. de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 97 (H. Mansfield D. Winthrop eds. 2000). That would be replaced by a system in which Congress and the Executive can pop immediately into court, in their institutional capacity, whenever the President refuses to implement a statute he believes to be unconstitutional, and whenever he implements a law in a manner that is not to Congress’s liking.

Justice Alito’s notion of standing will likewise enormously shrink the area to which “judicial censure, exercised by the courts on legislation, cannot extend,” ibid. For example, a bare majority of both Houses could bring into court the assertion that the Executive’s implementation of welfare programs is too generous—a failure that no other litigant would have standing to complain about. Moreover, as we indicated in Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 828 (1997) , if Congress can sue the Executive for the erroneous application of the law that “injures” its power to legislate, surely the Executive can sue Congress for its erroneous adoption of an unconstitutional law that “injures” the Executive’s power to administer—or perhaps for its protracted failure to act on one of his nominations. The opportunities for dragging the courts into disputes hitherto left for political resolution are endless.

Justice Alito’s dissent is correct that Raines did not formally decide this issue, but its reasoning does. The opinion spends three pages discussing famous, decades-long disputes between the President and Congress—regarding congressional power to forbid the Presidential removal of executive officers, regarding the legislative veto, regarding congressional appointment of executive officers, and regarding the pocket veto—that would surely have been promptly resolved by a Congress-vs.-the-President lawsuit if the impairment of a branch’s powers alone conferred standing to commence litigation. But it does not, and never has; the “enormous power that the judiciary would acquire” from the ability to adjudicate such suits “would have made a mockery of [Hamilton’s] quotation of Montesquieu to the effect that ‘of the three powers above mentioned . . . the JUDICIARY is next to nothing.’ ” Barnes v. Kline, 759 F. 2d 21, 58 (CADC 1985) (Bork, J., dissenting) (quoting The Federalist No. 78 (A. Hamilton)).

To be sure, if Congress cannot invoke our authority in the way that Justice Alito proposes, then its only recourse is to confront the President directly. Unimaginable evil this is not. Our system is designed for confrontation. That is what “[a]mbition . . . counteract[ing] ambition,” The Federalist, No. 51, at 322 (J. Madison), is all about. If majorities in both Houses of Congress care enough about the matter, they have available innumerable ways to compel executive action without a lawsuit—from refusing to confirm Presidential appointees to the elimination of funding. (Nothing says “enforce the Act” quite like “. . . or you will have money for little else.”) But the condition is crucial; Congress must care enough to act against the President itself, not merely enough to instruct its lawyers to ask us to do so. Placing the Constitution’s entirely anticipated political arm wrestling into permanent judicial receivership does not do the system a favor. And by the way, if the President loses the lawsuit but does not faithfully implement the Court’s decree, just as he did not faithfully implement Congress’s statute, what then? Only Congress can bring him to heel by . . . what do you think? Yes: a direct confrontation with the President.

II

For the reasons above, I think that this Court has, and the Court of Appeals had, no power to decide this suit. We should vacate the decision below and remand to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with instructions to dismiss the appeal. Given that the majority has volunteered its view of the merits, however, I proceed to discuss that as well.

A

There are many remarkable things about the majority’s merits holding. The first is how rootless and shifting its justifications are. For example, the opinion starts with seven full pages about the traditional power of States to define domestic relations—initially fooling many readers, I am sure, into thinking that this is a federalism opinion. But we are eventually told that “it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution,” and that “[t]he State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism” because “the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import.” Ante, at 18. But no one questions the power of the States to define marriage (with the concomitant conferral of dignity and status), so what is the point of devoting seven pages to describing how long and well established that power is? Even after the opinion has formally disclaimed reliance upon principles of federalism, mentions of “the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage” continue. See, e.g., ante, at 20. What to make of this? The opinion never explains. My guess is that the majority, while reluctant to suggest that defining the meaning of “marriage” in federal statutes is unsupported by any of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, 4 nonetheless needs some rhetorical basis to support its pretense that today’s prohibition of laws excluding same-sex marriage is confined to the Federal Government (leaving the second, state-law shoe to be dropped later, maybe next Term). But I am only guessing.

