Try Some Actual Legal History, Senator Lee
Bill Quick

How Conservatives Should Respond To The Court’s Marriage Decision

If five judges on the Supreme Court have pronounced, in a breathtaking presumption of power, that all fifty states must redefine marriage, what does that mean for the countless institutions within our civil society – churches and synagogues, charities and adoption agencies, counseling services and religiously affiliated schools – that are made up of American citizens who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman?

Here is how I – and the Supreme Court – respond to Senator (and lawyer) Mike Lee:

Loving v. Virginia | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge, and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

In Naim, the state court concluded that the State’s legitimate purposes were “to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens,” and to prevent “the corruption of blood,” “a mongrel breed of citizens,” and “the obliteration of racial pride,” obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. Id. at 90, 87 S.E.2d at 756. The court also reasoned that marriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation without federal intervention, and, consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control by the Tenth Amendment.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma,316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill,125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

It is so ordered.

And there, in a single stroke, SCOTUS “redefined marriage” for 16 states.  Why don’t you thump your tub against that one, too, Senator Lee?

Some asshole on CNN is already leading the way:

After Marriage Equality Decision, Fox Analyst Questions Civil Rights Precedent On Integration, Interracial Marriage | Video | Media Matters for America

JULIE ROGINSKY: I’m dying. Look, we’ve had this before, Loving V. Virginia, which allowed and legalized marriage between a black man and a white woman, or vice versa, I don’t remember who was who in that situation. That came from the courts. And there was a religious furor about it and people used religion back then, as ridiculous as it sounds, to say that we shouldn’t have mixed races, we shouldn’t promulgate biracial families. And the reality is it was done by the courts. Can you explain to me how this is any different? Love is love and people should marry whom they want and I don’t understand how that’s not —

AIDALA : That’s not the argument I’m making. The argument I’m making is the court is not the proper branch —

ROGINSKY: But, they’ve done it before.

AIDALA: So they’ve made mistakes before, that doesn’t mean you should make mistakes again.

Yep.  Loving was a mistake.  Brown v Board of Edu was a mistake.  The Civil Rights Acts were a mistake.  Hell, the Civil War was a mistake.

Racists and bigots hate it when their power begins to slip.  And it is slipping away – thank goodness.  But not fast enough for me.

#JustTwoWords

Blu-Ray Bestsellers At Amazon
Bill Quick

The Bestselling New Blu-Ray Releases at Amazon

They update this list hourly, so keep on checking.

Remember – anything you buy from Amazon through any link on this site puts a commission in my pocket, at no cost to yourself, so thank you very much! Also, arf! from the Presidential Pomeranian.

The Old Order Fades
Bill Quick

I’ve said for a long time that I believed that the fight to eliminate anti-gay discrimination in jobs, housing, education, and public accommodations was more important than the gay marriage fight, but that opinion is moot now. 

Yet I still wholeheartedly support ending that sort of discrimination.

Next Fight for Gay Rights: Bias in Jobs and Housing – The New York Times

But some disagreements, especially involving private businesses, may be unbridgeable. The major gay and civil rights groups are united in their opposition to “religious liberty” bills, a priority of conservative Christian advocates, which would allow religious vendors to refuse to serve gay couples or wedding celebrations.

Let’s be honest.  Wedding cakes and photographers aren’t the real issue here, any more than such issues are what the socon religious anti-gay movement is really all about.  These folks desperately want to continue to be able to deny housing, jobs, education, or public accommodations of any sort to gay people because they are bone-deep bigots when it comes to homosexuals.

They want to be able to post “We don’t rent to gays” on their apartment buildings.  They want to put “we don’t sell to gays” in their homeowner covenants.  They want to put signs on their businesses:  “No gays allowed.”  And they want their state-supported schools to be able to refuse to educate gay students.

This isn’t some silly dispute about cakes or rings.  This is the anti-gay movement’s last, best hope to keep on discriminating against gays in ways they would not be allowed to do with anybody else on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

They will fail here, as well, I expect, and because of Obergefell, likely sooner rather than later.

Please forward your “absolute right of free association” arguments to somebody who gives a shit, and wants to mutter about a fantasy that never has existed, and never will exist, because human nature will not permit it to exist.

 

Apple, Leading the Way (Back to the 20th Century)
Bill Quick

Ryan Seacrest’s iPad keyboard is surprisingly good, but expensive

It’s hard to expect much from Typo, a company that was co-founded by Ryan Seacrest and whose legal tango with BlackBerry has forced it to stop selling phone keyboards. But with its new iPad keyboard, Typo has at least proven it’s worth keeping an eye on. For $189, you get a Bluetooth keyboard that actually feels like a decent laptop keyboard, as well as a cover to protect your iPad. There’s no shortage of iPad keyboards on the market, but Typo’s offering might be compelling to anyone who wants a premium laptop-like experience with their iPad. The only problem? It’s far too expensive for what you get.

Man, I really don’t understand why there is a market for overpriced, clunky junk like this.

Oh, wait.  Yes, I do.  It’s because Apple doesn’t make a touch-screen notebook-laptop

Because revolutionary.  And for the rest of us.

 

Historical Hysteria
Bill Quick

In a fast-changing culture, can the GOP get in step with modern America? – The Washington Post

Then came Friday’s landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. As rainbow colors bathed the White House and other landmarks in celebration, the entire field of Republican presidential candidates condemned the ruling.

Actually, this is not true:

Rand Paul silent on gay marriage ruling – Daniel Strauss – POLITICO

But well over 24 hours after the Supreme Court’s historic ruling making same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states, one Republican 2016 candidate has thus far remained silent: Rand Paul.

I’m sure he’ll have something to say soon, though.

