It Came Upon A Midnight Clear — a blast from the past 12/21/2014

*I don’t normally run these posts this close, and this is sort of a Christmas story, but I know sort of the feeling out there among you guys from what has been thrown at me/asked this weekend.

I want to emphasize that as a supporter of SSM (And polygamy, and any other contract been free, consenting adults) I never supported judicial activism, much less supreme court activism or turning the constitution into a sort of tea leaf reading show.

I will confess too that the thing that worries me most about this decision is the fact the window I’m typing in has a rainbow flag up top, courtesy of WordPress.  That kind of bizarre triumphalism, of tribal cheering makes me uncomfortable and ALWAYS ends in tears.

UPDATE: to clarify what bothers me about that rainbow flag in the editing window: when corporations do this, it always means they’re afraid of FURTHER lawfare, which means they at least wordpress interprets this law as “no church, caterer or corporation left alone.”

A lot of my gay friends are more uncomfortable than I am — yes, guys, got your emails.  I’ve just been booked back to back on panels and have had no more than a few minutes on the computer here and there — because they’re mostly libertarians and know history.  They know that in every country in which government grew too powerful gays (or any other minority, for that matter) didn’t fare well.

Not knowing the details of the decision all I’ll say about that one is that what I heard makes me uncomfortable because the state having a say in our most intimate associations (for OR against) makes me uncomfortable.  I think it’s high time we took marriage (all marriage) away from government altogether.  (You may say I’m a dreamer… and you’re probably right.)

The OTHER one — which I also haven’t had time to read but I heard a lot more about — this charming idea that the Supreme Court now gets to “correct” laws to “make them work” — THAT if correctly reported to me is an abomination and a blunt sign we have a problem (or perhaps “we got a condition.”)

So I thought I’d run this story again, to remind you of two things:

1- Things could get worse, and probably will.  Human beings have a tendency to not want to rock the boat until it’s inevitable.  Read about the lead up to the revolutionary war if you don’t believe me.

2- America cannot be killed and cannot be destroyed.  It’s time to stop that silly talk.  America is not a location or a tribe.  America is an idea, and a notoriously hard to kill one.  America is an idea that has transformed the world.  It will continue to do so, so long as people believe in it.

Teach your children well.*

itcameuponcover

It Came Upon A Midnight Clear

The pounding on the doors, the words, “Open up in the name of the law.”

Juan Johnson who had been lying in the dark, in his little bed at the back of the house, half asleep, retained only a sense of explosions, a smell of something burning, papa up front saying he didn’t know anything of these Usaians and besides, he was a honest carpenter and what could they—

And mama! Mama, who had never left dad alone in any difficulty, Mama who rarely left the house without him and never at night, had gotten Juan and Angelita out of their beds, in the dark, wrapping the baby and putting her in a sling, and dressing Juan, fast, so fast that she’d put a sock of each different color on his feet.

This still bothered him, as they ran down the alley in the night, and then up another alley, all staying away from the police.

Juan could hear other pounding and “Open up—”

And fragments of other sentences, too, “Forbidden,” and “Dangerous elements” and “Seditious ideology.”

Juan knew what “dangerous elements” were. He was only ten, but Mama and Papa had taught him at home and he’d been allowed to read a lot of dad’s old books, the sort of thing they no longer taught in the school. Dangerous elements were things like Uranium and other things that gave off radiation that could kill you. Why the police would be looking for it, he didn’t know.

He did not however have any idea what Seditious ideology meant.

He repeated the words to himself as mama stopped in a dark alley, by a flyer. It wasn’t their flyer, but then Mama rarely drove their flyer, and she certainly never burned its genlock clean off, reaching in before it could do more than emit a bzzzt and burning something else, murmuring to herself as though to remember a list, “Alarm off,” Then went in, leaving Juan alone at the entrance for a moment. She came back and threw something to the floor. Juan didn’t know what it was – pieces of something electronic. “Tracker,” Mama said.

She pulled Juan in with one hand, and closed the door, then sat him in a seat, and – strangely – put the sling with Angelita around him. The baby was only three months old, but Juan was a slim boy and the sling – and the baby – very big and very heavy. He thought of protesting, but Mama looked as though she would start to cry, so he said nothing. He let Mama put the harness over both of them, and saw her consult a paper in Papa’s handwriting as she set the coordinates.

Moments later they were in the air, and Juan might have dozed, but he woke with the flare of explosions, and the shaking as Mama sent the flyer careening side to side.

“Mama!” he said.

“Say it, Juan, say it, my little Juanito.”

“I pledge allegian—”

Mama made a sound. It wasn’t quite laugh and not quite a cry. “Not that one. The other one. The human events one.”

