Warning: Parameter 2 to SyndicationDataQueries::posts_search() expected to be a reference, value given in /home4/sattek/roguepolitics.com/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php on line 298

Warning: Parameter 2 to SyndicationDataQueries::posts_where() expected to be a reference, value given in /home4/sattek/roguepolitics.com/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php on line 298

Warning: Parameter 2 to SyndicationDataQueries::posts_fields() expected to be a reference, value given in /home4/sattek/roguepolitics.com/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php on line 298

Warning: Parameter 2 to SyndicationDataQueries::posts_request() expected to be a reference, value given in /home4/sattek/roguepolitics.com/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php on line 298
homosexuals « Rogue Politics


A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Tyranny In Black Robes – The Scotus Approves Gay Marriage


The Supreme Court today ruled to impose same sex marriage on the entire United States. Essentially, like the ObamaCare decision, it bypasses the Tenth Amendment and creates fertile ground for further attacks on Christians, Jews and religious freedom.The court, once again, is writing legislation from the bench.

The grounds, of course, was the ever elastic 14th Amendment which has become a rich hunting ground for justices seeking ‘rights’ that were never in the Constitution or intended to be.

The 5-4 decision had Justices Kagen, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Breyer and Kennedy ruling in favor. Justice Roberts ruled against, but I have it on reasonably good authority that he and Justice Kennedy arranged this beforehand so that Roberts could avoid even more severe fallout in addition to what he’s already getting for rewriting ObamaCare.

Most of the press is making this seem like the majority of the states already allow homosexual marriage. The number cited is ’37 states.’ What they’d rather not reveal is that only three of those states voted to approve same sex marriage. In 8 states, same sex marriage was imposed by the legislature, often in defiance to the wishes of the electorate. And in the remaining 26, it was imposed by court order,also known as lawfare.

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, saying,”The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.

‘Define and express their identity?’ Where is that in the Constitution?

“These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them. Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples.”

Of course, Justice Kennedy didn’t actually elaborate on what ‘rights’ or ‘terms and conditions’ gay couples in civil unions are excluded from that married heterosexual couples are not, but then, this was never a civil rights issue even though its advocates invariably used that language and that stance.

Ironically, Justice Roberts based his dissent on the fact that the Court was essentially legislating from the bench!

“Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.

But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be….”

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

“Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?”

Pity he didn’t apply that same standard to his ObamaCare decision.

Justice Scalia, of course, went right to the heart of the matter:

“The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. “

“This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

And Justice Alito, in his dissent hits out at what this sordid usurpation will actually be used for:

“Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.

It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

Actually,this will encompass more than merely being labeled as ‘bigots.’ We’ve already seen how bakers and florists have been heavily fined, forced out of business and deprived of their livelihood for merely for politely telling homosexual couples that their religious beliefs preclude their participating in a same sex marriage ceremony.

Now, thanks to another decision the Court sneaked through that no one’s writing about, this is going to be expanded to the point of making it open season on Christians, and in areas that have noting to do with marriage..especially with the Obama Justice Department itching to slap ‘dissidents’ around.

Another effect, one which I’ve written about before  is something same sex marriage activists are not counting on. What the SCOTUS did today was to forcibly change the very definition of marriage.

You might have noticed, and even been puzzled by the fact that while Islam opposes homosexuality more vociferously than any other religion, Muslim groups, especially Islamists  been almost completely silent on the gay marriage  question. And with good reason.

There is already a substantial movement to legalize polygamy – or to use the new, fashionable term, ‘polyamory’. Today’s ruling and what it was based on, ‘defining  and expressing  identity’ means that there is absolutely no legal basis to continue to ban it, so polygamy will undoubtedly become legal as soon as the first court challenge hits the docket. So will a lot of other things Americans can’t even imagine yet.

Islamist groups like CAIR see this as a spear point for their ultimate aim, to make sharia law recognized and enforceable here in America as it already is in Britain.

This is no fantasy, especially since at least one Supreme Court Justice is aattlready quite sharia friendly.

So it’s not just judicial tyranny,  the disregarding of the Constitution and the rule of law we’re talking about here. We are talking about radical changes in American life that are going to change what was a free society into something very different. ..something unrecognizable.

An attempt at gun confiscation is the next step in the agenda.  Just watch.


Continue reading Tyranny In Black Robes – The Scotus Approves Gay Marriage

. . . → Read More: Tyranny In Black Robes – The Scotus Approves Gay Marriage

Burning Down The House Without Thinking


The Supreme Court today effectively disenfranchised the overwhelming majority of citizens in 5 states when it refused to hear appeals in cases involving Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana that had defined marriage as between one man and one woman, leaving intact lower-court rulings striking down those laws.

Rather than actually rule on same sex marriage, the Court simply decided not to take a position, just as they cravenly did with California’s Proposition 8.The Court did not even  bother explaining why it refused to hear the appeals.

This pretty much means that the remaining 26 states that still prohibit same sex marriage will have their laws struck down one by one as advocates of same sex marriage shop around for a judge likely to rule that the laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman are illegal.

The fact that all of these existing laws were enacted by a majority of the people in these states means nothing.

Is this the Court’s new direction, to disenfranchise people based on political correctness? Are we back to the days of Dred Scott?

It’s one thing if the people of a given state wish to change the definition of marriage to include gay couples. It’s quite  another to ignore their wishes if they choose not to, especially without even the courtesy of hearing arguments and making a ruling.

