Gay Patriot Header Image

When will liberals see?

Only days ago, Obama gave a speech in which, rather than warn us against tyranny, he warned us against the people who go around warning us against tyranny.

The IRS revelations only get worse: From the Washington Examiner yesterday (via Ed Morrissey this morning), we learn that the IRS demanded of a pro-life group – under “perjury of the law”, the IRS staffer’s words – that it not engage in legal Planned Parenthood picketing. And required another pro-life group to furnish detailed plans on its constitutionally-protected speech activities.[1]

This is the same IRS that Obama has been beefing up to enforce Obamacare by demanding ever-greater private information of citizens.

The AP snooping scandal speaks for itself. Now from the GP comments, V the K reminds us of something Obama said in 2008:

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Video here.[2]

In these disparate data points, I see a pattern: Obama wants to be a tyrant – while pretending not to. My question is, do liberals really not see the pattern?

I know that some liberals have begun seeing it – and will, for example, condemn the IRS actions – but others don’t. The other day, I noted Julian Bond saying that he thinks conservative groups deserve the IRS harassment. The execrable Bill Maher has joined the fun there.

Obama maintains his democratic pretense by periodically declaring the goodness of his intentions. For example: yes, the other day he called the IRS actions “inexcusable”.

But a troubled President Nixon, as well as actual tyrants like Chavez and worse, also frequently declared their own goodness. So many of Obama’s other words, policies, and actions of his underlings point in a direction opposite to his self-declared goodness. Do liberals really not see? Or are they part of the pretense; de facto pro-tyranny?

—————-
[1] (I don’t know the ins and outs of these tax-exemption laws, but I thought that as long as a group would refrain from electioneering for parties/candidates, it would get a pass.)
[2] Students of history will note that the Fascists also believed in having powerful civilian, national security forces, and will be troubled by the weird applause that Obama’s liberal audience gave him for proposing it.

Leading Democrats teach the opposite of the Constitution

Speaking to students at Ohio State University on May 5, President Obama said:

Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham, with which we can’t be trusted.

Obama said, in effect: Disregard people who worry about tyranny. We can have government do the things that they warn against, without it being tyranny, because we are such wonderful people – so well-intentioned – that it isn’t tyranny, when we do it.

Get it? So, when Obama has his administration lie to Americans so he can win re-election, or when he takes an increasing share of people’s incomes, or requires people to engage in private commerce that he happens to want (Obamacare mandate), or eliminates their rightful choices in the free market, or uses the IRS to obstruct his opponents and violate their privacy, or uses the Justice Department to snoop on reporters, or uses the EPA to extort fees from opponents (that progressive groups don’t have to pay – hat tip V the K), it’s not tyranny. Because it’s Obama doing it, and by his account, he can be trusted.

But the Framers of the constitution thought otherwise. They believed in checks and balances. They *were* those people who “warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner.” They founded America, by “gumming up the works.”

Perhaps Obama doesn’t know that the Framers set up the United States as a republic under a limited government, precisely because they knew that all governments tend to degenerate into tyranny. Or perhaps Obama is unaware of his own party’s President Andrew Jackson, who said that “eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty.”

Obama implies that people who warn us of tyranny are distrustful nihilists. Our only choice, Obama implies, is between continuing the crony-social-fascist gargoyle of a government that he now leads – and harmful anarchy. A typical Obama false choice (flowing from a typical Obama straw man), I’m pretty sure it has the Framers rolling in their graves.

So much for Obama. But there’s more! Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee recently said: (more…)

Thanks, lefties!

Some signs of the times:

35 public educators indicted in a massive cheating scandal. Are they unionized, by any chance? Why, yes they are.

Obama pushes banks to make subprime loans. It was a big part of the earlier housing bubble, folks, that government wanted the banks to abandon prudent lending practices. But lefties don’t need to learn from the past. When our new housing bubble bursts, they’ll just blame the banks’ alleged “greed” again.[1]

Stockton, CA bankruptcy moves forward. Old news, but worth noting. Why Stockton? Picture the busted housing bubble, combined with California-style public employee unions / pensions, mismanagement and unemployment.

