Because there is no other important business to attend to, over a hundred Congress-drones have petitioned the State Department to force other countries to accept gay marriage.
One hundred and twenty-five members of Congress asked Secretary of State John Kerry in a letter Monday to deny visas to diplomats’ spouses if the envoys come from a country that doesn’t recognize same-sex spouses of State Department personnel.
The lawmakers who wrote Kerry on Monday argued that countries which don’t recognize spouses of gay foreign service officers “hamper the professional growth” of the diplomats and “threaten the Department’s ability to ensure that it can place the best, most qualified person in each position.”
“We cannot look the other way when an American diplomatic spouse — any American diplomatic spouse — is discriminated against in this way… In countries that maintain legalized forms of racism, sexism, or other types of bias, we believe the State Department should take a proactive role in demonstrating America’s deep commitment to equality, dignity, and diversity,” they continued.
Among the petitioners are the many of same Democrats who insist it would be wrong to tie foreign aid to market and political reforms, because that would be “imposing American values on other cultures.” The folks also believe that it’s wrong to expect foreigners who immigrate to the USA to assimilate into our culture, or even learn our language.
But, what the hell, the Obama-Kerry State Department decided a long time ago that pandering to Lesbian Gay Bullying Totalitarians (LGBT) in the USA was a far more important mission than representing American interests around the world.
On a related note, the political appointment of dim-but-well-connected Democrat to the post of US Ambassador to Japan has worked out about as well as … frankly, as when a dim-but-well-connected Democrat hack was put in charge of the Office of Personnel Management and now some Chinese hackers have my SF-84 … which is as conservatives predicted it would.
This seems like a rather unpleasant mess.
WNBA star Brittany Griner was back in court Monday trying to convince a judge she should not have to pay alimony to her ex-wife, basketball player Glory Johnson.
In court, Johnson’s lawyers argued because she’s pregnant with twins, via an IVF procedure she underwent while still with Griner, her doctor won’t clear her to play basketball so she won’t get paid.
She’s asking $7,000 a month for her food budget and $6,000 for hired help and the rest to live on.
I have some problems with this story. I mean, can anyone in the WNBA really be considered a “star?”
Flush from their victory in the Supreme Court, politically active gay leftists are now demanding that Government embrace the legal fiction that two men or two women can create babies.
Three same-sex couples sued Arkansas health officials Monday for refusing to name both spouses on their children’s birth certificates, arguing the state is violating their constitutional rights after gay marriage was legalized nationwide.
Radical Lefties are trying to force Native Americans to accept gay marriage, because tribal law is exempt from the Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage dictates. This is kind of ironic when you consider how outraged radical lefties get about how wrong it is to force non-white cultures to accept white social values like “hard work” and “reason as the basis for decision-making.”
Notice, they never try this with Mohammedans.
A Montana polygamist family has filed for a marriage license.
It has already been decided in the Supreme Court (Reynolds v. United States) that anti bigamy laws are Constitutional. But that was before Justice Kennedy discovered a right to “Dignity” somewhere in the Constitution, and further concluded that the Constitution compels the states to recognize, certify and validate any relationship between people claiming to love each other.
One expects the gay marriage activists, having pushed open the door to redefining marriage while claiming there was no such thing as a slippery slope, to shrug this off with a “not our fight” while they push on to other things; like pushing the progressive socialist agenda.
Here is what this queer movement is doing next:We are queering Living Wages and Affordable Healthcare and Transgender Justice and Getting Old Queerly and Total Immigration Access and HIV Activism and Ending Incarceration and the Possibility of Dangerous Sexual Desires. We need to create a movement that says: Join us. Dream with us. Dare with us. Go for broke. Change the world.
State-sanctioned gay marriage came with a pretty big price tag; all your liberties belong to the State now, and as such are subject to state regulation now. And the politicians you elected because they were ‘gay-friendly’ are going to import tens of millions of units of cheap foreign labor to suppress your income, while strangling the American economy in regulation. Their welfare policies will continue to drive the Government into an inevitably Greek bankruptcy. The activist groups you designated as ‘allies’ now want to turn criminals loose on the streets to prey on you. And I don’t even want to ponder what they mean by “Dangerous Sexual Desires.”
I hope it was worth it.
The Atlantic has the madz because there wasn’t enough cheering for the Supreme Court’s gay marriage order.
The vast majority of teams from the four major professional sports leagues in the United States stayed curiously silent after Friday’s landmark same-sex marriage ruling.
Because it’s the job of the professional sports industry to cheer for gay rights, apparently.
While American gays were wallowing in self-centered narcissism and spite…
On Friday my phone was blowing up with messages, asking if I’d seen the news. Some expressed disbelief at the headlines. Many said they were crying.
None of them were talking about the dozens of people gunned down in Sousse, Tunisia, by a man who, dressed as a tourist, had hidden his Kalashnikov inside a beach umbrella. Not one was crying over the beheading in a terrorist attack at a chemical factory near Lyon, France. The victim’s head was found on a pike near the factory, his body covered with Arabic inscriptions. And no Facebook friends mentioned the first suicide bombing in Kuwait in more than two decades, in which 27 people were murdered in one of the oldest Shiite mosques in the country.