And make no mistake about it. This is very much about changing the definition of marriage and not a civil rights issue. To prove this to yourself, ask any gay person of your acquaintance who rabidly favors legalized same sex marriage on the grounds of ‘equal rights’ if they would be satisfied with law that establishes every one of those rights they claim they don’t have but refers to civil unions instead of marriages. You’ll invariably get an indignant ‘no!’ in almost all cases.

This was never about equal rights.It was always about redefining marriage.

Is this good for society? We’re told that it is, because it supports the doctrine of equal rights for everyone, will extend the stability of marriage to the homosexual community, and won’t have any effect on traditional marriage.

Is this true? Let’s take a look.

First of all, rather than supporting the doctrine of equal rights, the way this has been done serves to undermine respect for the Constitution, the Supreme Court and the rule of law. What we saw here was the catering to a powerful group politically at the expense of the majority. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel openly voiced this sentiment  when he talked about gays being ” the new Jews” in terms of Democrat fund raising.

In California, for instance, we saw the spectacle of Governor Jerry Brown, then the state’s Attorney General refusing to enforce state law or defend it in court after politicians in various jurisdictions began illegally issuing same sex marriage licenses.

And it just took one judge, Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker,an open homosexual and gay marriage advocate to rule Proposition 8 ‘unconstitutional’ after the state Supreme Court declared that it was, and send it to the Supreme Court…who refused to rule on the case on the grounds that the people of California ‘lacked standing’ to argue their case!


There are numerous other examples of similar scenarios across the nation. Not only that, but we’ve seen increased bullying and intimidation of business owners and clergymen who have declined to service homosexual weddings for reasons of faith…or whom even donate to groups whom support traditional marriage.


 The real motivation of many gay activists in insisting on redefining traditional marriage isn’t equality per se, but forcing the normalization and mainstreaming of their lifestyle by whatever means necessary. The effect of this is already evident, as children in many public schools are already being indoctrinated to believe that LGBT behavior is exactly that, regardless of their religious or ethical beliefs or those of their parents, who are paying for the indoctrination.

 So we’re talking about some animals simply being more equal than others, ala’ George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

There’s no way to argue that this sort of tyrannical implementing of the redefinition of marriage strengthens our freedoms or respect for law. Instead, what it has taught people is that lawfare and sleazy tactics matter more than the law, and that is going to set a horrendous precedent.

But will gay marriage affect traditional marriage? Of course it will. And the reasons may surprise you.

The first effect of diluting marriage – for that is exactly what ‘expanding’ the definition of marriage amounts to – will be to encourage all sorts of variations to dilute it even further. Same sex marriage is certain to lead to a slippery slope of legalized polygamy and mainstreaming of the euphemism favored by a number of well established, mainstream polygamy advocates here in the US, “polyamory” (group marriage).

University of North Carolina Professor Mim Chapman’s “What Does Polyamory Look Like” is regarded as one of the ‘bibles’ of the movement, along with Deborah Anapol’s “Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits”. And the movement already has a flagship magazine in Loving More…which is actually supported by the taxpayers, believe it or not.

Once you do a little research, you find out that a lot of the advocates for diluting traditional marriage tend to be..wait for it..lawyers, especially family law lawyers,including the late Paula Ettelbrick who taught law at the University of Michigan, New York University, Barnard, and Columbia, and was the executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission as well as New York City’s Stonewall Community Foundation; Emory University law professor Martha Fineman, who is also an affilited scholar with the ultra-Left Center For American Progress; University of Maryland Carole Hanan Sibel; Research Professor of Law Martha Ertman; Mary Anne Case, Arnold I. Shure Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School; Judith Stacey, the Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis and Sociology at NYU and the author of “Unhitched” essentially an advocacy book for ‘non-traditional marriage’ and David Chambers, a professor of law at the University of Michigan.

And surprise! A number of these academics actually champion the radical remaking and even the dissolution of traditional marriage as an institution in favor of a series of ‘contractual’ relationships, and are quite open about championing same sex marriage as a entryway towards the abolishing of traditional marriage as we now know it.


It‘s obvious why a number of the most outspoken advocates of same sex marriage are lawyers. After all, they’re the ones who will be pocketing handsome fees for a whole new round of divorces, custody battles and the drawing and redrawing of marital ‘contracts’ once same sex marriage, polygamy and polyamory become the law of the land.

Another group that has been virtually silent about homosexual marriage even though many of them are violently opposed to it are Islamist organizations like CAIR, The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) And The Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC). They see this as a spear point for legalizing the polygamy Islam allows as well as other aspects of sharia law. They also see it as a selling point to proselytize for Islam to people whom may not be  particularly affiliated religiously, but retain traditional attitudes towards homosexuality.

 Like it or not, traditional monogamous marriage between one man and one woman is one of the foundations of western society, as well as the preferred environment for raising children as all serious research on the subject shows. That’s why it’s lasted as long as it has. Diluting marriage and diminishing  that foundation  will almost certainly  lead to a number of bad effects on our society, most of which can already be seen in Europe.

  Much of Europe has had same sex marriage for a while now, and de facto legal polygamy is already a fact there because of the huge influx of Muslim immigrants. Parts of Europe even have a problem with bestiality in the form of animal prostitution that they’re unable to eliminate because of their existing laws on sex and marriage. And why not? How can one discriminate legally between ‘lifestyle choices’?

