However, in flagrant opposition to the will of the public, US District Judge Vaughn Walker has thrown out Proposition 8, declaring by fiat that perverts may render the institution of marriage a farce. Being openly homosexual, Walker would have recused himself had he any respect for the proper role of the judiciary. But under a regime of liberals, the judiciary has a new role: to ram through obscenities so monstrous that not even Nasty Pelousy’s Congress could pass them.

According to Walker, the blasphemy of homosexual “marriage” is a constitutional right. The Founding Fathers are vomiting in their graves.

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” Judge Walker said in his 136-page decision. “Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.”

But healthy, normal relationships are superior to sexual perversions that spread deadly diseases. By Walker’s logic, the next move will be to legalize marrying the paper boy, amid a smokescreen of sanctimonious rhetoric regarding the sacred equality of pedophiles. But then, why marry the paper boy? Homosexual “marriage” will allow perverts to adopt whole harems of paperboys.

“The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples,” he said.

Freaks like Walker are so far removed from reality, they don’t even recognize the biological basics of human reproduction. Only their degenerate agenda is real to them. Our “moral and religious views” are dismissed with a sneer. Yet they are permitted to dictate to us the rules by which our society operates.

In case there are any non-moonbats left who haven’t come to loathe the Governator:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and state Attorney General Jerry Brown, a Democrat, praised the ruling.

The ruling that Ahnold and former Governor Moonbeam so love doesn’t just represent another step downward into a hell of depravity, degeneracy, and social dissolution. It’s a victory for progressives’ preferred mode of government: tyranny.

A single weirdo judge imposing his perversion on the rest of the state in stark opposition to the will of the public is not consistent with they way things work in a democratic republic. Profanities like this can be inflicted from on high because we live under the thumb of a tyrannical judicial oligarchy, which will eventually finish Walker’s handiwork by imposing homosexual “marriage” at the national level, just as it did with abortion.

On tips from Graycat, Brian Boru, Wyatt’s Torch, Muddypaw, G. Fox, and TrickleUpPolitics. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

“Those who sign a petition to place an issue of public dispute onto a statewide ballot may not later claim a broad First Amendment shield of anonymity to prevent disclosure of their names to the public, the US Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. In an 8-to-1 decision, the high court said public disclosure of referendum petitions does not as a general matter violate the First Amendment.

But the court also stressed that under certain circumstances, petition signers may be able to remain anonymous. ‘Those resisting disclosure can prevail under the First Amendment if they can show a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure [of personal information] will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either government officials or private parties,’ Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion in a case called Doe v. Reed.

The issue arose in Washington State after a group opposed to same-sex marriage sought to repeal a recently passed domestic partnership law. The group wanted the law to reflect that marriage and related legal benefits could only be between a man and a woman.”

Source

A fuller discussion of the decision here.

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

“The bottom line is, nobody is more committed to manned spaceflight, to human exploration of space than I am,” he said in a speech to about 200 attendees of a White House-sponsored space conference here.

There’s probably a joke in there about Obama smoking pot earlier in life, but, no one? How about the astronauts and the people who work for NASA and other companies involved in the space program? Once again, he has made something All About Obama. And would you be surprised by this?

Strikingly, Mr. Obama used the speech to blame his predecessors for lacking leadership on space policy and the critics of his own plan for failing to recognize that times have changed. NASA’s budgets, he noted, have “risen and fallen with the political winds.” That appeared to be a shot at President George W. Bush, who announced a new plan for NASA after the Columbia disaster and barely mentioned space policy again for the rest of his presidency.

He. Just. Can’t. Stop.

Next up

President Obama mandated Thursday that nearly all hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians and respect patients’ choices about who may make critical health-care decisions for them, perhaps the most significant step so far in his efforts to expand the rights of gay Americans.

The president directed the Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit discrimination in hospital visitation in a memo that was e-mailed to reporters Thursday night while he was at a fundraiser in Miami.

Administration officials and gay activists, who have been quietly working together on the issue, said the new rule will affect any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, a move that covers the vast majority of the nation’s health-care institutions. Obama’s order will start a rule-making process at HHS that could take several months, officials said.

On one hand, I agree with this. If two people love each other, why should anyone stand in their way? This is America, which is supposed to be the land of the free. If it doesn’t harm someone else, why should we care? Visitation rights and care rights should be extended. But, that is where it becomes a sticky widget.