They were talking about the only news that mattered: gay marriage.
Not all the gay lefties were high-fiving each other; some were being bitter and hateful. So, I guess, it was just another day to them.
Gay marriage is
legal mandatory now in all 50 states, so why not polygamy?
Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals?” he writes. “The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.”
DeBoer agrees with Chief Justice John Roberts that the reasoning in Obergefell v. Hodges could just as easily apply to polygamous marriages as gay marriages. He notes that now that child-rearing has been rejected as the rationale for marriage, traditional arguments against polygamy have been weakened.
It’s hard to find fault with his reasoning.
Was asked this morning if now that the gay rights special interests have what they want, they will be happy?
Of course they will not be happy. They cannot afford to be happy. Does anyone really expect the Professional Activist Class to fold their tents and look for jobs in the Obama economy just because five social justice warriors in black robes have usurped democracy to impose their preferred social policies on a nation of 330 Million?
Does anyone expect the gay left to be gracious toward their defeated opponents? If you were taught about American history in a pre-Common Core school, you know how the victors treated the defeated after the last civil war. If not, Google “Reconstruction.” (Spoiler alert: Not very well.) Or simply consider the recent experiences of Christian bakers and florists who did not wish to participate in gay weddings.
Does anyone expect the activist left to be satisfied with their political victory? If you’ve studied the history of the Civil Rights movement, you know they didn’t stop after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. There are plenty of new frontiers for the Lesbian Gay Bullying Totalitarians to pursue and keep the donations to the Sharptons and Jacksons of the HRC and other professional activist organizations rolling in:
- Banning disagreement or criticisms of gay behavior through “anti-bullying” and “hate speech” legislation
- Mandating school curricula to include “gay history” as well as museums and monuments to be demanded to gay heroes like Harry Hay, Larry Bruckner, and Harvey Milk
- Forcing religious institutions to recognize gay marriages
- Churches must be forced to perform gay marriages or lose tax exempt status. (Mosques, probably not)
No, this is not the end. This is nowhere near the end. This is just another milestone on the road to our social Pyongyang. The Supreme Court has rejected the rule of law twice in two days in favor of the whims of a Judiciary Politburo.
Here’s some irony for ya, though. In Justice Roberts’s dissent, he writes “Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. ” Which is exactly right, but in his Obamacare ruling yesterday, he was arguing the exact opposite.
Jazz Shaw at HotAir seems to think that losing the same sex marriage case before the Supreme Court would be good for conservatism because it would rally the base or something.
So what happens when (assuming it does) five, six or seven justices vote in favor of gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges? Do you honestly think that everyone is going to shrug their shoulders, suddenly realize they were wrong all along and just go home? I highly doubt it. In fact, in many of the states where the voters are most closely divided, it’s going to energize the base with an even greater interest in stopping more liberal appointments to the court in the next term. Conversely, if gay marriage is struck down at the federal level, the battle will shift back to the states and places like Florida will see a massive surge in activity by liberal, pro-gay marriage advocates eager to fight it out from state to state to state.
Personally, I’m with the professional court watchers on this one. I expect the court to find in favor of gay marriage. But conservatives shouldn’t be rending their garments too heavily just yet. In terms of political fortunes, it may just put more gas in your tank.
Alternately, the effect of a loss might also demoralize the conservative base even further than it has been given its repeated betrayals and abandonment by the national GOP. As, is likely, the pro SSM side prevails in the SCOTUS, the state will have successfully deconstructed the family (a process begun in the 1960′s with the expansion of welfare and the sexual revolution) deconstructed marriage, and even deconstructed the very definition of what it means to be a man or a woman. The left will march triumphantly through the ruins.
When the courts appoint for themselves the power to decide issues that ought to be decided democratically, it tends to drive wedges even harder into the divisions of society.
In Alabama, a bill abolishing marriage licenses has passed the Senate and is headed for the house. The link is here, and it’s pretty obvious the reporter hates the idea.
The bill would replace marriage licenses with contracts filed at the courthouse. Getting the state out of the marriage business entirely was what many of us suggested would be the best way to deal with the radical redefinition of the institution sought by the progressive left.
Isn’t it great that Ireland actually put gay marriage to a vote of the people, instead of letting a handful of appointed judges force their policy preferences on everybody undemocratically?
Now, let’s just sit back and see how quickly Irish gays devolve into fascistic bullying.
So, a Canadian jeweler went against his religious beliefs and complied when lesbians demand that he custom-make wedding rings for them.
But the mob turned on him anyway.
This Christian jeweler agreed to custom-make engagement rings for a lesbian couple, knowing that they were a couple, and treated them politely. But when they found out what he really believed about same-sex marriage, even though the man gave them polite service, and agreed to sell them what they asked for, the lesbian couple balked, and demanded their money back — and the mob threatened the business if they didn’t yield. Which, of course, he did.
It’s not enough for a Christian business to provide service even when it contradicts his moral values, you must celebrate gaydom in all its forms or you will be punished.