The clear trend there since same sex marriage became legal is for less marriage, drastically lower birthrates, and a vastly greater amount of out of wedlock births. In order to make a society like that work even slightly, you need a vast and well-funded welfare state. Again looking at Europe as an example, not only doesn’t such a state work if you have massive immigration, but it freezes social and financial mobility and eventually topples under its own weight into bankruptcy once you run out of other people’s money to spend.While redefining marriage isn’t the only thing shoving us in that direction, it’s going to be an important part of it.

What consenting adults do sexually in the privacy of their own homes is of no interest to me. But  it’s pretty clear to me that redefining marriage like this, especially given the way it’s being done  is going to have big picture consequences for Western society that will only become apparent as time passes.If you doubt this, do a little research yourself about what happened to other societies that legalized same sex marriage and normalized such relationships.

We’re burning down our house it took centuries to build..without thinking.


Continue reading Burning Down The House Without Thinking

. . . → Read More: Burning Down The House Without Thinking

How the States and SCOTUS can apply Solomon’s Judgment to Gay Marriage

First I have to establish some assumptions. The first is that the religious right believes that homosexuality is a sin. But in my lifetime I cannot recall when it was ever illegal or any Christian who thought it should be made illegal…except my mother, at least until her baby boyRead More

Continue reading How the States and SCOTUS can apply Solomon’s Judgment to Gay Marriage

. . . → Read More: How the States and SCOTUS can apply Solomon’s Judgment to Gay Marriage

A Few Words On ‘Discrimination’ And Freedom

(Credit: Big Earl's Restaurant)

Now here’s a small item that caught my attention.

Apparently a gay couple stopped at a popular restaurant called Big Earl’s Bait House and Country Store in Pittsburg Texas, a middling sized town in the corner of northeast Texas where the Lone Star State meets Oklahoma and Louisiana.

Their story is as follows; they stopped for breakfast,paid up and were told by their waitress not to return because ‘we don’t serve fags here.’

My, my.

Big Earl Cheney, who owns the restaurant has a somewhat different story. The waitress happens to be his daughter, and Cheney says her choice of words was her own.

“I don’t think I should have to discipline her. I think the parents of those children — or kids or being whatever they are — should discipline them or teach ‘em how to act in public. I don’t think it’s my place to discipline her.”

Cheney’s story is that the couple were, shall we say, acting out in public.In other words, their being gay had nothing to do with it, but their behavior did.

“What I saw was one of them half way under the table with his legs stretched out into the other guy’s lap. And he kind of looked really possum eyed at me as they say it in East Texas, he kind of looked at me like ‘uh-oh’.”

“Homosexuality, Blacks, Hispanics — they all come in here — everybody comes in here to eat,” said Cheney. “I’ve served my country for over 20 years; I know what my freedoms are.”

He continued, “I’m not gonna have people coming in here with their butt showing; I’m not gonna have people coming in here naked; I’m not gonna have people coming in here having sex on the tables.”

Now, that is a rather different message than the one his daughter was sending with ‘we don’t serve fags here.’ I’ll leave it to the reader to decide which one applies.

The couple claims nothing inappropriate was going on. I can accept that at face value, but I also recognize that what’s inappropriate might be very different for a gay couple in say, Austin than for an older, heterosexual restaurant owner in East Texas. I would also have to add that if the couple was just sitting there eating breakfast, one would have to wonder why anyone would single them out as gay. How would they tell? Were they wearing a sign?

Cheney has said he would refuse to admit the couple back into his restaurant. The gay couple maintains they were doing nothing wrong and were discriminated against.

As one of them said, “Nobody deserves to be treated disrespectfully at an establishment that just seconds ago accepted their money.”

Needless to say, the gay couple figured lawfare was the best response, but their attorney was unable to help out because of, in his words, local bigotry:

Gay Rights Attorney John Nechman says there really isn’t any legal recourse for Dewberry and his partner to take.

“We don’t have protections in most parts of Texas for Gay and Lesbian people, other than in Dallas, Austin, San Antonio and El Paso,” says Nechman. “There’s really no protections to go after someone because they’ve made a slur. Now if they made a slanderous statement, a libelous statement, where they claimed for example that the two were committing an act that they didn’t do, there would be legal action to take against them.”

Lawyers, of course, love the idea that people have a right to be insulted and to sue at the drop of a hat. It’s called job security.As well as a plague on society.

But let’s examine this from a different point of view.

Two people enter a restaurant. They’re served. Something about their conduct during that transaction makes the owner of the business uncomfortable, and they’re asked not to return, admittedly in non-PC language.

So there are two possibilities…either the couple’s conduct was such that they were told not to ever come back, or the staff and owners don’t like homosexuals.Actually, both take us to the same place.

Has anyone reading this ever been 86’d from a bar or restaurant because of their conduct? I have, once because I decked someone who was drinking and got aggressive with me that I later found out was the bar’s manager and another time because the idiot I was with pinched and groped a waitress.

In both cases, a business decision was made by a privately owned establishment to forgo my future custom by the business in question. Paying money does not give you a license to behave how you please, especially if you’re annoying the other patrons or the staff, and that is a decision only the business in question can make.Actually, many restaurants and bars would even tell heterosexual couples to cool it if they were being overly affectionate in public. There’s a time and place for everything.

But what if the couple was ‘doing nothing wrong’ as they put it, and the restaurant in question is being discriminatory, and simply doesn’t want homosexuals in their establishment?