Government-funded researchers wanted to prove that whites do more mass shootings – and they fluffed it. As Bob Owens notes, Asians (both Far Eastern and Middle Eastern), Hispanics and blacks are all over-represented in mass shootings, meaning that whites are kind of under-represented. But the white ones get more media coverage, for some reason.

Gun control news:

UPDATE: A guy got a sub-prime auto loan, by giving up his gun. Sub-prime lending as gun control, a leftie wet dream! :-)

([1] Actual greed would be if the bank wanted to be paid back, when it made a loan. Also known as stringent lending. It’s a good thing.)

So, are we big 10th Amendment People now?

So, as I’ve said before, I’m mostly agnostic on gay marriage (I believe the entire institution should be left to personal/familial/community/religious devices and the government should remove itself entirely from the argument lock-stock-and-barrel). That said, you can’t be gay—well, or even straight it seems—in the United States today, according to the media, and not be completely and obsessively consumed by the issue (and, natch, your opinion can only be “FOR!”).

And since SCOTUS is hearing it this week, I suppose I might as well poke a stick into the monkey cage:

If we’re supposed to oppose DOMA on states’ rights grounds, should we then oppose the effort to overturn Prop 8?

Discuss.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot) from HHQ

UPDATE
Excellent point made (and I don’t just say this because I have several captions vying for his “Best of” category) by VtheK from the comments:

This country would be so much better off if people cared as much about fiscal responsibility and economic growth as they do about giving same sex couples a piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat to legitimize their coupling.

Speaking of which, I think the time has come to push for polygamy. If gender doesn’t [matter], what’s so damned magical about the number 2?

(As for the first part, I have made this exact point many times myself, and I have much more to say about Viking’s second point, which perhaps I will anon…)

Rand Paul: The ‘Old Guard’ Attacking Me Means I’m Winning

Just some tasty red meat:

YouTube Preview Image

The interview touches on the key issue of Paul’s recent filibuster. In my own words: If the government can execute American citizens, on American soil, pre-emptively (without an active crime or combat situation and without due process), simply by designating them ‘terrorists’ first… well, who’s a terrorist? Please note that:

With such examples, we see that the Obama – Big Government – Big Banking nexus is indeed prone to labeling its domestic ideological opponents as ‘terrorists’.

Fortunately and as we know, the Obama administration did answer Paul’s filibuster with a clarification of the limits on domestic drone strikes.

[^^I can’t recall Biden’s GOP counterparts – Vice President Cheney, or VP candidates Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan – ever saying that their domestic, non-violent political opponents were terrorists. If you think any of them did, I invite you to find a solid reference and post it in the comments. Quotes about Bill Ayers won’t count, since Ayers was actually violent for awhile.]

UPDATE: Rand is on a roll. “For liberty to expand, government must shrink.” Link is timed to that line, but watch the whole thing.

McCain doesn’t get it

From last Friday on Piers Morgan (ugh), McCain complains about the flak he’s been catching, for all the flak that he himself spewed on Rand Paul’s recent filibuster:

“Well, you know, I am always intrigued by the fact that when I disagree with my own party leadership, my own president — like saying that Donald Rumsfeld ought to resign, [or] we need to do the surge — then I’m a brave maverick,” McCain said. “When I’m taking on others, then he’s just an angry old man.”

Here’s a clue for you, Mr. McCain. You are not the only one who gets to be a maverick and take principled stands that disagree with your party leadership. In fact, the year 2008 called and claimed that you ARE your party’s leadership. That would mean others get to be mavericks and take principled stands which disagree with YOU.

Or at least they should be able to, without your whining and pissing on them like a cranky old man, um, teenager.

“Mr. Paul Goes to Washingon” – the ending

Rand Paul’s filibuster ended yesterday, after 13 hours. Neither Bruce nor I were clear on how to turn off GP’s post that was counting it, so…it’s gone. We executed it (so to speak). But where did America end up?

  • Before: A poll showed that fully 41% of Democrats think the president should be able to order pre-emptive drone strikes on American soil without review or oversight (that is, “on his own” in the poll’s wording).
  • After: The Democrat-led Senate has refused to pass this resolution, “Expressing the sense of the Senate against the use of drones to execute Americans on American soil”.

