As expected, some of our savvier readers understood why I posed the thought experiment about a hypothetical business decision in Wisconsin in a post yesterday.  I was addressing both the failure of the state of California to defend Proposition 8 and of the federal government to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Not to mention the hissy fit HRC and its allies threw when the House of Representatives attempted to retain the law firm of King and Spalding to defend the constitutionality of a law overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed by a (Democratic) President.

Now, I don’t like that law and grant that some of DOMA’s provisions may indeed violate the “full fail and credit” clause of the constitution.  I think Congress should overturn it.  But, it is the law of the land.

I have many more thoughts on this issue and expect to address them in due time.  But, my father is in town and family takes precedence over politics.  So, while he and his wife are taking a nap to recover from jet lag, I have a brief moment to blog — and to take care of other pressing tasks.

As always, Jennifer Rubin can be counted on for insightful observations on a controversial matter.   She has posted, by my count, five pieces on the matter. Calling DOMA “rotten legislation“, she still believes its supporters have the right to defend it and faults the left for favoring “politically bullying to deter lawyers from representing clients it doesn’t like”.  Also read her subsequent posts on why King & Spalding decided to drop their defense of DOMA here, here, here and here.

Glenn Reynolds has a mini-roundup here.

Stacey McCain wonders what happens “When You Give in to Thuggery” and places before us the common sense of the matter in terms so plain and simple that we all can understand what’s at stake:

It is important to understand that the heart of the question raised by the King & Spalding decision is not whether we approve or disapprove of homosexuality, or even whether we support or oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. What is at issue is whether the concept of “gay rights” should empower advocates of that agenda to bully and intimidate their critics.

John Hinderaker faults the left for politicizing the practice of law. (more…)

Over at the Washington Examiner, Philip Klein has a good analysis of a “a new USA Today/Gallup poll” which shows that, by and large, Republican arguments on spending are resonating with the American people:

This survey comes on the heels of a New York Times/CBS poll finding a plurality of Americans supporting the Ryan budget. While it’s far too early for either side to declare victory in the early stages of a long-term budget fight, we now have multiple polls suggesting that proposing changes to entitlement programs is not as politically toxic as we have been led to believe.

After the Ryan budget was proposed, Democrats were salivating and it became conventional wisdom that these programs still enjoyed their third-rail status and thus the GOP was taking a big risk by embracing changes to them. But if the opposite is true, and Democratic scare tactics prove ineffective, it will shatter a dynamic that has existed for decades that have made these programs untouchable in Washington.

To be sure, he notes, some Democratic critiques are resonating.  ”Two-thirds of Americans,” for example, “worry the Republican plan for reducing the budget deficit would cut Medicare and Social Security too much.”

That said, the real point to bear in mind that Klein raises in the last line quoted above.  We may well be experiencing a paradigm shift in American politics, where, in times of crisis, American people see spending cuts and fiscal solvency as the driving issues, rather than increased government spending as a necessary stimulus.  This paradigm has been shifting for thirty years — at least.  Only it’s started to become particularly manifest in the past two years, with increasing popular opposition to the president’s big-spending initiatives.