Let’s say that you own a restaurant and decide, for whatever reason, that everyone who comes in has to wear a tie. The Bel-Air hotel in Los Angeles demands a jacket and tie for all male patrons, and has some particularly gruesome specimens they force any man who comes in to don if he wants to eat and drink there. Because of that, there are a number of people who simply avoid going there, especially in a casual town like Los Angeles.The hotel has made a business decision for a private facility they own to give up a certain amount of income to enforce this policy and ought to have a perfect right to do so.

What about clubs that refuse to admit people if they’re wearing what could be construed as gang colors or gang attire, and clearly post those exclusions? That policy disproportionally affects blacks, but undoubtedly has an affect on safety. Are they being racist, or making a business decision that impacts on their possible liability for any injuries patrons might suffer?

Let’s say you own a restaurant or bar and decide, for whatever reason, that you can’t abide people with blond hair. Same thing. You are making a private decision to indulge your own bigotry at the cost of a fair amount of money, and possibly the hire of some excellent employees.

If Big Earl is telling the truth and he has no problem with homosexual customers provided they act in a manner he feels is appropriate for his restaurant, you can’t call him a bigot,merely a business owner who had made a decision he is entirely entitled to make. If he’s lying and doesn’t want gays in his restaurant, the same thing applies. It is his establishment and his choice to make.

The gay couple likewise have a choice to make. If they feel they were insulted (and it seems they were) there are other places to have breakfast. And they can certainly tell their friends not to patronize Big Earl’s as well.

That’s how a free society ought to work.


Continue reading A Few Words On ‘Discrimination’ And Freedom

. . . → Read More: A Few Words On ‘Discrimination’ And Freedom

Federal Judge declares Texas Law Banning Same Sex Marriage Unconstitutional

Judge Orlando Garcia, a Clinton appointee ruled today that a long standing law limiting marriage to one man and one woman is unconstitutional.

“Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution,” Garcia wrote. “These Texas laws deny plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex.”

Of course Texas, like most other states allows domestic partnerships, and Judge Garcia would be hard pressed to name a right or privilege that domestic partnerships are denied, but it doesn’t matter.

Nor do the rights of the people of Texas, who passed this law overwhelmingly in a popular referendum.Their rights only matter when they ‘vote properly’.

Unlike California, the State of Texas has an attorney general who actually abides by his sworn oath. Greg Abbott, who also is the leading Republican candidate to succeed Gov. Rick Perry, is going to appeal the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans.

“This is an issue on which there are good, well-meaning people on both sides,” Abbott said in a statement. “The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that States have the authority to define and regulate marriage.”

I would disagree with Mr. Abbot here. Actually, what the Supreme Court has ruled is that law and the will of the people can be subverted fairly easily.

The most recent SCOTUS decision on the issue are amazing in their disregard for law. In the one on California’s Proposition 8, they simply decided that the people of California had no right to amend their own state constitution or to be represented in court if their state officials simply chose not to be bothered to enforce whatever laws they individually decided were politically inconvenient. The SCOTUS didn’t even bother to declare Prop 8 unconstitutional, but punted and decided to take the cowardly way out and simply deny the people of California standing to appeal, which meant that the former attorney general Jerry Brown, now governor, could simply pretend the law doesn’t exist and order it to be violated at will to curry favor with an important new constituency and source of fund raising.

Homosexual marriage activists understood this message quite well, and their tactics have changed accordingly. In states where they could count on friendly politicians to push same sex marriage over the line whether people wanted it or not like Massachusetts and California, they did so. In other states, rather than bother with state legislators or respecting existing law, they conducted what amounts to lawfare..shopping for Democrat appointed judges,filing suit and getting court orders to overturn long standing law and the will of the people.

It’s worked pretty well in several states,making a mockery of the Supreme Court decision on prop 8 that called for existing laws against same sex marriage in states that already had them to be respected. It remains to be seen how well this tactic works.

One thing is certain. This is establishing a precedent for judicial tyranny. The balance of power changes, and just like Harry Reid’s elimination of the filibuster, this is going to turn into something the Left is going to be quite sorry for in the future when it does.


Continue reading Federal Judge declares Texas Law Banning Same Sex Marriage Unconstitutional

. . . → Read More: Federal Judge declares Texas Law Banning Same Sex Marriage Unconstitutional

The UN Reveals Its Cowardice And Hypocrisy By Attacking The Catholic Church

 A UN Human Right commission has attacked the Catholic Church and the Vatican concerning its canon law, policies and teachings. The report, published today by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child harshly criticized the Church for its teach…

Continue reading The UN Reveals Its Cowardice And Hypocrisy By Attacking The Catholic Church

. . . → Read More: The UN Reveals Its Cowardice And Hypocrisy By Attacking The Catholic Church

Duck Dynasty: A&E And Cracker Barrel Cave

Phil Robertson Duck Dynasty

The tyranny meted out by GLAAD and other Christian hating groups appears to be backfiring badly.

After the Robertson family announced publicly that it would be unthinkable for them to continue with the top rated show without their patriarch Phil Robertson, the suits at A&E and Disney, who owns them seem to have had a change of heart…especially after feeling the heat from their viewers, ( a ‘boycott A&E’ Facebook page received over 1.5 million likes in a matter of a couple of days) and very likely after consulting with their lawyers about what their violation of Robertson’s civil and First Amendment rights was likely to cost them in court.