I think that means: according to the Senate, if Obama decides that you are a “suspected terrorist”, he could execute you and your family in a drone strike on your home. At least, the question is open. Obama’s America, Forward!

UPDATE (from the comments): heliotrope informs us that Senator Paul has just received a letter from Attorney General Holder, writing that the president does NOT “have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil.” That’s better.

UPDATE: Republican senators McCain and Graham are clueless as ever, while liberal comedian Jon Stewart praises Rand Paul, sort of.

Pro-Life and Pro-Gay:
My Reflections on the March for Life

I had the honor and privilege to be a part of this year’s March for Life today in Washington, DC.  GOProud organized a group and we were welcomed warmly, despite the frigid temperatures.

IMG_2460

 

Despite the touch of Global Warming, the March was quite personally fulfilling to me.  I’m the one in the back, holding the sign, by the way.

Sometimes life has moments that you aren’t expecting and today was one of them.  Please note Michael, the man in front of me in the yellow coat.  He sought out GOProud today because, “I had to be here today.”  I spent a lot of time listening to Michael today and I hope that my listening was as helpful to him as his story was to me.

Michael spent the last two years in prison and now he’s trying to make things right.  He is gay and pro-life.  He ostensibly served his time because of  his principles.  Let me explain…

Michael’s sister was pregnant and her boyfriend gave her the funds to abort the baby.  His sister refused and instead used the money to buy clothes.  The boyfriend was so enraged that the baby hadn’t been aborted, that he threw Michael’s sister down the stairs, inducing a miscarriage. Michael stabbed the boyfriend in an attempt to help his sister.

I’m not in a position to judge Michael, that’s God’s role.  And I wasn’t told if the stabbing resulted in serious injury or death of the boyfriend.  But there is something admirable about a gay guy taking matters in his own hands to protect his sister from a violent attack.

Michael now makes the money he needs to live in a cheap residence by shining shoes.  After the March was over, Michael — with quite a lot of embarrassment — asked me if he could shine my shoes.  I told him that I appreciated the offer, but that I would give him the money he needed to stay in a warm home without the shoe shine.   He began to cry and we hugged each other.

Life is funny.  Which is why all life is precious.  And why the government should be protecting all rights of self-protection, not trying to restrict them or incentivize death.

 

[RELATED: Hundreds of Thousands Gather for Record-Breaking March for Life]

-Bruce (@GayPatriot) 

TONIGHT AT 9PM EASTERN:
The GayPatriot Report with guest Adam Baldwin

gaypatriottitle

Tonight, my special guest on The GayPatriot Report will be television and film actor Adam Baldwin.  He comes from a different family tree than the “other Baldwins” — so no relation to Alec.

You may remember Adam’s roles in NBC’s “Chuck” and the “Firefly” series and movie.

Tonight, I’ll be talking guns and freedom with Adam as I know this is a big passion for him.

The GayPatriot Report airs LIVE at 9PM Eastern on The 405 Radio Network.   There will be a podcast available shortly after the show is finished.

We would be happy for callers!  The toll-free number is 877-297-8022.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Media Elites Have No Shame…Nor Sense of Irony

Pity poor David Gregory of NBC News. His real crime is against intellectual honesty and integrity.

I agree with The Wall Street Journal this morning in their unsigned editorial (behind firewall, sorry), calling the notional indictment of the old-school media journo “nonsensical”. (For background on the issue, see here, and here.)
But allow me to expand on their thoughts…

The real authorities who should be after Gregory, if they existed, are the irony cops. Set aside the lost irony of an inside-the-beltway elitist self-righteously mocking Wayne LaPierre’s idea of sending armed guards to America’s schools while sending his kids to a school with…um, eleven armed guards. That sort of subtlety can easily be missed even by someone whose job it is to communicate and use the English language.

But imagine if Mr. LaPierre had been a little more astute last week when confronted with the illegal 30-round magazine Mr. Gregory was flaunting on national TV. I imagine his elevator wit has him saying something like this:

You know, David, I see you blatantly brandishing that 30-round magazine here in the District of Columbia and I know—as I’m sure you do yourself—that possession of such is a criminal offense. Now, I disagree with the law, so I’m surely not going to be a hypocrite and suggest you be hauled away to jail in the way you suggest others should be for having that. I at least do have the courage of my convictions…a courage I only wish you shared.