First, remember when Executive orders were decried when Bush was president?

Second, as James Joyner points out, this actually should have come from the legislature, going way beyond any sort of clarifying instruction on existing law. As I point out, this should have rightly come from State legislatures, per that pesky Constitution thing.

Third, notice that Obama does this on the pretext of hospitals that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding. This is one of those issues that we have been complaining about, namely, that the government will use tenuous links to healthcare to link issues and force resolutions. In other words, the creeping intrusion of government control.

Finally, as it stands now, those rights have always been reserved for family members, including the person the patient is married to. This would extend extra rights to gays, lesbians, and transgenders not held by heterosexual couples. If a woman went to the hospital and claimed the man in the hospital bed was her “partner,” the hospital would deny visitation and patient care decisions. If a gay man went in and said he was the partner of the male patient, they would have to extend visitation and care decisions. That is wrong. The order should have been limited to those who are joined under the eyes of the law (and, yes, I do support civil ceremonies for gays. This is America, etc and so on).

Actually, many gays should be very worried about the broadness of this order. Seriously, do you want the person you just broke up with in a screaming match with much broken dishes who slashed your tires the other day being able to come into the hospital, claim they are your partner, and decide that what you really need is a high colonic and a body shave?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach

A funny thing happened after Adm. Mike Mullen called for gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military: A curious silence befell much of the right. If this were a Sherlock Holmes story, it would be the case of the attack dogs that did not bark.

Riiiiiiiight. Perhaps we are a bit more concerned with the escalating budget and deficit, along with the fascist agenda of people like Obama and Pelosi. Oh, and then there was that media focus on Justice Scalia (woops!) Alito and his mouthing of “not true” after Obama lied while attacking the Supreme Court. You didn’t bother discussing DADT, Frank, so, does that make you a bigot?

John McCain, commandeering the spotlight as usual, did fulminate against the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But the press focus on McCain, the crazy man in Washington’s attic, was misleading. His yapping was an exception, not the rule.

Many of his Republican colleagues said little or nothing. The right’s noise machine was on mute. The Fox News report on Mullen’s testimony was fair and balanced — and brief. The network dropped the subject entirely in the Hannity-O’Reilly hothouse of prime time that night. Only ratings-desperate CNN gave a fleeting platform to the old homophobic clichés….

So, because it was a minor story, barely covered, that must mean that everyone on the right is a bigot. Hey, Frank, you do comprehend that Obama is still against gay marriage, right? When will you have an op-ed calling him a bigot?

The occasional outliers notwithstanding, why did such a hush greet Mullen on Capitol Hill? The answer begins with the simple fact that a large majority of voters — between 61 percent and 75 percent depending on the poll — now share his point of view. Most Americans recognize that being gay is not a “lifestyle” but an immutable identity, and that outlawing discrimination against gay people who want to serve their country is, as the admiral said, “the right thing to do.”

Oh. OK. So your first four paragraphs are refuted by your fifth. However, you are going to give it the old stupid try to still call the right bigots for failing to get all worked up. Hey, Frank, even lots in the lesbian and gay community on the left barely wrote about it. Does that make them bigots?

After that, we get a meandering blame of those silent righties, and Rich even manages to work in Bush and Rove, unsurprisingly. He also mentions the current lefty meme that this is akin to desegregation of the military (hey, Frank, you didn’t mention Robert Byrd’s racist remark about integration. Why’s that?) and integration of women, which is simply absurd. Look, I have no problem with gays. Do I approve of the lifestyle? I couldn’t care less. This is America, the land of freedom. Being gay or not gay means nothing to me. You live your life, I’ll live mine. Except, I do believe that they should be afforded equal rights. Which they have, mostly. Like Obama, I do not believe in gay marriage, but, I do believe in civil unions. If two people love each other, they should have the same right to be unhappy (:)) as heterosexual couples.

But, when it comes to the military, shouldn’t we ask those who are serving? Fifty one percent of serving military members are apparently bigots in Frank’s World, down from 63% in 2003. Only 30% favor gays serving openly. Quite a few military members I have spoken with are not against gays and lesbians serving, but, in sharing quarters, showers, and being out in the field. Capabilities are not being questioned, but, face it, men are uncomfortable being naked or in a state of undress in front of people who are interested in the same sex. Is that bigoted, or, human nature? Do you think women would be comfortable in mixed barracks, mixed showers, and serving in the front lines with men, who would, because of human nature, be scoping their bodies?