Phil Robertson’s suspension is apparently over, and he will return to the show in January.No word on whether a fifth season is in the works, but if it works out contractually and the Robertsons are no longer obligated to A&E, don’t be surprised if Duck Dynasty appears on a different outlet.

Knowing how these things work, aside from an apology, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Robertsons received a cash somethin’ somethin’ from A&E/ Disney in order to let bygones be bygones and continue the show.

Apparently the owners of Cracker Barrel felt the heat as well for embracing politically correct tyranny.
Just days after they announced they were removing Duck Dynasty products from their stores, they posted this craven apology:

Dear Cracker Barrel Customer:

When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we’ve done.

You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren’t shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.

We listened.

Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.

And, we apologize for offending you.

We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.

We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family.

Unfortunately for Cracker Barrel, a lot of folks now realize that they can buy the products in question directly from Duck Commander and bypass an outlet like Cracker Barrel entirely.

Embracing tyranny always carries a price.


Continue reading Duck Dynasty: A&E And Cracker Barrel Cave

. . . → Read More: Duck Dynasty: A&E And Cracker Barrel Cave

The Duck Dynasty Witchhunt

I’m not a TV fan, but there’s a TV show out there I haven’t seen on A&E called ‘Duck’s Dynasty’, that, from what I’ve heard, is a about a family in Louisiana who openly espouses Christianity and what we could call traditional American values on the air.

The show is a huge, off the charts success in the ratings.

Apparently there’s a huge controversy now going on because of an interview the family patriarch, 67-year-old Phil Robertson did with GQ magazine.

Let me underline that…the remarks made were not made on the air, but in a magazine interview several weeks ago.

A lot of the interview, of course, concerned the family’s Christian beliefs and Phil’s own wild past before he became a Christian. As you can imagine, he sees Duck Dynasty as something of a push back against a lot of what constitutes popular culture today.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

When asked what he considered sinful, he replied:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Later in the interview, he made a point of saying that he’s not trying to be judgmental, but that these are merely his views as he sees them, saying, ” “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

That sentiment on his part didn’t change things one iota. His equating homosexuality with sin, just as the Bible he believes in says it is was all it took.

Because of those remarks, he’s been indefinitely suspended from the A7E television show.

My friend Terresa Monroe-Hamilton over at The Noisy Room had an excellent take on this:

For telling the truth and stating what he personally believed, A&E put him on indefinite hiatus. They fired him. I would be very surprised if the family did not tell A&E to stuff it. They managed to take THE most popular rated show ever and scuttle it. Phil had told A&E earlier that if they insisted he remove God or guns from his show, they were through […]

Drudge headlined this whole shameful turn of events on his site this morning with: “Roasted ‘Duck’ – Leader Fired After Gay Rant. The title is misleading as I don’t consider Phil’s statement as a rant, but a confirmation of his beliefs and faith. He has a right according to the First Amendment to state his views. And while A&E has a right to run their channel as they see fit, they obviously care more about the rights of Gays than they do of Christians and they fear the backlash from the LGBT community and their supporters. They don’t give a crap about Constitutional rights and evidently they are willing to throw away millions in revenue to placate a certain segment of society. That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it? A&E chose sides with GLAAD, took a stand and walked off a cliff. It’s okay for militant Gays to attack Christians and hunt them down, but when a Christian stands up and says what he believes… well, that’s hate don’t ya know.

She’s entirely correct.GLAAD is a far Left group that despises Christians, and was conspicuously noticeable by its absence after Alec Baldwin’s anti-gay slurs, which were a whole lot worse than anything Phil Robertson had to say.

Greg over at Rhymes With Right makes the point that firing Phil Robertson is also a blatant violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer – to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;”

A&E has made a public announcement to the effect that it has suspended Phil Robertson from his employment on the series Duck Dynasty for having expressed his religious beliefs outside of the workplace. This action certainly “otherwise discrimnate[s] against an individual with respect to his. . . terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individuals. . . religion”. Will the Obama Administration take action to uphold the civil rights of Phil Robertson in the face of this flagrant and public violation of his rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Or will this be one more example of the administration picking and choosing what laws it enforces based upon whether upholding and enforcing the law benefits those constituencies that support Obama and his political agenda?

Oh,I think we know the answer to that one. There’s far too much donor money involved.Would the president and his attorney general be going public and unleashing the Justice Department on A%E if Phil Robertson were a gay man fired for bashing Christianity and extolling the virtues of homosexuality in a private interview ? Would three quarters of the media be going absolutely berserk? I think we know the answer to that one too.

To the people out for Phil Robertson’s scalp, this is not a matter of civil rights per se, but a matter of ‘our rights trump yours, just because’.

The truth of the matter is that the show and the Robertson family have been ‘sitting ducks’ for quite some time.They champion everything the Left has been trying to destroy for years – America’s traditional culture of Judeo-Christian faith, the Second Amendment, self-reliance, traditional marriage and the nuclear family.

The show’s financial success kept the wolves at bay for awhile, but A&E (along with Disney, who owns A&E) have made a business decision to listen to their voices and violate Phil Robertson’s First Amendment rights

How that plays out based on the blowback they get from it will be another business decision they’ll have to make.


Continue reading The Duck Dynasty Witchhunt

. . . → Read More: The Duck Dynasty Witchhunt

Whoopsie.Gay Icon Matthew Shepard Was Actually Killed By Lover Over Meth


Another day, another Leftist narrative crumbles.

Breitbart has the story, a report on a review in the gay publication The Advocate of a new book written by well known gay author Stephen Jimenez entitled, The Book of Matt.