However, your flagrant violation of the law offers all your viewers two very telling lessons: First, that when elites like yourself speak on your high horses about denying others their rights, it rarely ever affects you. After all, that magazine is illegal in DC, but possessing it would serve your purpose, so you seem to have come across one yourself, haven’t you? Secondly, just look at how useless such laws are anyway. I’m not going to try to goad you into revealing your source, David. But I imagine you didn’t just walk into the CVS and pick that up, did you? Seems someone along the line must have disregarded and broken the law, doesn’t it?

Perhaps if those who deem themselves the arbiters of the “dialog” we’re supposed to be having about gun violence in America today were in any way interested in actually having a “dialog”, we could get somewhere.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)

Standing Up For The Electoral College

I’ve been meaning to write something on this topic for months — and I would have preferred to do so before the election.  But better late than never.

I am a fairly flexible and open-minded person, always eager to learn things I don’t know and talk to people who have different life experiences for me.  I am certainly stubborn, but I’ve always prided myself of being a voracious learner. 

That being said, there are two things that I’m an Absolutist about.  The most important — sticking to the Constitutional principles, especially the First Amendment.  I have rarely found an issue of speech come up in my life where I didn’t stick to being a First Amendment Absolutist.  I may hate the what the person is saying, I do believe that free speech has consequences and one should accept those — but I RARELY will stand behind an effort to chill speech in advance.

The second Absolutist issue for me is the quadrennially-maligned Electoral College.  Yeah, I’m a geek about it.  In my view, the problem isn’t the Electoral College system itself — but the ignorance about it (and our system of government as a whole) by the American populace at large.

It PAINS me that our system of government and the philosophy behind America’s creaton is barely taught, and openly mocked, by our public schools and universities.  We have a dumbed down electorate that doesn’t understand WHY the process is what it is.

I think there might be a way to restructure the EC to make it more workable — each Presidential candidate wins one Electoral Vote per Congressional District, then the Two “Senators” Votes if they win the State’s Popular Vote.  But aside from some reform, the College works!!

I could go on and on for days about why the Electoral College is important, relevant and critical to our Federalist system of government.  Luckily for all of you, I was rescued by a more eloquent defense of the Electoral College by Richard Posner at Slate.com

Here is Posner’s reason #2:

2) Everyone’s President
The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win. This is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president. The residents of the other regions are likely to feel disfranchised—to feel that their votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really isn’t their president.

Please read the whole thing.  And forward it to friends and family who voted but don’t know anything more about our system of government than Sandra Fluke does.   Thank you.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The Long Game

It is Sunday evening and I’ve had a very nice weekend away from the magnifying glass of politics. It has been a normal weekend: chores, laundry, dog walking & mindless television.

Sometime during the day, I started tweeting a series of ideas about where the Republican House of Representatives should go from here. My conclusion: Give Obama everything he wants.

Let’s pretend this is a parliamentary system. Let’s pretend the Democrats won and Obama was re-elected as Prime Minister. In that system, everything Obama wants would pass.

Let them have it. I’m not suggesting that Republicans of principle silence themselves and not warn about the consequences of Obama’s economic plans. Those Republicans would include Sens. Marco Rubio, Jim DeMint, Ted Cruz, Pat Toomey and Govs. Scott Walker, Susanna Martinez and Nikki Haley. Let them put their stakes of opposition forcefully and vocally in the ground.

But let the House GOP and the Senate GOP get out of the way and allow the Democrats what they want on the economy. No obstruction, perhaps a vote of “present”…. but no other sign of getting in the way.

We, as Conservatives, know that these economic policies are disaster. But Obama is right — Americans voted for higher taxes and more regulation — so let them have it.

We will win the long game. We should have allowed the economy to tank harder than it did in 2008 to begin with. And all that’s been happening since is kicking the can down the road.

So I’m in favor of a hard stop. Let the Democrats’ vision of economic “success” play itself out.

The result will be hardship the likes of which no American has faced since the 1930s. But so be it. Americans voted for it — let them have it.