And I hope it’s not as historically ignorant as this:

Rand Paul silent on gay marriage ruling – Daniel Strauss – POLITICO

In a 2013 interview with the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, Paul voiced reservations about “federalizing” same-sex marriage.

“I’m not sure exactly how I’d come down on the federalization part,” Paul said in the January 2013 interview. “My fear is that in federalizing it, we’re going to lose the battle for the whole country. In keeping it state by state, which is the way marriage has always been adjudicated, we’ll have states that continue to have traditional marriage. I think we’re losing in large areas of the country now. If the urban areas are able to dictate, for the rest of the country, what our definition of marriage is, I’m really concerned about that.”

Almost fifty years ago, SCOTUS did exactly that in 16 states which barred inter-racial marriages.  How do you feel about that one, Senator Paul?

And then there is this, from 137 years ago:

Reynolds v. United States – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Court considered whether Reynolds could use religious belief or duty as a defense. Reynolds had argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible.

The Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it held that the law prohibiting bigamy did not meet that standard. The principle that a person could only be married singly, not plurally, existed since the times of King James I of England in English law, upon which United States law was based.

The Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States and quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former “lies solely between man and his God,” therefore “the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions.” The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and “to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.

And with the snap of a SCOTUS opinion, an entire form of marriage, widely practiced and valid over much of the world, was declared to be illegal in all the states.

You’re entitled to your own opinions, Senator Paul.  But not to your own history.

Yeah, Sure. Pull the Other One
Bill Quick

Charter: We won’t impose data caps after buying Time Warner Cable | Ars Technica

Charter yesterday promised that it won’t impose any data caps or overage charges on customers for at least three years if the Federal Communications Commission allows it to buy Time Warner Cable.

Charter also said it will offer service to one million homes that are in the combined companies’ franchise areas but haven’t been served yet.

They’re lying, of course.  They’re at least as bad as all the politicians they buy and sell like pork roasts.

Huckster Piles It Deeper and Higher
Bill Quick

Huckabee: If Obama WH Can Put Up Rainbow Lights, Don’t Complain If I Put Up Nativity | Mediaite

Mike Huckabee isn’t particularly thrilled about the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, even going so far as to declare people should outright reject and states should fight back against the ruling. On ABC’s This Week today, Huckabee asked if liberals would be similarly okay if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of personhood for the unborn.

Given that only about 15% of Americans support what you want, Huckster – making abortion illegal in all cases – my guess is that not just liberals would not be okay with it.  More than a few conservatives would be not okay as well.

George Stephanopoulos asked Huckabee if he would just outright refuse to enforce the decision as president. Huckabee didn’t give a firm yes or not, but did say he would consider it.

He brought up the rainbow lights the White House put up on Friday and said, “If I become president, I just want to remind people that please don’t complain if I were to put a nativity scene out during Christmas.”

Because why?  Support for gay civil rights is a religious symbol, just like baby Jesus stuff?

They don’t call him The Huckster for nothing. 

Say….Where Have I Heard Something Like This Before?
Bill Quick

Graham: GOP Should Take Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment Out of Platform – NBC News

Echoing former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, Graham argued that Republicans should abandon that official 2012 position. Graham continued, “What I want to do is protect the religious liberties of those who believe that opposing same sex marriage as part of their faith. So no I would not engage in the Constitutional amendment process as a party going into 2016. Accept the Court’s ruling. Fight for the religious liberties of every American.”

It figures that Graham and Bush, both southerners, would come up with this strategy:

Black Codes (United States) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With legal prohibitions of slavery ordered by the Emancipation Proclamation, acts of state legislature, and eventually the Thirteenth Amendment, Southern states adopted new laws to regulate Black life. Although these laws had different official titles, they were (and are) commonly known as Black Codes. (The term originated from “negro leaders and the Republican organs” according to Confederate historian[1][2] John S. Reynolds.)[3] The defining feature of the Black Codes was vagrancy law which allowed local authorities to arrest freed people and commit them to involuntary labor.

In other words, “Okay, we lost in the Supreme Court and the court of public opinion, and that’s not likely to change.  So now we fall back to the position that even though we lost, and that legally gays are humans just like the rest of us, we want to find ways to go right on treating them exactly as we always have, and to hell with court decisions.  We think the best way to accomplish this might be to beat the “religious liberty” drum.  We need some Gay Codes to protect our churchgoing bigots from having to obey laws requiring them to treat gays like anybody else.”

Also, as a more practical political strategy, this approach allows them to split the baby:  They lose the open gay-hatred plank in their platform that is now an obvious political loser for them, but at the same time still have a shot at keeping the (shrinking) religious bigot part of their base on board.

Smart.  Despicable, but smart.

In This Corner, Donald Trump. In That Corner, a Bunch of Punked Mexicans
Bill Quick

Univision’s Attack on Donald Trump Backfires

Question. Is Univision trying to elect Donald Trump President of the United States?

Answer? Yes, apparently.

Trump is surging in the polls on the very basis of his blunt criticisms of the Obama administration’s conduct of foreign affairs and the GOP Establishment’s woeful performance on issues – dealings with Mexico over the southern border and on trade but two of those issues.

Now, in a scenario that couldn’t have been scripted by Trump himself, Univision abruptly hands Trump an issue that gives him a chance to, as it were, provide a glimpse of a President Trump in action.

Whatever were Univision execs thinking?

They were thinking that Trump, like every other GOP politician, would fall all over himself to kiss their asses and beg forgiveness.

They didn’t “hand” this issue to Trump.  He jerked it from their hands and is beating them bloody with it.

Can you picture Jeb! or Rubio, or Cruz, or the Huckster, or Walker, or Perry doing this?  The Mexican mistake here was in not understanding who they were dealing with.  They thought they were dealing with just another lying, desperate-for-scamnesty GOP pussy-punk.  Instead, they latched onto a full-blown thug billionaire who really doesn’t give a shit, and who always brings a gun to a knife fight.