Ask the average American who Matthew Shepard is, and they’ll tell you he was that poor homosexual who was murdered by two thugs and tied to a fence because he was gay.

The part of the story that’s true is that on October 6th, 1998, Shepard met “two strangers” at the Fireside Lounge in Laramie, Wyoming and went off with them. The two men drove him to a remote area, robbed him, pistol whipped him to death and left him hanging on a fence.

Shepard later became a secular saint, an icon for gay rights and same sex marriage. His murder was used to lobby congress,was the subject of hundreds of speeches and fund raising appeals, and became a flag to rally around. Songs were written about him by well known pop stars, a foundation was formed in his name, a TV movie or three was made about him if memory serves me and even national hate crimes legislation named for him.

Turns out that the truth was very different.

As gay journalist Aaron Hicklin, writing in The Advocate asks, “How do people sold on one version of history react to being told that the facts are slippery — that thinking of Shepard’s murder as a hate crime does not mean it was a hate crime? And how does it color our understanding of such a crime if the perpetrator and victim not only knew each other but also had sex together, bought drugs from one another, and partied together?

This startling revelation comes in The Book of Matt to be published next week by investigative journalist Stephen Jiminez, who over the course of years interviewed over 100 people, including Shepard’s friends, friends of the killers, and the killers themselves.

According to The Advocate, one of the premier gay publications in the country, Jiminez “amassed enough anecdotal evidence to build a persuasive case that Shepard’s sexuality was, if not incidental, certain less central than popular consensus had lead us to believe.”

Even before Shepard died, two of his friends were peddling the narrative that he died at the hands of vicious homophobes. Within days the gay establishment latched onto what would drive the hate crimes story for years to come; even now, the Laramie Project, a stage play about the killing is performed all over the country. Indeed, it will be performed next week at Ford’s Theater in Washington DC.

But what really happened to Matthew Shepard? 

He was beaten, tortured, and killed by one or both of the men now serving life sentences. But it turns out, according to Jiminez, that Shepard was a meth dealer himself and he was friends and sex partners with the man who led in his killing. Indeed, his killer may have killed him because Shepard allegedly came into possession of a large amount of methamphetamine and refused to give it up.
The book also shows that Shepard’s killer was on a five-day meth binge at the time of the killing.

My, my. As if we’ve never had people fall out over drugs, or attempt to torture someone to get them to give up their stash and go a bit too far. Especially if they were under the influence.

Shapard’s death was a tragedy, but the use that was made of it was obscene.

This is interesting because it’s a textbook example of how the Left operates. Find a symbol, provide it with unearned moral authority, publicize it widely and push the new narrative for all it’s worth. It’s a variation of Saul Alinsky’s Rule 13; “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” In this case, it’s pick the symbol, freeze it, personalize it and use it to polarize anyone whom opposes your agenda.

Rachel Corrie was used in exactly the same way, as an icon and money maker by ‘anti-Zionists’, portrayed as a tender little buttercup murdered by vicious Jews instead of the hate-filled, anti-semitic terrorist groupie harridan she really was.

Aaron Hicklin, the writer of the review in The Advocate provides a cynical coda to all this that explains a lot: “There are valuable reasons for telling certain stories in a certain way at pivotal times, but that doesn’t mean we have to hold on to them once they’ve outlived their usefulness.” 

The defense against this, of course, is to never believe any of the Left’s horse manure when the next attempt to manipulate you comes along. Or anyone, fo that matter.It’s not as if we don’t understand who the legacy media is by now, or why people will peddle certain narratives because thar’s gold and political capital in them thar hills.

After all, if someone you knew repeatedly lied to you, would you believe anything they had to say, ever? Start from that premise, always take a good look at who’s telling you you what, who’s paying them and what they’re ultimately trying to sell you is a good place to start.


. . . → Read More: Whoopsie.Gay Icon Matthew Shepard Was Actually Killed By Lover Over Meth . . . → Read More: Whoopsie.Gay Icon Matthew Shepard Was Actually Killed By Lover Over Meth

California Assaults Religious Freedom For Christians And Jews

There’s a new bill pending in the California legislature that directly targets religious freedom for Christians and Jews.

It’s SB 323, which passed the California Senate and sailed through Assembly committees to a floor vote, possibly this week.

The bill targets the tax exempt status of groups like the Boy Scouts, Little League, Future Farmers of America and 19 other organizations if they discriminate in any way based on gender identity, sexual orientation, nationality, race, religion or religious affiliation.

The measure is also aimed tax-exempt status for public and private schools found to sponsor any of these ‘discriminatory’ youth groups..including exemption status held by a religious school or church.

“Traditional values regarding heterosexuality are being branded as the legal equivalent of racism, and so there’s the quite genuine fear that the tax code really is the battleground against the traditional churches,” said Alan Reinach, executive director of Church State Council, which opposes SB 323.

“It’s not about ‘live and let live.’ If the churches do not conform to the values of homosexuality, then we will lose our standing in society,” he said. […}

They say SB 323 discriminates against organizations that have faith-based convictions and forces them to adopt the government’s viewpoint on sexual orientation and gender identity in their hiring, practices, membership, objectives or activities.

Many youth groups do not even hold their own tax-exempt status, but operate under the exemption of their church conference, said Mr. Reinach, whose public policy organization focuses on religious-freedom issues.