Equally perplexing are the opinion’s references to “the Constitution’s guarantee of equality.” Ibid. Near the end of the opinion, we are told that although the “equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes [the] Fifth Amendment [due process] right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved”—what can that mean?—“the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does.” Ante, at 25. The only possible interpretation of this statement is that the Equal Protection Clause, even the Equal Protection Clause as incorporated in the Due Process Clause, is not the basis for today’s holding. But the portion of the majority opinion that explains why DOMA is unconstitutional (Part IV) begins by citing Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954) , Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528 (1973) , and Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620 (1996) —all of which are equal-protection cases. 5 And those three cases are the only authorities that the Court cites in Part IV about the Constitution’s meaning, except for its citation of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (not an equal-protection case) to support its passing assertion that the Constitution protects the “moral and sexual choices” of same-sex couples, ante, at 23.

Moreover, if this is meant to be an equal-protection opinion, it is a confusing one. The opinion does not resolve and indeed does not even mention what had been the central question in this litigation: whether, under the Equal Protection Clause, laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman are reviewed for more than mere rationality. That is the issue that divided the parties and the court below, compare Brief for Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of U. S. House of Representatives (merits) 24–28 (no), with Brief for Respondent Windsor (merits) 17–31 and Brief for United States (merits) 18–36 (yes); and compare 699 F. 3d 169, 180–185 (CA2 2012) (yes), with id., at 208–211 (Straub, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part) (no). In accord with my previously expressed skepticism about the Court’s “tiers of scrutiny” approach, I would review this classification only for its rationality. See United States v. Virginia, 518 U. S. 515–570 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting). As nearly as I can tell, the Court agrees with that; its opinion does not apply strict scrutiny, and its central propositions are taken from rational-basis cases like Moreno. But the Court certainly does not apply anything that resembles that deferential framework. See Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 320 (1993) (a classification “ ‘must be upheld . . . if there is any reason- ably conceivable state of facts’ ” that could justify it).

The majority opinion need not get into the strict-vs.-rational-basis scrutiny question, and need not justify its holding under either, because it says that DOMA is unconstitutional as “a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution,” ante, at 25; that it violates “basic due process” principles, ante, at 20; and that it inflicts an “injury and indignity” of a kind that denies “an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment,” ante, at 19. The majority never utters the dread words “substantive due process,” perhaps sensing the disrepute into which that doctrine has fallen, but that is what those statements mean. Yet the opinion does not argue that same-sex marriage is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702–721 (1997), a claim that would of course be quite absurd. So would the further suggestion (also necessary, under our substantive-due-process precedents) that a world in which DOMA exists is one bereft of “ ‘ordered liberty.’ ” Id., at 721 (quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325 (1937) ).

Some might conclude that this loaf could have used a while longer in the oven. But that would be wrong; it is already overcooked. The most expert care in preparation cannot redeem a bad recipe. The sum of all the Court’s nonspecific hand-waving is that this law is invalid (maybe on equal-protection grounds, maybe on substantive-due-process grounds, and perhaps with some amorphous federalism component playing a role) because it is motivated by a “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Ante, at 20. It is this proposition with which I will therefore engage.

B

As I have observed before, the Constitution does not forbid the government to enforce traditional moral and sexual norms. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 599 (2003) (Scalia, J., dissenting). I will not swell the U. S. Reports with restatements of that point. It is enough to say that the Constitution neither requires nor forbids our society to approve of same-sex marriage, much as it neither requires nor forbids us to approve of no-fault divorce, polygamy, or the consumption of alcohol.

However, even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of same-sex marriage (or indeed same-sex sex), there are many perfectly valid—indeed, downright boring—justifying rationales for this legislation. Their existence ought to be the end of this case. For they give the lie to the Court’s conclusion that only those with hateful hearts could have voted “aye” on this Act. And more importantly, they serve to make the contents of the legislators’ hearts quite irrelevant: “It is a familiar principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.” United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 383 (1968) . Or at least it was a familiar principle. By holding to the contrary, the majority has declared open season on any law that (in the opinion of the law’s opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited.