Hey.  Did you remember to bring the popcorn like I told you?

At Amazon: The Digital Dime Store
Bill Quick

Remember, you can buy and give digital gifts like music and books on the same day, even on Christmas day itself!

Here are several links that feature the equivalent of the Amazon Digital Dime Store (for you geezers old enough to remember what a dime store was….).

The Kindle Daily Deal

This Week’s Featured .99 Songs

100 Albums for $5

100 Kindle Books for $3.99 Or Less

Remember – anything you buy from Amazon through any link on this site puts a commission in my pocket, at no cost to yourself, so thank you very much! Also, arf! from the Presidential Pomeranian.

Odd. I Would Have Guessed a Higher Number, Based on Results In Other Fields
Bill Quick

Study claims 1 in 4 cancer research papers contains faked data | Ars Technica

You could be forgiven for thinking there’s a bit of a crisis going on in biomedical science these days. Tenured academic positions are few and far between—and are often dependent upon the researcher’s success in obtaining scarce funding. The pressure to succeed, measured by publications, is sometimes blamed for leading less-scrupulous scientists to break the rules. A new paper by Morton Oskvold, a Norwegian scientist, will fan those flames, as it makes the bold claim that 25 percent of cancer biology papers contain duplicated data. Is something rotten in our research labs?

Only 25%?  Come on.

They’ll Tell You What They Fear
Bill Quick

Wayback Machine’s 485 billion web pages blocked by Russian government order | Ars Technica

The Internet Archive—including its Wayback Machine, which currently stores 485 billion snapshots of the world’s web pages at different dates—is inaccessible for some users in Russia, as a post on the Global Voices site explains. This is the result of a blocking order from the country’s Attorney General, under legislation originally designed to protect minors from pornography sites, sexual abuse sites, and sites that provide details about drug use and suicide, but later extended to cover sites advocating “extremist activities” too.

Hey, it’s pretty tough to airbrush history, when history is only a couple of mouse clicks away.

So, Russia’s turning into a nation of suicidal, doped to the gills porn and rape freaks?  Good to know.

Top Sellers in Power and Hand Tools at Amazon
Bill Quick

Bestselling Power and Hand Tools

Power and hand tools. The very thought makes the heart beat faster, doesn’t it?

Remember – anything you buy from Amazon through any link on this site puts a commission in my pocket, at no cost to yourself, so thank you very much! Also, arf! from the Presidential Pomeranian.

Necessity
Bill Quick

Internet access “not a necessity or human right,” says FCC Republican | Ars Technica

It may not be quite yet, but it most certainly will become so within ten or fifteen years.  Especially if I’m keeping half my brain backed up there somewhere.

I do see where he’s coming from, though. He’s opposed to the Democrat project to force providers to provide “free” broadband to one and all.   And he’s likely right to do so

We still have to pay for food and water, right?.

 

Prediction on the Reaction to the Gay Marriage Decision
Bill Quick

There is going to be a major poll out in the next two or three days that will show massive support for the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage.  I expect even support among Republicans to rise over the 40% mark.  It won’t even be close among Democrats and Independents.

The Dignified Clarence Thomas Weighs In
Bill Quick

Clarence Thomas: Same-sex marriage bans, like slavery, were just fine for human dignity – Vox

But then Thomas, who is the court’s only African-American justice, made his feelings about the topic even more shockingly plain (emphasis added):

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”

Yes, you read that correctly. He said that slavery did not have any impact on enslaved people’s dignity.

What are you complaining about, there, Mr. Justice? Your dignity was intact, wasn’t it? So just sit down, shut up, and submit to your high-tech lynching.Because claiming you were leaving your pubic hairs on fellow female worker’s coke cans could have no possible effect on your dignity, just because your lynching was being carried out by the United States Senate.;

Goal Oriented
Bill Quick

Balkinization: Sam Alito, Critical Race Theorist

ne of the interesting features of Justice Alito’s dissent in Obergefell is that it shows how social and religious conservatives are rethinking freedom of speech in the light of the next phase of the culture wars.  In the last three decades many social and religious conservatives have been strong defenders of freedom of speech against “political correctness” on the left. But consider how widespread acceptance of gay rights is quietly reshaping their judgments about what freedom of speech means.

Social and religious conservatives have already been arguing–and will continue to argue–that others should not call them discriminators, much less bigots, because they refuse to accept same-sex marriage or gay equality. Perhaps more important, social conservatives are starting to claim that they are being silenced (and therefore censored) by the larger secular community.

In this respect, social and religious conservatives are reviving left-wing arguments made in the 1980s and 1990s by radical feminists like Catherine MacKinnon and by critical race
theorists like Mari Matsuda. They argued that sexist and racist speech
silenced (and therefore censored) women and minorities, because they were afraid to speak up for themselves and be thought crazy or disagreeable.  In the same way, Alito argues, general acceptance of equal rights for gays is going to silence religious people,
who will be afraid to say what they think because they will be thought
backward or bigoted.

Sam Alito as Mari Matsuda and Catherine MacKinnon. Talk about your ideological drift.

Neither side is interested in consistency, just in achieving the goals they want to achieve.  And they’ll both say, and do, whatever it takes to accomplish that. 

Shop the Wedding Registry at Amazon
Bill Quick

The Wedding Registry at Amazon – All the younger folks register at Amazon these days.  And why not?  It’s a quick, easy, one-stop method of handling wedding gifts.

Remember – anything you buy from Amazon through any link on this site puts a commission in my pocket, at no cost to yourself, so thank you very much! Also, arf! from the Presidential Pomeranian.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Check out my new bestseller, Lightning Fall: A Novel of Disaster. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com says: “Bill Quick has authored a terrific thriller that is also an all too plausible warning. Highly recommended!” Available in Kindle e-book or trade paperback formats.