Conservative policies will win in the long game.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Good Morning From RedState Gathering

I have the pleasure to be attending the 4th Annual RedState Gathering in Jacksonville, FL.

Our first speaker this morning was soon-to-be US Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz. Wow, what an inspiring person. He is so passionate about this country, it made me realize how refreshing a message that is. It seems we have been in a national funk for quite some time. As I said on Twitter recently – “Mr. President, we are tired of being exhausted. Sincerely, America.”

But Ted Cruz is optimistic — more than me, I must admit. He is definitely going to be an important addition to the United States Senate in 2013 and a great partner with his ideological and Cuban-American counterpart, Sen. Marco Rubio.

20120803-105504.jpg

I’m absorbing more than taking notes, so as always if you want a snapshot of my brain this weekend at RedState, follow me on Twitter!

Later today, we will see a preview of the new Citizens United film, “Occupy Unleashed.”

I also hear rumors that a certain video featuring chickens & lasers will be shown to the group. Heh.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

On the HHS Mandate

There’s so much to celebrate today: My beautiful home state turns 136 today, Michael Phelps has made history with his 19th medal on behalf of America, and Ted Cruz not only won, but schwacked establishment candidate Lt. Governor David Dewhurst by a margin of over 13 percentage points in yesterday’s Texas GOP runoff, sending a clear message that the Constitution is back in business (or will be, come January) in the US Senate.

However, I have to admit, today is a sad dark day for America.

While Youcef Nadarkhani spends his 1024th day in an Iranian prison for the crime of having become a Christian, our Nation took another chip out of the rock of religious liberties as well. Surely we cannot compare the offense to religious freedoms that President Obama’s and Kathleen Sebelius’ mandate that employers abdicate their First Amendment rights (which goes in effect today) to those of Pastor Nadarkhani. But while mayors across the country attempt to deny a business owner his Due Process and First Amendment rights, today calls attention to just how far we’ve come in our Nation.

I actually woke this morning to a fraternity brother’s post on his Facebook page that read:

Btw american women everywhere, congratulations!

Today your insurance plans MUST ‘cover specific preventive health services for women without cost-sharing, such as deductibles, copayments and coinsurance. These services include well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, domestic violence screening, STD screening and contraceptives.’

I caution those who would vote for romney (especially women who would vote for romney) to recognize the implications of a repeal. We would eliminate the gains that have been made today, and will continue to be made by the landmark legislation for the next 5 years.

As offensive as it is to someone like me who’s pro-life to see someone write in literally congratulatory tones about the growth and spread of abortion, this is also symbolic of just how far we’ve come. (more…)

Clearly….

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 2:44 pm - June 28, 2012.
Filed under: Constitutional Issues,Supreme Court

I was wrong….

Lesson learned:  Don’t use Sudoku to try to figure out what is in Chief Justice John Roberts’ head.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

DECISION DAY

We are nearing the top of the hour of 10 o’clock here on the East Coast. The first big decision today — SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare — will be known within the next 30 minutes.

And later today, the U.S. Attorney General will be held in contempt of Congress in a bi-partisan vote.

It is an historic day in Washington, DC. Stay here for analysis and discussion all day long.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Bruce’s Obamacare Prediction

See here, I’m going out on a big limb. I’m going to use my power of Sudoku-winning to cast my vote on how SCOTUS will rule on Obamacare. Just to be fair, I am a master at Sudoku and I use my skill of “if it can’t be THIS…it must be THAT” in order to chose my numbers. It is a combination of logic and realizing at some point that there’s no other alternative.

So here goes….

Chief Justice John Roberts hasn’t written an opinion yet this session.  My Sudoku instincts say he’s going to write the Obamacare ruling.  If that’s the case, it is going to be a BIG ruling.  So if you accept that premise (which is debatable, of course), then here is how I think it will go down.