The majority concludes that the only motive for this Act was the “bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” Ante, at 20. Bear in mind that the object of this condemnation is not the legislature of some once-Confederate Southern state (familiar objects of the Court’s scorn, see, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578 (1987) ), but our respected coordinate branches, the Congress and Presidency of the United States. Laying such a charge against them should require the most extraordinary evidence, and I would have thought that every attempt would be made to indulge a more anodyne explanation for the statute. The majority does the opposite—affirmatively concealing from the reader the arguments that exist in justification. It makes only a passing mention of the “arguments put forward” by the Act’s defenders, and does not even trouble to paraphrase or describe them. See ante, at 21. I imagine that this is because it is harder to maintain the illusion of the Act’s supporters as unhinged members of a wild-eyed lynch mob when one first describes their views as they see them.

To choose just one of these defenders’ arguments, DOMA avoids difficult choice-of-law issues that will now arise absent a uniform federal definition of marriage. See, e.g., Baude, Beyond DOMA: Choice of State Law in Fed- eral Statutes, 64 Stan. L. Rev. 1371 (2012). Imagine a pair of women who marry in Albany and then move to Alabama, which does not “recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex.” Ala. Code §30–1–19(e) (2011). When the couple files their next federal tax return, may it be a joint one? Which State’s law controls, for federal-law purposes: their State of celebration (which recognizes the marriage) or their State of domicile (which does not)? (Does the answer depend on whether they were just visiting in Albany?) Are these questions to be answered as a matter of federal common law, or perhaps by borrowing a State’s choice-of-law rules? If so, which State’s? And what about States where the status of an out-of-state same-sex marriage is an unsettled question under local law? See Godfrey v. Spano, 13 N. Y. 3d 358, 920 N. E. 2d 328 (2009). DOMA avoided all of this uncertainty by speci- fying which marriages would be recognized for federal purposes. That is a classic purpose for a definitional provision.

Further, DOMA preserves the intended effects of prior legislation against then-unforeseen changes in circumstance. When Congress provided (for example) that a special estate-tax exemption would exist for spouses, this exemption reached only opposite-sex spouses—those being the only sort that were recognized in any State at the time of DOMA’s passage. When it became clear that changes in state law might one day alter that balance, DOMA’s definitional section was enacted to ensure that state-level experimentation did not automatically alter the basic operation of federal law, unless and until Congress made the further judgment to do so on its own. That is not animus—just stabilizing prudence. Congress has hardly demonstrated itself unwilling to make such further, revising judgments upon due deliberation. See, e.g., Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, 124Stat. 3515.

The Court mentions none of this. Instead, it accuses the Congress that enacted this law and the President who signed it of something much worse than, for example, having acted in excess of enumerated federal powers—or even having drawn distinctions that prove to be irrational. Those legal errors may be made in good faith, errors though they are. But the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose” (ante, at 25) “to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,” ibid.; to “impose inequality,” ante, at 22; to “impose . . . a stigma,” ante, at 21; to deny people “equal dignity,” ibid.; to brand gay people as “unworthy,” ante, at 23; and to “humiliat[e]” their children, ibid. (emphasis added).

I am sure these accusations are quite untrue. To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

* * *

The penultimate sentence of the majority’s opinion is a naked declaration that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined” to those couples “joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State.” Ante, at 26, 25. I have heard such “bald, unreasoned disclaimer[s]” before. Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 604. When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with “whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Id., at 578. Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,” ante, at 23—with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

I do not mean to suggest disagreement with The Chief Justice’s view, ante, p. 2–4 (dissenting opinion), that lower federal courts and state courts can distinguish today’s case when the issue before them is state denial of marital status to same-sex couples—or even that this Court could theoretically do so. Lord, an opinion with such scatter-shot rationales as this one (federalism noises among them) can be distinguished in many ways. And deserves to be. State and lower federal courts should take the Court at its word and distinguish away.

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. Consider how easy (inevitable) it is to make the following substitutions in a passage from today’s opinion ante, at 22:

“DOMA’s This state law’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages constitutionally protected sexual relationships, see Lawrence, and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA this state law contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State enjoying constitutionally protected sexual relationships, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities.”

Or try this passage, from ante, at 22–23:

“[DOMA] This state law tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages relationships are unworthy of federal state recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage relationship. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, . . . .”

Or this, from ante, at 23—which does not even require alteration, except as to the invented number:

“And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.”

Similarly transposable passages—deliberately transposable, I think—abound. In sum, that Court which finds it so horrific that Congress irrationally and hatefully robbed same-sex couples of the “personhood and dignity” which state legislatures conferred upon them, will of a certitude be similarly appalled by state legislatures’ irrational and hateful failure to acknowledge that “personhood and dignity” in the first place. Ante, at 26. As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.