Cruz, Ezra Klein of VOX Agree: Supreme Court is Undemocratic!
Bill Quick

Vox Sentences: Marriage equality finally becomes a national reality – Vox

Scalia was right about one big thing: the Supreme Court is, de facto, creating public policy for the whole nation through a non-democratic process. Whether you love this ruling or hate it, it’s not unreasonable to worry about that.

You mean like they did with Brown v Board of Education?  Loving v Virginia?  Yick Wo v Hopkins? Powell v Alabama?  Shelley v. KraemerCooper v. AaronHeart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. U.S. and Katzenbach v. McClungJones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co?

And so on.  I know, I know.  None of these cases involved dreaded sinner homos, who are a special case of subhuman who must be repressed as deeply and thoroughly as possible.

Says so right there in the Bible Constitution

Somewhere.  And if it doesn’t, it should.

The Massacre at Waco Is Looking More and More Like a Cop Massacre
Bill Quick

What Really Happened in the Waco Motorcycle Gang Massacre? – Hit & Run : Reason.com

But the Waco police and the county court system have it within their power to settle most lingering doubts about whether the police did the right thing that day in Waco, chiefly by making actual evidence-citing indictments, and by releasing objectively verifiable information (including any video, which Chief Stroman said on June 12 was sent to the FBI for analysis, though there may well be recordings on some of the many confiscated cell phones the government wants to search) about how the dead were killed and the wounded were wounded. Chief Stroman says that federal ATF is handling the ballistics investigation into exactly what sort of weapons were used. But in general, rather than being more open, Waco police are doing the opposite: When Yahoo! News made a Texas Public Record Act request about the incident, the organization was mostly stonewalled and given a haphazard collection of redacted documents. 

Clendennen’s lawyer Broden maintains that “it doesn’t seem normal at all” that the police have revealed no hard facts about the sources of the mayhem. “Obviously they have access to preliminary information about the type and caliber of bullets and weapons that killed and wounded those people. I don’t know why they have not released it.”

Today Only At Amazon
Bill Quick

Up to 80% Off American History Books on Kindle – American history is apparently no longer taught in American schools. Do your kids a favor and buy them a few of these books.

Also….

50% or More Off Women’s Plus-Size Clothing

Remember – anything you buy from Amazon through any link on this site puts a commission in my pocket, at no cost to yourself, so thank you very much! Also, arf! from the Presidential Pomeranian.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Check out my new bestseller, Lightning Fall: A Novel of Disaster. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com says: “Bill Quick has authored a terrific thriller that is also an all too plausible warning. Highly recommended!” Available in Kindle e-book or trade paperback formats.

Site Notes: Malware Infection
Bill Quick

Several readers have reported to me they’ve had redirect issues when accessing DP.  It’s not you.

I was able to duplicate the infection using Chrome browser, which I run clean, no add-ons.  I’ve had no problems with Firefox, which I run with two add-ons that block ads (AdBlockPlus and NoScript) which prevent most scripts and ads (especially java, which I suspect it what is being used here) from running in my browser.  TheseAdBlockPlus is available for Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, Opera and Apple Safari.

NoScript is only for Firefox.  However, similar addons are available for other browsers:  ScriptSave or uMatrix for Chrome.  For IEX, if you wanted the approximate equivalent of NoScript with IE, you would block active scripting in the Internet Zone.  JavaScriptBlocker for Safari.  NotScripts for Opera.

Hostgator tech support confirms something is amiss with my server/website, and opened a security ticket earlier today.  It’s still open, and I’m waiting for completion and response.  As soon as I know more, I’ll either update this post, or put up a new one.

Sorry for the inconvenience. 

UPDATE (7/1/15): As of last night, according to a Hostgator customer service tech, HG security techs were still working on the problem. As of just a moment ago, a quick check of the ticket itself indicates the ticket is still listed as “open.”

UPDATE: As of 1:00PM today (7/2/15) the ticket still had not been worked. I called tech support, and after investigation, the tech discovered that the ticket had been placed in the “general support” queue rather than the specialized security queue. The general cue had about 2000 tickets in front of me. The security queue had five. The ticket has been moved to the security queue. I now await further action.

Cruz: Let’s Apply Mob Rule to the Supreme Court!
Bill Quick

Ted Cruz: Constitutional Amendment Needed to Curb Supreme Court | National Review Online

Rendering the justices directly accountable to the people would provide such a remedy. Twenty states have now adopted some form of judicial retention elections, and the experience of these states demonstrates that giving the people the regular, periodic power to pass judgment on the judgments of their judges strikes a proper balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability. It also restores respect for the rule of law to courts that have systematically imposed their personal moral values in the guise of constitutional rulings. The courts in these states have not been politicized by this check on their power, nor have judges been removed indiscriminately or wholesale.

I’d dispute that, but even more I would distpute Cruz’s idiotic notion that “have not” means “never will.”

The entire history of the progressive project in America, dating from the late 19th century and Teddy Roosevelt, has been to increasingly erode the republican nature of our government, and replace it with the rule of the mob, otherwise knows as pure democracy.

The real power given to the Senate, for instance, was destroyed by the 17th Amendment, which took the powers of selecting federal senators from the state legislatures and handed it to mob rule.  And so, without much further ado, the states ceased to have much input into, or  control over, the doings of the federal government.  This was not only contrary to the intentions of the Framers, but it destroyed the federalism they saw as an overriding check and balance on the power of the central government.  Had they structured the federal senatorial elections that way in the original constitution, it is likely that the states would have rejected it.

And now Ted Cruz, of all people, wants to apply the same sort of remedy to the federal courts.  This is more than disappointing.  It is an outrageous betrayal of the republican, federalist principles he claims to espouse.  If this is the best he has to offer, he’s not all that much better than Marco Rubio and all the rest of the pandering demagogues whose obvious interest is not principle, but power.