Anyhow, to wrap it up, since I am going long

…..Both (McCain’s) wife, Cindy, and his daughter Meghan have posed for the current California ad campaign explicitly labeling opposition to same-sex marriage as hate…

…Those opposing same-sex marriage are just as eager to mask their bigotry….

Rich manages to call the Prop 8 supporters, many of them who are Black and/or liberals, along with many Republican leaders, bigots. Searching, searching, searching….. No, nothing about Barack “I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman” Obama.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Biden also praised Tim Kaine as the “great governor of New Jersey.”

One problem: Tim Kaine’s not governor of New Jersey.

Jon Corzine (right) is governor of New Jersey (Remember, he didn’t wear his seatbelt in the state patrol car for the big high-speed crash).

Tim Kaine is governor of another state, called Virginia.

He’s also chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Biden is from Delaware.

He used a Teleprompter.

Blame Secretary Teleprompter. And, if that wasn’t bad enough

Standing ovations as he pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell…Additionally, Biden promised to put a ban on workplace discrimination….

In case Gaffemaster J missed it, his boss is against gay marriage, is keeping DADT, and, there are already laws regarding workplace discrimination. Where has he been these past years?

On June 9 a rally that saw thousands of participants in support of traditional marriage assembled at Albany, New York, the state capitol. One month earlier, a similar rally was held in Midtown Manhattan that also saw thousands in attendance. And in neither case was there much by the way of media coverage.

A Google search of the words marriage rally in New York June 9 turns up many hits on the story. But almost all of them are from blogs as opposed to traditional media sources, though the Village Voice covered the May rally in Manhattan.

A blog named Beetle Blogger has a nice series of photos showing the big crowd that the June 9 event brought out.

Here is one of them:

The events were sponsored by New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, which itself has found round criticism in lefty blogs. But, isn’t this just the point? The rallies that saw thousands attend, and the discussion of all the issues, pro and con, that are connected with the rallies are being hashed out in blogs, but not in the Old Media. With all this discussion going on, wouldn’t it seem that the media might give it a line or two?

So, why has the media practically ignored the size of these rallies and all the discussion over those attending, those in support, and those opposed? It is an interesting question, no?

Many state lawmakers said the School Violence Prevention Act, which aims to put a stop to bullying at school, is something they can all get on board with.

“When I was elected, one of the last things that I thought I would be doing is telling school boards that you have to implement policies to protect all the kids from bullies,” Sen. Julia Boseman said. “If it’s race, sex, whatever, it’s not acceptable.”

They’re kids. This happens. You cannot change that. Kids can be mean. But, you could get their parents involved, instead of blowing their opinions off, and wanting them to not interfere. Even back in the days when schools could paddle a child for misbehavior, bullying happened. But, all this does is codify being mean, and in a way to protect the current interest group of the Left that needs to be pandered to, gays and transgendered. It can also be used for another purpose

“It’s not about protecting children. It’s about accepting the term sexual orientation and gender identity and how they define human sexual behavior. That’s the whole point of it,” Rep. Nelson Dollar said.

State republicans came forward Tuesday to say they have concerns about the use of the term “sexual orientation” in the bill. They pointed to a court case in Iowa where the use of the term in one bill opened the door to the possibility of same-sex marriages.

“[Iowa’s] constitution, which is the same as ours, its defense of marriage, which is the same as ours, and used the fact that the legislature had put sexual orientation in the statute as a reason to declare unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act,” Rep. Paul Stam said.

And North Carolina does not have anything similar to the way Californians vote directly on issues, such as with Proposition 8. Furthermore, our elected officials here in North Carolina, particularly the Democrat ones, tend not to listen to the People once elected. So, well meaning, but typically idiotic legislation, or a way to stealthily create a situation where gay marriage becomes legal?

“What’s Left of the Constitution?” is a periodic news digest featuring Alliance Defense Fund legal analysis of proposals, policies, and trends advanced by the federal government. On a regular basis, this digest specifically highlights policies and actions that move America away from the principles of the U.S. Constitution and closer to the demands of the political Left, especially ones that threaten religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and the family.

For the second time in less than a year, the California Supreme Court will decide whether to reject the votes of millions of Californians regarding marriage. Proposition 8 implemented an amendment to the California Constitution that states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” It passed by a margin of approximately 5 percent in November 2008.