So if a youth group is found to be discriminatory, “what are you going to do — revoke the tax exemption for two dozen schools and 150 churches or at least all of their youth groups?” he asked.

Interestingly enough, only churches, synagogues and groups affiliated with them are n=being mentioned. Not a word is being said about the Nation of Islam, which is avowedly anti-homosexuality or Muslim mosques or groups,which hold similar views based on the Qu’ran.

Other groups named in the bill are Bobby Sox, Little League, Campfire Inc., 4-H Clubs, Future Farmers of America, Future Homemakers of America, Boys’ Clubs, Girls’ Clubs, Pop Warner football and AYSO as well as several other soccer organizations.

Brian McClintock, a spokesman for the Little League, said his group already has policies not to discriminate on the “basis of race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, gender, sexual orientation or disability.” And two people associated with Future Farmers of America said they couldn’t imagine why their organization was named in the bill.

Perhaps I can answer their question.

Homosexuals have become a new ‘protected group’ for democrats and a major fundraising target, as no less then Rahm Emmanuel himself recently let us know. They normally tend to have decent incomes and usually have no expenses or time constraints associated with child rearing and thus have ample disposable income and leisure time that can be tapped politically.

Additionally, since California enacted de facto legal same sex marriage even though a measure passed by a majority of the state’s voters amended the state’s constitution to prevent that, this is seen as just another political payoff to the very powerful and well funded homosexual lobby.

We will see a time soon in California when a church is going to be sued for not hiring a gay clergyman, and will lose its tax exempt status as a result.

As Mr. Reinach presciently observed, the end game is to eliminate a huge source of tax exempt giving and to destroy the standing in society of churches and synagogues…at least those that refuse to leave their religious principles behind and go along to get along.

First Amendment…wha? Who?


. . . → Read More: California Assaults Religious Freedom For Christians And Jews . . . → Read More: California Assaults Religious Freedom For Christians And Jews

A Few Words On The DOMA And Prop 8 Supreme Court Decisions

Today the Supreme Court issued two rulings on gay marriage with interesting implications.

In the first one, by a 5-4 ruling the Court struck down certain provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)signed into law by President Clinton.

In Windsor v. United States, it declared provisions of the law invalid that prohibit homosexual couples from sharing government health care benefits, filing taxes jointly, and similar items under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

Justice Kennedy was the swing vote.

You’ll note two things..first, that this simple and essentially fair fix could have been done in Congress long ago with reference to civil unions without even touching the definition of marriage, as it essentially amends the law without rescinding it.

And second, that is does not make gay marriage ‘legal’ except in those states that want to make it so. Although it does signal (but not implicitly state) that such unions should be recognized nationwide.What the Court essentially did was to punt, just as they did in the other ruling on this subject they made, which we’ll discuss shortly.

DOMA was always a queer piece of law (no pun intended). Like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, it was a compromise based on the assurances of gay activists and their congressional supporters that they would never seek to overturn it judicially – which of course is exactly what they did afterwards. And in fact in was mostly same sex marriage advocates in congress who mostly kept it from being amended, precisely because they were after the bigger goal of redefining marriage itself.

The second Supreme Court decision rendered today concerned California’s Proposition 8, voted for by almost a two to one majority in that state to change California’s constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

At the time, California had legalized civil unions which even the state’s own Supreme Court justices admitted gave same sex couples in a civil union the exact same rights as a heterosexual married couple. But a ruling by openly gay Judge Vernon Walker that th enew law was unconstitutional sent Proposition 8 on the road to the Supreme Court.

What the SCOTUS did was simply to emphasize their earlier decision on DOMA by refusing to hear the case based on – wait for it – a lack of standing. Here we have the votes of an entire state dismissed, as the case goes back to the lower court whom will likewise do the same. So California will have gay marriage regardless of what the residents want, and Governor Jerry Brown (who as attorney general made a unilateral decision to ignore his oath of office and not defend the new law in court) has ordered the state to resume issuing licenses for same sex marriages within 30 days.

The rationale for this is particularly revealing. Here’s Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion explaining the decision to dismiss the case:

For there to be such a case or controversy, it is not enough that the party invoking the power of the court have a keen interest in the issue. That party must also have “standing,” which requires, among other things, that it have suffered a concrete and particularized injury. Because we find that petitioners do not have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit.

Once Proposition 8, which limited marriage in California to heterosexual couples, was approved by the voters, the measure became “a duly enacted constitutional amendment or statute.” Petitioners have no role—special or otherwise—in the enforcement of Proposition 8. They therefore have no “personal stake” in defending its enforcement that is distinguishable from the general interest of every citizen of California.

In his dissent, Justice Kennedy at least tried to be honest about the matter, argueing that the SCOTUS should have made a ruling in this case:

The Court today unsettles its longtime understanding of the basis for jurisdiction in representative-party litigation, leaving the law unclear and the District Court’s judgment, and its accompanying statewide injunction, effectively immune from appellate review.

Kennedy also smacked state officials for opposing Prop 8 in the manner they did as another reason the SCOTUS should have taken this on:

In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government. The California initiative process embodies these principles and has done so for over a century.

Eh, but not in California so much. Or a lot of other places where same sex marriage was pushed through without bothering to actually consult the voters. So in today’s decisions, the SCOTUS is simply saying to the activists on both sides that if you can get a state to allow same sex marriage or to disallow it by any means necessary, so be it.