Favorite out-take:

Not only are the Court’s opinions untethered to reason and logic, they are also alien to our constitutional system of limited and divided government. By redefining the meaning of common words, and redesigning the most basic human institutions, this Court has crossed from the realm of activism into the arena of oligarchy.

Yeah.  Redesigning basic human institutions.  Like slavery.  Laws banning miscegenation. Jim Crow.  Separate but equal.  Those should never have been redesigned.  How dare the Union Armies and the courts and federal government redesign these most basic (if peculiar) human institutions?

No real conservative or believer in separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, or liberty would advocate making a Supreme Court seat an elective position.  But I’m coming more and more to believe such people no longer exist.  Ted Cruz certainly isn’t one such.  As is becoming ever more obvious.

 

Looking for a DP Commenter
SteveF

Some time ago, more than a year, a commenter mentioned having trouble typing. Hand trouble, perhaps, or a degenerative disease. If that sounds like you, please contact me at steven dot furlong at gmail dot com.

Good Christians Speak Out Against ISIS Mass Murder of Gays
Bill Quick

ISIS Celebrates Gay Love by Tossing 4 Gays from Roof of Building – The Gateway Pundit

Of course a crowd gathered below to watch the execution.

Several Islamists tweeted out #LoveWins – the same hashtag that was used today after the Supreme Court ruling.

Of course this wasn’t the first time…
A massive crowd assembled to watch ISIS rebels throw another gay man off a building top earlier this month.
Hundreds of spectators came out to watch the brutal public execution.

Read the comments for the massive Christian outcry against this murderous barbarian religious bigotry.

Oh, wait: Not!

  • Homosexuals are a plague, wherever one finds them, yes.

  • amuncat

    While we were celebrating gay day here they were were celebrating gay day there. Wish they would come here and clean up SFO, Cape Cod and mid town Atlanta.

After this latest supremes decision I do believe we should start practicing. I am SO bleeping tired of having the nasty life style shoved in my face.

After having “gaydom” shoved on our face by America’s pathetic MSM and a progressive SCOTUS, I think I like the ISIS approach!

And dozens, maybe hundreds, more.  I didn’t read through the whole noxious mess, because I can only handle so much bigoted swill before my third cup of coffee on a Saturday morning.

These are the same “good Christians” who go batshit insane if ISIS hacks off the head of one of their missionaries, but chortle in approving agreement when they slaughter gays.

Come on.  Tell me some more about how gay people are just being silly to worry about Christian religious bigots in America.  For some Christians, Christianity is a religion of love just as much as, for some Muslims, Islam is a religion of peace.

And I’ve got the scars to prove it.

 

Save Big On Outdoor Clothing and Equipment
Bill Quick

Big Saving on All Outdoor Clothing and Equipment – It’s summer. You’ve got no excuse. Get off your ass and go outside and play.

Remember – anything you buy from Amazon through any link on this site puts a commission in my pocket, at no cost to yourself, so thank you very much! Also, arf! from the Presidential Pomeranian.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Check out my new bestseller, Lightning Fall: A Novel of Disaster. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com says: “Bill Quick has authored a terrific thriller that is also an all too plausible warning. Highly recommended!” Available in Kindle e-book or trade paperback formats.

Religion of Peace (Peace of the Grave Edition)
Bill Quick

British And Irish Tourists Die In Beach Horror

A gunman disguised as a holidaymaker has killed at least 38 people, including eight Britons, in an attack on a popular tourist resort.

Terrified sunbathers ran for their lives as the attacker, dressed in shorts and hiding his Kalashnikov inside an umbrella, opened fire on the beach in Port el Kantaoui on the outskirts of Sousse, Tunisia.

Well, damn it, strict gun control laws would have prevented this barbarian savagery.

Oh, wait

Time, that great healer.
avatar

A while back I was building something in the shop and I ran a screw through my index finger. One would think that you couldn’t do that to yourself, but if you will listen to experience, I assure you that it is possible.

Though not a smart act, it smarted a good bit. I reversed the screw-gun and got my finger unscrewed, and it was a ‘good’ injury, a through and through that missed both bone and fingernail. Washed it out with rubbing alcohol, slathered it with antibiotic salve, and bandaged it up and all was well. Didn’t get infected or anything, but I lost feeling in the fingertip.

This morning I’m out splitting firewood for the coming winter and I’ve got the froe wedged into a smallish chunk, I reach down and grab ahold to reposition the wood and the froe slips. At that moment I realized that the feeling had returned to that fingertip, all the feeling.

Time may not wound all heels, but it certainly had healed that particular wound.

Somedays, I really could use a “Keeper”. Just someone to watch me, and from time to time ask, “Is that really how you want to do that”?

I’m Glad Trump Is In the Race
Bill Quick

Hardball: Donald Trump Blasts Jorge Ramos’s Cell Phone Number to 200,000 Instagram Followers – Breitbart

Donald Trump published a photograph of a handwritten letter from Univision’s Jorge Ramos on Friday that included the anchor’s personal cellphone number, a move that is likely to inflame the recent tensions between the two parties.

In the letter, sent Thursday, Ramos asks if Trump will sit with him for an interview. Ramos then provides his cellphone number, in the event that Trump “would like to talk first over the phone.” Trump published the photo to his personal Instagram account on Friday, noting that Univision was “begging” him for interviews even after publicly severing business ties with him.

This is going to be fun.  I’m glad I’ve got approximately a ton of popcorn stashed away.

Jugears, Cigar Boy Relations
Bill Quick

Dubya’s Real Brother Is Rubio – The Daily Beast

No, Dubya’s real brother is BJ Clinton.  But he’s running for the Democrat nomination.