By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex couples, see ante, at 25, 26. The majority’s limiting assurance will be meaningless in the face of language like that, as the majority well knows. That is why the language is there. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society’s debate over marriage—a debate that can seem in need of our clumsy “help” only to a member of this institution.

As to that debate: Few public controversies touch an institution so central to the lives of so many, and few inspire such attendant passion by good people on all sides. Few public controversies will ever demonstrate so vividly the beauty of what our Framers gave us, a gift the Court pawns today to buy its stolen moment in the spotlight: a system of government that permits us to rule ourselves. Since DOMA’s passage, citizens on all sides of the question have seen victories and they have seen defeats. There have been plebiscites, legislation, persuasion, and loud voices—in other words, democracy. Victories in one place for some, see North Carolina Const., Amdt. 1 (providing that “[m]arriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State”) (approved by a popular vote, 61% to 39% on May 8, 2012), 6 are offset by victories in other places for others, see Maryland Question 6 (establishing “that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license”) (approved by a popular vote, 52% to 48%, on November 6, 2012). 7 Even in a single State, the question has come out differently on different occasions. Compare Maine Question 1 (permitting “the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples”) (approved by a popular vote, 53% to 47%, on November 6, 2012) 8 with Maine Question 1 (rejecting “the new law that lets same-sex couples marry”) (approved by a popular vote, 53% to 47%, on November 3, 2009). 9

In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.

Notes

1 For an even more advanced scavenger hunt, one might search the annals of Anglo-American law for another “Motion to Dismiss” like the one the United States filed in District Court: It argued that the court should agree “with Plaintiff and the United States” and “not dismiss” the complaint. (Emphasis mine.) Then, having gotten exactly what it asked for, the United States promptly appealed.

2 There the Justice Department’s refusal to defend the legislation was in accord with its longstanding (and entirely reasonable) practice of declining to defend legislation that in its view infringes upon Presidential powers. There is no justification for the Justice Department’s abandoning the law in the present case. The majority opinion makes a point of scolding the President for his “failure to defend the constitutionality of an Act of Congress based on a constitutional theory not yet established in judicial decisions,” ante, at 12. But the rebuke is tongue-in-cheek, for the majority gladly gives the President what he wants. Contrary to all precedent, it decides this case (and even decides it the way the President wishes) despite his abandonment of the defense and the consequent absence of a case or controversy.

3 Justice Alito attempts to limit his argument by claiming that Congress is injured (and can therefore appeal) when its statute is held unconstitutional without Presidential defense, but is not injured when its statute is held unconstitutional despite Presidential defense. I do not understand that line. The injury to Congress is the same whether the President has defended the statute or not. And if the injury is threatened, why should Congress not be able to participate in the suit from the beginning, just as the President can? And if having a statute declared unconstitutional (and therefore inoperative) by a court is an injury, why is it not an injury when a statute is declared unconstitutional by the President and rendered inoperative by his consequent failure to enforce it? Or when the President simply declines to enforce it without opining on its constitutionality? If it is the inoperativeness that constitutes the injury—the “impairment of [the legislative] function,” as Justice Alito puts it, post, at 4—it should make no difference which of the other two branches inflicts it, and whether the Constitution is the pretext. A principled and predictable system of jurisprudence cannot rest upon a shifting concept of injury, designed to support standing when we would like it. If this Court agreed with Justice Alito’s distinction, its opinion in Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811 (1997) , which involved an original suit by Members of Congress challenging an assertedly unconstitutional law, would have been written quite differently; and Justice Alito’s distinguishing of that case on grounds quite irrelevant to his theory of standing would have been unnecessary.

4 Such a suggestion would be impossible, given the Federal Government’s long history of making pronouncements regarding marriage—for example, conditioning Utah’s entry into the Union upon its prohibition of polygamy. See Act of July 16, 1894, ch. 138, §3, 28Stat. 108 (“The constitution [of Utah]” must provide “perfect toleration of religious sentiment,” “Provided, That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited”).

5 Since the Equal Protection Clause technically applies only against the States, see U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, Bolling and Moreno, dealing with federal action, relied upon “the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment,” Moreno, 413 U. S., at 533.