  1. Obamacare will be entirely overturned.  If it was just the mandate, Roberts would leave Kennedy to writing it (or Scalia).  But this is going to be a bigger decision.
  2. I believe there is a better than 60% chance that it will be a 6-3 decision, including Kennedy & (wait for it) Sotomayor.  Again, if Roberts is writing the opinion that leads me to think that it will be a bigger than 5-4 ruling.
  3. Scalia hinted recently that in the much lauded ‘Commerce Clause’ case involving marijuana, he erred.   I think that this is a hint that the Roberts Court is going to make a much broader ruling on the Commerce Clause itself which (demonstrated by Obamacare) threatens the very nature of the Federalist system that our Founders carefully crafted.
  4. The Arizona immigration ruling was interesting today.  It didn’t so much say what Arizona was doing was unconstitutional, it said that a STATE doing those things was the problem.  SCOTUS told the Obama Administration today, “Hey! Immigration is your deal and you aren’t doing your job.  Do it, schmucks!”
  5. Keeping #4 in mind, I think the Roberts Majority will be consistent on Obamacare and say on Thursday:  “Obama & Pelosi, you ignorant sluts!  You can’t do this! Stick to what is the domain of the Federal Government and stop meddling in the affairs of individuals & States on matters you have no Constitutional authority to do so.”

So there it is.  If I’m right — it is all right here for me to brag about for the rest of my life.

If I’m wrong, you can all laugh at me for 24 hours — and then after than no one will care.

Win-win! 

UPDATE:  I forgot #6 – I think another clue that this will be a major anti-Commerce Clause decision and that Roberts is the author due to the fact that they are holding it until the last day of the session.  And if Roberts IS the author, due to seniority, it will be THE last case released on Thursday.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

“lawyers only assert lousy claims of privilege when they have something to hide”

A number of conservative bloggers have addressed the merits of the “administration’s assertion of executive privilege with respect to Fast and Furious documents”.  In this post, my friend John Hinderaker called that assertion “frivolous”:

Holder’s letter is a remarkable document. Viewed from a strictly technical standpoint, it is a terrible piece of legal work.

If you have time, read the whole thing.  In a followup post, he “pointed out that lawyers only assert lousy claims of privilege when they have something to hide“:

So the presumption that there is damaging information in the documents the administration refuses to produce is very strong. In his defense, Eric Holder merely asks that we trust him. But why should we? The administration’s track record with respect to Fast and Furious–and Eric Holder’s, in particular–is one of serial attempts to deceive. Let’s itemize three instances.

Once again, read the whole thing.

Did First Circuit Use 10th Amendment to Strike Down Portions of the Defense of Marriage Act?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:36 pm - May 31, 2012.
Filed under: Constitutional Issues,Gay Marriage

At first blush, the First Circuit ruling overturning portions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), those denying “federal benefits to married gay couples”, appears to be on shaky legal ground:  “In its unanimous decision, the three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman deprives gay couples of the rights and privileges granted to heterosexual couples.

There is no constitutional right to those privileges.

That said, there is the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  Later in the AP article cited above, we read:

The court, the first federal appeals panel to deem the benefits section of the law unconstitutional, agreed with a lower level judge who ruled in 2010 that the law interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.

. . . .

“One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage,” Judge Michael Boudin wrote for the court. “Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress’ denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest.

Emphasis added.  Now, while I might quibble with Judge Boudin’s language, he said, “legalize” when he clearly meant “recognize”, he does seem to be on solid Tenth Amendment grounds here.

The court points out that,” observes Ed Morrissey helping get a the point about the judge’s language, “contra some hysteria among activists, DOMA does not invalidate marriages, but it gives states leeway to disregard marriages performed in other states, and puts the federal government in the position of denying the validity of such marriages”.   Indeed.  If a state “disregards” a marriage, they just don’t grant it privileges, but it still remains valid — or should — in the eyes of those who define themselves as married.

Now to check Volokh for some sound legal analysis.  UPDATE:  Dale Carpenter has a short post on the decision, observing(more…)

Bloggers Descend on Charlotte!

Good morning from the center of the right-leaning blogosphere this weekend! Yep, BlogCon has occupied Charlotte, NC today and tomorrow for two days of information, fun & networking.

So a hearty welcome to the Queen City (no jokes, puh-lease!)

PatriotPartner (John) and I will be attending the sessions today and tomorrow and we were so thrilled to see everyone last night at the BlogBash party at RiRa Irish Pub.

Watch for updates from Twitter. And occasional posts from me here. Maybe photos, too!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)