 

 

Save 25% On Men’s and Women’s Sunglasses
Bill Quick

Save 25% On Men’s Sunglasses

Also…

Save 25% On Women’s Sunglasses

Getting out in the summer for Vitamin D is good for you. But squint lines aren’t. Be prepared.

Remember – anything you buy from Amazon through any link on this site puts a commission in my pocket, at no cost to yourself, so thank you very much! Also, arf! from the Presidential Pomeranian.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Check out my new bestseller, Lightning Fall: A Novel of Disaster. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com says: “Bill Quick has authored a terrific thriller that is also an all too plausible warning. Highly recommended!” Available in Kindle e-book or trade paperback formats.

Ed Morrissey: Asking the Wrong People The Wrong Questions For the Wrong Reasons
Bill Quick

Politico: Has not the time come for polygamy, social liberals? « Hot Air

This didn’t take long, did it? Faster than one can say “slippery slope,” quicker than the echoes of Chief Justice John Roberts’ warnings on the subject could dissipate, Politico Magazine published a rather lengthy appeal to the leaders of social liberalism to use the Obergefell decision to push for a constitutionally-recognized right for plural marriage.

Hey, Ed:  Instead of asking social liberals, why not ask Muslims and  Mormons? They’re both highly religious, and should be sufficiently socially conservative even for you.  And your kind have been using the power of the state to crush their religious liberties for generations.  Besides, what’s your problem with it?  Polygamous marriages are well-suited for making and raising kids, and we all know that is the highest, most crucial – indeed, the only – justification for calling a relationship a marriage.  Also, the patriarchs of the Old Testament practiced polygamy.  Right?

Right?

Oh, Heh, Yeah!
Bill Quick

Choices and Jonah Goldberg
Bill Quick

Jonah Goldberg:

Obviously, for me, the choice between Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton is no choice at all. I’d vote for Cruz in a heartbeat.  My only point here is that when one side plays the identity politics game so aggressively, it forces others to play it as well. Those of us who want politics to mean less in life are forced to choose a side.

I usually respect Goldberg’s opinions, but gosh:  “Those of us who want politics to mean less in life are forced to choose a side?”

Rather than what?  Waddling along in the mushy middle, never making a choice, blattering on about compromise and bipartisanship and moderation while our constitutional liberties are flushed down the drain?

Man up, Jonah.  And grow up.  And choose.

Or just start trying to tell us that the fit of your new chains is very becoming.  Anyway, just because you want to be less interested in politics doesn’t mean that politics will be less interested in you.  Rather the opposite, in fact.

Shop the Carhartt Big and Tall Store at Amazon
Bill Quick

The Carhartt Big and Tall Store

According to Mark Rippetoe, real men weigh at least 200 pounds. Could be….  At any rate, tough clothes here for big, tough men.

Remember – anything you buy from Amazon through any link on this site puts a commission in my pocket, at no cost to yourself, so thank you very much! Also, arf! from the Presidential Pomeranian.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Check out my new bestseller, Lightning Fall: A Novel of Disaster. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com says: “Bill Quick has authored a terrific thriller that is also an all too plausible warning. Highly recommended!” Available in Kindle e-book or trade paperback formats.

Announcing the “Just Two Words” Campaign For Gay Civil Rights
Bill Quick

Here Are A Few Of The Things The LGBT Community Is Still Fighting For

Here are some of the battles LGBT advocates will continue to face, even if the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage:

1. Workplace discrimination

There’s still no federal law protecting LGBT employees from discrimination. Twenty-one states and Washington, D.C., have passed employee non-discrimination laws, but it’s still legal in many places — even the U.S. Congress — for employers to fire workers based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Critics also have said religious freedom laws, which allow individuals or corporations to cite “religious beliefs” in a legal defense if they refuse to serve LGBT customers, are discriminatory. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) signed a religious freedom bill into law this year, but asked that the law be revised after backlash from LGBT supporters.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) followed suit, asking his state legislature to revise a bill similar to Indiana’s.

But not all governors are changing their minds. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) issued an executive order in May protecting businesses that refuse to serve customers planning same-sex weddings.

Landmark Study Finds Widespread Anti-Gay Housing Discrimination | ThinkProgress

According to the report:

Same-sex couples are significantly less likely than heterosexual couples to get favorable responses to e-mail inquiries about electronically advertised rental housing. Comparing our gross measures of discrimination, heterosexual couples were favored over gay male couples in 15.9 percent of tests and over lesbian couples in 15.6 percent of tests.

While there is no federal law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, public accommodations, or housing, 20 states and more than 240 localities offer at least some protections against housing discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. The study found that the rates of discrimination was very slightly higher in states with legal protections, but at least same-sex couples in those states have some legal recourse in those situations. And since the study only looked at state-level legislative protection and ignored local protections applying to municipalities, that statistic could be misleading.

Think Indiana is bad? It’s legal to deny service to gay and lesbian people in 29 states. – Vox

Currently, 19 states ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, while three additional states ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. Some other states protect public but not private employees from discrimination. Many municipalities have nondiscrimination laws that only apply within their local borders. And some companies prohibit discrimination in their own policies.

I’ve long said that I thought the push for gay marriage should not have been the most important item on the civil liberties agenda for gay people, even though I, personally, have benefited from that push.  But most of what the institution of gay marriage in California accomplished for me was already available to me through legal agreements governing my relationship with my partner, as well as California’s domestic partners law (which was, by the way, also fought tooth and nail by religious socons.  It’s not marriage that bothers those people – it’s gay sinners in general).

In California, also, I cannot be denied employment, housing, education, or public accommodations based on my sexual orientation.  Texas, for instance, does not have such protections – which has to some extent dampened my enthusiasm for relocating to that state.  At any rate, I value the ability to enjoy the same access to jobs, housing, goods, and services without discrimination as do those protected against such on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Which is why, now that the gay marriage battle is vanishing in the rear view mirror (and not just legally, but culturally and socially as well) I want to move on to something more important.  