Hat Tip: AOSHQ
Hugh Hewitt asked Ted Cruz the most important question to the American news media. Not, how would you handle the $20 Trillion dollars in debt Obama is leaving? Not, how would you handle the nuclear-armed Iran Obama is leaving? Not, how would you deal with the chaos in the Middle East Obama is leaving? Not, how would you restore the devastated economy Obama is leaving? Or, how would you restore the rule of law after Obama’s lawless regime?
No, Hugh Hewitt asked the really important question. “Would you attend a gay wedding?” And this is the meat of his answer.
Well, I will tell you, I haven’t faced that circumstance. I have not had a loved one go to a, have a gay wedding.
I’m a Constitutionalist. And under the Constitution, from the beginning of this country, marriage has been a question for the states. It has been a question for elected legislatures in each of the 50 states. And what we’ve seen in recent years from the left is the federal government and unelected federal judges imposing their own policy preferences to tear down the marriage laws of the states.”
And so if someone is running for public office, it is perfectly legitimate to ask them their views on whether they’re willing to defend the Constitution, which leaves marriage to the states, or whether they want to impose their own extreme policy views like so many on the left are doing, like Barack Obama does, like Hillary Clinton does. That’s what we would be doing.
People sexing dolphins? Why not?
A man who had sex with a performing dolphin at an amusement park in the 1970s has claimed the encounter took place because the animal seduced him.
Malcolm Brenner, 63, claims that he fell for Dolly, a bottlenose dolphin who lived at the now-defunct Floridaland theme park in Sarasota, after her amorous advances.
Brenner told the story of their year-long affair relationship again in Dolphin Love, a new film which premiered last week at the Slamdance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.
Slamdance, which takes place at the same time as the more famous Sundance film festival, is seen as its edgier alternative and hosts more niche films.
Question: Is it really enough to just tolerate people having sex with animals, or to really be inclusive, do we need to support full inter-species marriage rights? Because, you know, if somewhere a teenager gets caught getting intimate with a sheep or a calf or something, and then they commit suicide because of society’s intolerance… then isn’t their blood on the hands of everyone who opposes inter-species marriage?
In New York, an eighteen year old woman is planning on getting married to her biological father, who is also the man she lost her virginity to.
We stopped and said that we didn’t know what was going on but admitted that we had strong feelings for each other. We discussed whether it was wrong and then we kissed. And then we made out, and then we made love for the first time. That was when I lost my virginity.
I seem to recall gay marriage activists claiming that the idea that something like this would happen was ludicrous right-wing scaremongering.
Now that it’s actually happening, they’ll shrug it off as “no big deal.”
Indiana has become the latest state to produce legislation protecting Christian bakers, photographers, florists and others with legitimate moral objections from being forced to participate in gay marriages. Sadly, the Gay Progressive Left (Wedding Cake Fascists) have forced this legislation to become necessary because of gay couples who decided their “Special Day” just wasn’t complete unless they could force unsupportive Christians (but curiously, never Mohammedans) to participate.
The Progressive Fascist Left is claiming that this type of legislation will lead to firemen and EMT’s refusing to provide treatment to gay people, (speaking as the father of an EMT, this is boolsheet). But then, these are the same people who swore that Christians would not be forced to participate in gay weddings, so why should we believe a single damn world that comes out of their lying pie-holes?’
Democrats opposed to the bill claim that legislators should focus on more important things, like condemning the Washington Redskins as racist.
Some of us have been intellectually honest and consistent in our opposition to the usurpation of power by the president and the loss of individual liberty. But as [Weird Dave] at AoS HQ points out. if you were okay with gay marriage being imposed by judicial fiat, you have forfeited your right to complain about Amnesty imposed by Executive fiat.
When you bitched and ranted about presidential usurpation of legislative prerogatives, however, I find it hard to take you seriously. It’s not that you’re wrong, gods no, it’s just that I remember you crowing about judicial usurpation of legislative authority on the issue of gay marriage. “We’ve got 35 states now!” you said triumphantly a few weeks back when the latest ruling was issued.
It’s all about the loss of liberty; which a lot of people are okay with so long as the Oligarchy is imposing those things that they want to see imposed. The bad news is, once you have summoned this demon, you won’t be able to control it.
If blind pursuit of short term goals achieves them at the cost of destroying the larger societal structure, and we fall into totalitarianism, what then? Can you name one totalitarian regime in history that has been kind to minorities or homosexuals? I can’t think of any. Can you?
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld gay marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio,
Indiana Tennessee, and Kentucky… embracing the radical, extremist view that the people and their democratically-elected legislators have the right to define social institutions such as marriage.
Yesterday, a three judge panel upheld same sex marriage bans in four states. The judges writing for the majority banked their opinion not on the merits of same sex marriage, but whether or not the decision to allow same sex marriage should be left to the states and the people, or to judges applying the Constitution generally.
It now goes to the Supreme Court (most likely), where the persistence of liberty will depend on … how much John Roberts wants to be loved by the NY Times editorial page.