Right now, same sex marriage is legal in 15 states. The only one where voters actually had a say in the matter and voted for it are Maine, Maryland, and Washington. In most of the others, including California, the voters feelings on the matter were studiously ignored.


. . . → Read More: A Few Words On The DOMA And Prop 8 Supreme Court Decisions . . . → Read More: A Few Words On The DOMA And Prop 8 Supreme Court Decisions

SecDef Hagel And JCS Gen. Dempsey Implementing Plans To Put Women In The Front Lines

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey are in the process of implementing plans that will put women service members on the front lines in combat.

Under details of the plans obtained by The Associated Press, women could start training as Army Rangers by mid-2015 and as Navy SEALs a year later.

The military services have mapped out a schedule that also will include reviewing and possibly changing the physical and mental standards that men and women will have to meet in order to quality for certain infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reviewed the plans and has ordered the services to move ahead.

The move follows revelations of a startling number of sexual assaults in the armed forces. Earlier this year, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said the sexual assaults might be linked to the longstanding ban on women serving in combat because the disparity between the roles of men and women creates separate classes of personnel – male “warriors” versus the rest of the force.{…}

The military services are also working to determine the cost of opening certain jobs to women, particularly aboard a variety of Navy ships, including certain submarines, frigates, mine warfare and other smaller warships. Dozens of ships do not have adequate berthing or facilities for women to meet privacy needs, and would require design and construction changes.

The Obama Administration is already tossing thousands of battle hardened and experienced warriors out of the service to ‘cut costs’. Apparently a number of them are going to be replaced with women without experience on the front lines of combat in the name of political correctness.

As for Dempsey’s comments on sexual assaults in the military, how ridiculous they are can be determined by the stats on homosexual rape in the military, which is a significant part of the increase.


More military men than women are sexually abused in the ranks each year, a Pentagon survey shows, highlighting the underreporting of male-on-male assaults.

When the Defense Department released the results of its anonymous sexual abuse survey this month and concluded that 26,000 service members were victims in fiscal 2012, which ended Sept. 30, an automatic assumption was that most were women. But roughly 14,000 of the victims were male and 12,000 female, according to a scientific survey sample produced by the Pentagon.

“It appears that the DOD has serious problems with male-on-male sexual assaults that men are not reporting and the Pentagon doesn’t want to talk about,” Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness, said. She noted that only 2 percent of assailants are women.

Now that gays can openly serve in the military, I wouldn’t be surprised to see those stats increase, no matter how the Pentagon tries to hide it.

They will undoubtedly increase for women as well as the New Politically Correct Military rushes to put women on the front lines of combat. Aside from the additional risks women will face if they’re taken prisoner, (particularly by adherents of Islam…’what thy right hand possesses’), the very nature of combat conditions themselves and the close quarters they involve will lead to increased sexual assaults, pregnancies on the front lines and decreased unit cohesion as various troops couple, decouple and rearrange.

Not only that, but it will lead to increased casualties because of the lowering of standards and because most men are genetically programmed to take risks to rescue women in peril…especially if there’s a sexual or romantic connection between them.

Welcome to the Left’s deconstruction of the US military.


. . . → Read More: SecDef Hagel And JCS Gen. Dempsey Implementing Plans To Put Women In The Front Lines . . . → Read More: SecDef Hagel And JCS Gen. Dempsey Implementing Plans To Put Women In The Front Lines

Jason Collins, ‘Heroic’????

I absolutely can’t believe the to-do over basketball player Jason Collins outing himself as a homosexual.

One breathless commentator over at USA Today even compared him with Jackie Robinson, believe it or not…

I’m sure you’ve all noticed the ‘straight only’ bathrooms, water fountains, seating sections in restaurants and public buildings and the many neighborhoods where gays are unable to buy property.

Oh, wait a minute, you haven’t?

Full disclosure..I’m not a round ball fan and know nothing about Collins, nor do I care whom he sleeps with. But it seems to me that calling him heroic is just a tad misplaced.

If anyone deserves credit and sympathy, it’s his former fiancée, Carolyn Moos.

She only found out Collins was a gay a couple of days before he announced it.

Carolyn tells TMZ, she never once suspected he was gay, so the news is shocking. She says Collins eventually revealed everything last weekend — just days before his big announcement — and said that his homosexuality was the real reason he ended things with her.

At the time of their breakup, Carolyn says Jason gave a bunch of BS reasons for calling it quits … and she could never understand what went wrong, until now. […]

“It’s very emotional for me as a woman to have invested [eight] years in my dream to have a husband, soul mate, and best friend in him. So this is all hard to understand.”

Eight years. And after all that, he calls her up just like that and says ‘Guess what, I’m batting for the other team’. Like he didn’t know before?

And while Jason Collins was discovering this about himself, does anyone doubt he was cheating on her?

If he had any doubts about his orientation and he cared about this young woman and her feelings, I think he owed her some honesty.

To her credit, Ms. Moos has remained fairly classy about being strung along like that.

“I care about [Jason] tremendously and only want the best for him,” she said. “I want Jason to be happy for a lifetime and stay true to who he really is, inside and out.”

Again, I could care less who Jason Collins sleeps with. But based what his behavior and his treatment of his fiancée reveals about his character, I don’t see him being held up as any kind of hero or model at all.

That’s the only part about this I think worthy of mention, because it shows how debased our ideas of what heroism is are becoming.


. . . → Read More: Jason Collins, ‘Heroic’???? . . . → Read More: Jason Collins, ‘Heroic’????