I’m going to call it the “Just Two Words” campaign.

I want to see the federal civil rights laws all amended with the addition of two words:  sexual orientation.

So the laundry list in all these laws would then read:   Race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or national origin.

Just two words.  But it would make all the difference in the world for many of us.  And it’s the right thing to do.  Because I value the liberty to live my life the way everybody else does more than I do some purported right to deny me that ability because you don’t like my sexual orientation.

Latest Socon Statist Jihad: Online Gambling!
Bill Quick

Presidential GOP hopefuls move to ban US online casino-style gambling | Ars Technica

Two Republican senators running for president proposed legislation Thursday that would ban casino-style online gambling.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina reintroduced the Restoration of America’s Wire Act and got rival GOP presidential challenger, Marco Rubio of Florida, to co-sponsor the package.

Online, casino-style gambling was considered illegal in the United States until 2011, when the Justice Department said it was OK as long as it was done in-state and that Internet sports wagering was prohibited.

There you go – a great platform plank for these two losers to run on:  Let’s ban sin!

I don’t really find it odd that Gentry GOP RINO types often push socon agendas.  They know that most socons are really big-government “compassionate conservatives” who just want to be able to keep on hijacking the state to enforce their religious views against non-believers.  It costs such candidates nothing to give them and their desires lip service, knowing that if they win, the compassionate conservatives won’t mind if they tear down the borders, turn 30 million illegals into voters, support massive government spending and controls on global warming (after all, the Pope….), give nukes to Iran, and turn Obamacare into single-payer, as long as they can get the sin of online gambling outlawed again.

Because severe conservatives.

Of Course Barack Obama Wants To Ban And Confiscate All Firearms In America
Bill Quick

Bearing ArmsObama Dreams Of Gun Confiscation – Bearing Arms

Modeling Australia Means Civil War

When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia’s gun laws as its own, he is really saying the cause of gun control is so important that he is willing to impose these laws even at the cost of violent insurrection. Make no mistake, armed rebellion would be the consequence. Armed men would be dispatched to confiscate guns, they would be met by armed men, and blood would be shed. Australia is a valid example for America only if you are willing for that blood to be spilled in torrents and rivers. To choose Australia is to choose civil war.

My one quibble with Mehta’s column is that I think the resulting conflict wouldn’t be as much a civil war as it would be a revolutionary war.

And the left is awfully confident that the men and women they are counting on to do the confiscating – the cops and the military – would be on their side, and not on the side of the gun owners.

Which I think would be a terrible, though not tragic, mistake on their part.

One other note:  I think the gun grabbers know damned well it would be bloody, violent mess to say okay to the gun owner’s cry of molon labe.  They wouldn’t mind killing several million bitter clingers.  They just have never tried to work out the odds that they would be successful, and not fed to the meat grinders themselves.

Which, if you think about it, is suicidally stupid on their part.  As a rule of thumb, gun grabbers know little or nothing about firearms, nor do they own or use any.  They depend on people who, as a rule, know a lot about guns, know how to use them and, yes, rather like their own guns.  Why do they suppose such people would come down on their side in the battle?

No, Religion In America Is Not Coming To An End
Bill Quick

SCOTUS to churches: Hey, no worries, you can still “advocate” for traditional marriage « Hot Air

On this slender thread does the promise of religious liberty hang. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his majority opinion in Obergefell that declares same-sex marriage a constitutional right, barely mentions the means by which most Americans conduct their weddings — houses of worship. Only on page 27 does Kennedy get around to addressing the connection between church and state, and the assurances in this paragraph are less than compelling, to say the least:

I was moderately reluctant to open this can of worms again, given that many of my former readers really are former now, because they can’t stand my disdain for most of their arguments, but the usual morons are already up and howling about this horrible, terrible, awful, bad, SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.

And most of their howls are, well, pretty stupid:

Ace of Spades HQ

Why does the State not have a compelling interest in recognizing my past loves and current ones?

Simple: Marriage is not about love, and the state interest in marriage has nothing to do with love.

Love is a lovely thing, and something I wouldn’t deny to anyone.

But the idea that it there is no conceivable non-bigoted grounds to say that loves which, per the rules of biology, simply cannot produce anything other than some (usually transient) pleasure for two people is simply not a compelling interest of the state, and hence does not need to be supported or encouraged by marriage laws?

That idea is false.

Only an idiot, frankly, can think that his or her “love” is of any especial interest to anyone else in the world.

The state’s only interest in love is frankly the same interest it has in any of us: In taxpayer units.

So, sorry. I respect gay people and don’t mind their relationships at all. I do not believe their relationships to be sinful or “in revolt against God” or even all that weird. (Though, being a straight guy with 100,000 years of evolutionary instinct in me: I find gay male relationships a little weird. But I know this is a personal thing and not something I should impose into the code of the law.)

But what they are not, and will never be, is transcendent in the way I mean it, connecting one generation to the next, propagating the species, flowering the earth with human life.

And thus there is no state interest in “gay marriage,” and thus it cannot be the case that the Constitution demands that which the state has no compelling interest in.

That’s the sort of “logic” Big Moron likes – he babbles about some hypothetical reality that never really existed, and never could – his notions about absolute freedom of association spring to mind – and then comes up with something like this:  The only people who should have state support and sanction for their marriages are those who can produce children.

So:  No marriages for barren women or men.  All they have is love for each other, and wishing to have their marriages recognized in the same way other marriages are recognized – and benefited by – the state.   That’s not enough for Big Moron, though.