The impact of the court’s decision will not be limited to marriage. Soon we will know whether the democratic process matters and what the impact will be on those who disagree with advocates of homosexual behavior.

Marriage remains a hot-button issue, and advocates of the homosexual agenda continue to argue that the public should have no say in the matter. These activists have adopted a two-pronged assault to enact their desires: first, to harass and vilify those who disagree; and second, to find judges who are sympathetic and will overrule the people.

When presidential candidate Barack Obama visited the Saddleback Civil Forum in California in August 2008, he gave his views on marriage:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.”

Yet, the new administration’s actual policies and planned actions for marriage are stated much differently. The new administration…

· Supports “full civil unions and federal rights for [homosexual] couples”

· Opposes a “constitutional ban on same-sex marriage”

· Promises to repeal the federal “Defense of Marriage Act”

One look at the “Civil Rights Agenda” page of the White House website makes it clear that the rhetoric during the Saddleback Forum does not match the reality of the new administration’s priorities. They are advocating policies—and creating a legal and political landscape—that will lead to the judicial redefinition of marriage.

Married gays in Mass. sue US for federal benefits… Developing…

Well, it looks like the aggressive march of the emboldened radical Left fringe continues.

Look, in 30 out of 30 states where Americans had a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, Americans passed the amendments by an average passage rate of nearly 68%.

Forty-five states have laws and/or amendments protecting marriage.

In 1996, President Clinton signed DOMA into law after it passed the House 342-67 and the Senate 85-14.

Contrary to popular perception, the advocates of obliterating marriage have lost time and again in courts across the country, winning precious few “victories.”

America, for good reason, is not ready to surrender marriage to the radical homosexual movement. Don’t believe the argument that you will hear that the challenge is “all about the benefits.” It’s not. It’s about forcing Americans to subsidize same-sex relationships by having a federal court declare it is unconstitutional to “deny” federal benefits to same-sex couples. That will mean that the federal government will have to recognize “marriages” between individuals of the same-sex. It will then lead to challenges to states’ marriage laws with the intent to concoct a “Roe v. Wade for marriage” — where extremists who hold views contrary to the sound public policy decisions of the overwhelming majority of citizens of the several states (and the United States Congress) will dictate to everyone else, against our will and for no reason other than appeasing destructive social forces, what our marriage laws will be.

Again, this is NOT about “benefits.” That’s merely close air support for the coming full-frontal assault. The benefits argument is where they think they can exploit public sentiment right now with tearful stories of people “like you and me” who are being “denied rights.” Good strategy, being that media will gladly carry that water. But let’s not be taken in. It is about a wealthy, pampered and totalitarian-oriented movement slaking its thirst for complete control over foundational public policy issues that have no business being decided by a very few imperial judges.

In the 2005 case Roper v. Simmons, Ogden alarmingly argued that the USA must abide by a death penalty treaty that we never signed, because otherwise we would be flouting international norms. The idea that the demented laws and treaties favored by decadent Euroweenies ought to hold weight in American courts is taken quite seriously on the lefts’ outer fringe, as a means of circumnavigating the will of voters.

Like most moonbats, Ogden is a big fan of abortion. Here’s what he has to say about the psychological effects killing her own child has on any woman who hasn’t totally cauterized her conscience:

[I]t is grossly misleading to tell a woman that abortion imposes possible detrimental psychological effects when the risks are negligible in most cases, when the evidence shows that she is more likely to experience feelings of relief and happiness, and when child-birth and child-rearing or adoption may pose concomitant (if not greater) risks or adverse psychological effects.

In addition to advancing mental health (according to Ogden), abortion is highly convenient in a society so degenerate that children are exposed to bums fumbling in their stained and malodorous trousers as they gawk at online pornography — a state of affairs Ogden has defended by fighting the use of Internet filters in public libraries. He has lawyered for Playboy, Penthouse, the largest distributor of hard-core porno movies, and even the ACLU.

Ogden definitely gets Chairman Zero’s Big Government approach. He has sued the government to force taxpayers to finance a Braille version of Playboy. It’s unclear whether this included scratch-and-sniff technology.

An all-purpose warrior on behalf of moonbat decadence, Ogden has also fought to homosexualize the military and “has urged courts to treat traditional definitions of marriage as a social prejudice.”

They might want to change the name to the Department of Social Justice.

On a tip from nancz. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.