6 North Carolina State Board of Elections, Official Results: Primary Election of May 8, 2012, Constitutional Amendment.

7 Maryland State Board of Elections, Official 2012 Presidential General Election Results for All State Questions, Question 06.

8 Maine Bureau of Elections, Nov. 3, 2009, Referendum Tabulation (Question 1).

9 Maine Bureau of Elections, Nov. 6, 2012, Referendum Election Tabulations (Question 1).

Dissent

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Supreme Court Rules Defense Of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

Supreme Court Rules Defense Of Marriage Act Unconstitutional – The Hill

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the heart of a federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

.

In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court overturned a section of the Defense of Marriage Act that bars same-sex couples from receiving federal benefits, even if they live in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages.

The challenge to DOMA was filed by Edith Windsor, a New York widow who inherited her late wife’s home but was forced to pay dramatically higher property taxes than she would have if she had married a man, even though the state recognized her marriage.

Kennedy wrote that the law desprived liberties to couples in same-sex marriages that are protected by the Fifth Amendment.

“DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty,” Kennedy wrote. “It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others.”

The court’s liberal wing joined Kennedy in the majority decision, while the court’s conservative justices dissented in three separate opinions.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

The Left continues to bastardize the meaning of rights

Rights, as defined by our Founders came from our Creator, or were natural rights, that is rights that are inherent to us all. Those rights included the right to property, freedom of speech, association, the freedom to practice your own religion, or to practice no religion at all, and the right to keep and bear arms among others. You might have noted that among the rights I listed, a right to not be offended was not present. Nor was a right to force a business to sell a product to you. The Left, it seems, is intent on creating such God-given rights. Such rights cannot exist in a nation that honors liberty. A “right” not to have your feelings hurt infringes upon the right of everyone else to freely express their opinions. Likewise any effort to create a “right” that forces a business to sell or provide a service to anyone would naturally place an undue burden upon that business owner.

Take a case from Colorado described in The Blaze

Should bakers and other vendors be allowed to refuse service to gays and lesbians, specifically when it comes to marital ceremonies? “No,” argues one gay couple who have filed a discrimination complaint against a Colorado baker who refused to provide them with a wedding cake.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, owned by Jack Phillips and based near Denver, Colorado, is at the center of the dispute after David Mullins and Charlie Craig attempted to order the baked good from the business last summer.

Phillips, declining to provide service after learning of the couple’s sexuality, cited his Christian beliefs. But Mullins and Craig aren’t accepting Biblical arguments as a viable basis for the refusal.

“We were all very upset, but I was angry and I felt dehumanized and mortified,” Mullins said in an interview with the Associated Press.

What was then posted by the couple on Facebook, as Gawker notes, spread like wildfire and is now making national headlines. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is also involved, having found two other couples were Phillips declined to make cakes for in the past as well. The legal group is not researching next steps in the contentious case.

Last week, the Colorado Attorney General’s office also filed a formal complaint. If the baker loses and continues to refuse service to gays and lesbians, he could be fined $500 per instance — and given up to a year in jail, his attorney claims. Phillips will stand in front of the state’s Civil Rights Commission in September.

As a person who has worked in the restaurant business for over 20 years, I am well aware that every restaurant reserves a right to refuse service to anyone. Over the years I have refused service to a small number of people who were too drunk, or disturbing other patrons. That is, and should be the right of every business owner. I have never refused anyone because of their sexuality, nor would I, frankly. And, if I ran a bakery, or a catering business, or a restaurant that hosted wedding receptions, I would not hesitate to do business with a Lesbian or Gay couple. And, to be honest, I think this bakery owner is being a bit hateful, but, that is his right.

I cannot grasp why a Gay couple would want to do business with that bakery. My attitude would be  to say “screw you, I will get a cake somewhere else”. I also do not understand where these two men get the notion that it is OK to force something upon the bakery owner. But, somewhere along the way, this Gay couple have convinced themselves that they have a right not to have their feelings hurt. They, feel they were discriminated against, and that sucks, but guess what, people on both sides of the business costumer relationship discriminate every day. That is just reality. Using the force of courts or government to force businesses to serve costumers they do not wish to serve is something we ought not to encourage. Call me crazy, but I prefer liberty.