His notions about marriage itself are just as big a pile of hooey.  He thinks that the one-man, one-woman model is historically dominant, when such is not the case at all.  Polygamy has been the norm in far more places and far more times:

After socially imposed monogamy was established, Westerners became so accustomed to it that many began to see it as the normal state of human mating, and to see the formerly universal practice of polygyny as foreign and strange. As Laura Betzig writes, “modern societies—those that have grown out of the Christian Middle Ages—are remarkably monogamous. They seem, in fact, so consistently monogamous that what was once the rule [now] looks like an exotic exception”

You can raise kids perfectly well in a polygamous marriage, too.  In fact, such marriages accommodate barren women better than do monogamous relationships, because a barren wife can still function as a mother in terms of raising the children for the family as a whole, if not producing them.

And yet the very same morons who are howling that the state should never permit any sort of marriage other than between one man and one woman now have their panties in a burning wad that “polygamy is next.  Next they’ll force you to practice polygamy.”  If they believed their own horseshit, you’d think they’d welcome it.

See, the real problem is they are full of shit.  Christians have spearheaded monogamy’s spread across the western world, and they think America should be ruled under Christian precepts, in exactly the same way that Muslims believe the same thing about the precepts of their own religion.  They say that America is a Christian nation, and therefore should be ruled by Christian laws executed by a Christian government.  Unfortunately for them, the Constitution doesn’t permit this.

So they twist and contort themselves and their arguments to avoid anything resembling history or reality to make ridiculous claims that they are being oppressed when the state no longer allows them to use itself to enforce their own marriage preferences on those who don’t hold them – or don’t fit them.

It’s religious-based bigotry in almost every case, and that’s why they scream so loudly when they get called bigots over it.   That shoe fits very tightly, and causes them enormous pain.

There is a small subset of the (mostly) non-religious who oppose the state sanctioning of gay marriages because they oppose the state sanctioning of any marriages.  That makes rational sense – if you want to make the argument that marriage is a religious institution, then letting all religions make their own private determinations as to what marriage relationships they will honor seems a reasonable enough proposition.  And the gay-marriage haters would hate this position just as much as they do gay marriage itself, because it doesn’t get them what they really want:  Religious control of the cultural levers  and (what they demand to be) the cultural norms via the power and force of the state.

They don’t want to leave the definitions of marriage solely to religions.  They want to use the state to enforce their own particular religious beliefs about marriage beyond the boundaries of their own religions – force the heathens to obey their gods, in other words.

And they offer up ludicrous justifications for this that utterly collapse in the face of any rational examination:  One man-one woman marriages have been the standard for all of man’s existence (they haven’t, and it isn’t even close).  One-man, one woman marriage is the way we create and raise our children, and always has been (again, not even close – and leaves them floundering to explain why barren marriages should receive the blessings and benefits of the state).  Marriage can, and should, only be what the Bible says it is (except when the prophets and patriarchs have multiple wives) because the Bible is always absolutely one hundred percent correct – and, by the way, the earth is flat, and six thousand years old.

Anyway, all that leads me to this:

Why social conservatives shouldn’t despair — even if liberals win the culture war

Social conservatives are in an apocalyptic mood in 2015. One week religious liberty becomes a kind of curse word, deserving of economic sanction. The next week Caitlyn Jenner is celebrated as a post-surgical goddess. The expectation that the Supreme Court will recognize a nationwide right to same-sex marriage is now fully priced in to the moral market.

Sigh.  Yes, the new pogrom against Christians, and the hysteria is thick enough to cut with a Crusader’s sword.

Christians are in a panic because they are losing the ability to enforce their religious beliefs on others via the mechanism of state power and force.  They’ve had that power for so long – far longer than the United States has been in existence – that seeing it crumble at long, long last is something they equate with religious oppression.  We’re no longer able to enforce our standards of sin and sinful upon you!  We no longer have cops with billy clubs as allies in our battle to control the culture and punish sinners and their sins. You are oppressing us and destroying our religions!

Not in the real world.  Those of us who don’t buy into your gods, or your beliefs that such gods give them the right to tell us how to live, are going to view this differently than you do.

But here’s the deal.  Nobody is going to come in to your churches and tell you how to worship.  But they are no longer going to let you turn our public squares into your private churches.  Yes, some of you might lose certain tax exemptions, but, you know: Render unto Caesar.  I see no rational reason why churches should be exempt from the taxes the rest of us have to pay.

Nobody is going to force you to marry someone from the same sex.  If you disapprove of same sex marriage, don’t enter into one.

Nobody is going to force you to get an abortion.  If you don’t want one, don’t have one.

Nobody is going to force you to fornicate.  If you hate fornication, well, don’t fornicate.

Nobody is going to force your private religious schools to teach your kids stuff you believe to be sin.  If they try, I will do everything I can to defend you.  But you’re likely not going to be able to force stuff like religious creationism into public school curricula for much longer, either.

In short, you’ll be able to practice your religious beliefs as you wish.  When those beliefs collide with laws enforced with no religious bias on all, they will likely fail to overcome those laws.   I can’t pretend I’m sorry about that.

I wish I’d been able to live most of my life as freely as you will still be able to live yours.  But I will never forget that the reason I couldn’t do so was in large part due to you institutionalizing your religious beliefs into laws that made my life far uglier and unpleasant than yours will ever be.

Unless, of course, the Barack Obamas of the world manage to import enough Muslims – or surrender to enough Muslims – to let them extend their Caliphate to our shores.   At which point I would likely die fighting them to protect your right to freely practice your religion, though I doubt many of you would ever be willing to die for my own personal freedoms.

Bottom line:  You will no longer have the ability, or the power, to mind everybody else’s business for them.  But, as the author notes, you may actually find that liberating to some extent.  You could even find a bit of relief in no longer having worries about controlling the entire culture on your shoulders.  Tend to your own knitting.  That will have be enough, no matter how much it gripes you to do so.