Juan blinked. He’d learned all these from as soon as he could speak. The only time dad was really strict was in making sure he remembered everything, every single word. And the meaning. All the meaning. “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God—”

An explosion came very close, making them shake and showing Mama’s face, very pale and marked with trails as if she’d cried a lot. He hadn’t heard her cry. How could she cry so silently.

“Nature’s God?” Mama prompted.

“Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—”

Mama sobbed then, but didn’t say anything but “Go on,” so Juan did, as explosions rocked the small flyer, and Mama, finally, just took them really low, and did something, and pulled Juan out after her, but never took the baby sling of him, and she pushed him against a wall and put her hand over his mouth, while the flyer lifted off again and flew a programmed course.

“It was only a second,” Mama said. “Only a second. Maybe they won’t notice.”

But then she was pulling Juan, and running down an alley, and then another.

Juan heard heavy boots after them, and was surprised when Mama pulled out a burner and shot a man down. Juan didn’t have a very clear idea of what happened then, save the man fell, and mama pulled Juan after her again.

Up, up and up, they were climbing narrow stairs in the dark. Mama was talking to herself in Spanish, something she only did when she was really worried. Juan didn’t know Spanish, but he knew a few of the words. He knew “must do something” because mama used to say it at Papa when she was really mad or worried.

“Mama,” Juan said. “My legs hurt. And Angelita is heavy.”

“Yes,” Mama said, which seemed not to be an answer at all. From somewhere to their right came an explosion and then someone screamed, and screamed and screamed, the voice getting weaker as it went. Mama, who normally went to help all the neighbors, didn’t even slow down.

“Juan, you know what we’ve taught you? Papa and I?”

They’d taught him so many things. To read and to write, and to brush his teeth, and– “To mind and be a good boy?”

Again, Mama made that sound that wasn’t quite laughter or a sob, and her hand came down and touched his hair briefly. “That too, my love, but not that. About the Usa. About how it existed and was blessed by God as long as it kept to the precepts of liberty and equality before the law. And how it fell and gave its power to supposedly enlightened rulers and then—”

“It was reduced in size,” Juan said, puffing a little as it was hard to keep up with Mama as she ran down one alley, then another. “And punished.”

“Not reduced in size,” she said. “What remains calls itself United States, but it’s not.”

“But you said, if it returned to faithfulness and the…” He struggled for the words Papa had said so many times, “the inspired vision of the founders it would be forgiven and be great again.”

Sob-laugh and mama said, “It’s not the same place. It can’t return. We’ll have to remember and make it true again. Those of us who keep the faith.”

“Daddy said,” and now he was having true trouble catching his breath. “Daddy said that as long as the belief in the principles of the declaration of independence and the constitution-” deep breath. “As long as those remained in one human heart, the Usa wouldn’t be dead.”

“And so it won’t.” Mama stopped abruptly. Juan could hear the noise of people running after them, voices saying “They went this way. The Flyer was a ruse.”

There were flyers above too, with low-pointing floodlights. As one passed overhead, Mama pressed Juan against the wall. She spoke quickly, in a low voice, “That’s why they made us illegal. That’s why they’re trying to exterminate us. As long as liberty remains in one human heart, the bio-lords won’t have full sway. And they want full sway. They want to dictate our every thought. Listen, Juan, my son. Do you know where the Peace Tower is? From here?”

Juan thought. He wasn’t sure where he was, but he knew the neighborhood, and they hadn’t gone very far. Their flight had been too short. The Peace Tower, built to commemorate peace in the Americas, even if Papa said it wasn’t peace at all, just surrender, was big and lit up and right in the center of the city.

He shook his head a little, because if the peace tower were anywhere nearby, he would see its light. They lit it up in white and green every night.

“If you take that alley to the left, and keep going, mind, Juan, as fast as you can, you will come to the plaza where it is. Don’t go to the plaza. I don’t know if your description is out, but it might be. Instead, the alley that leads to the peace tower plaza, just before you leave it, it has a branch that turns left. Take that. It runs behind a lot of restaurants. Keep on that until you come to the back of a restaurant called Silver Palate – remember that. The name is on big red dumpsters in the back. Turn right there. Follow that alley till it ends, and climb over the wall to the right. It will be difficult, but mind, Juanito, keep Angelita from falling as you climb.

“You’ll be in the backyard of an apartment house. It’s what used to be a large house, long ago, but it’s now apartments. Go in through the back door, run up the stairs to the left, all the way to the top. There’s a door there, marked 4 B. Knock on it. Say Paul sent you. Say treason. They’ll know what to do. The man in the house, his name is James Remy. Do what he tells you. Can you remember?”

He nodded. One of the great advantages of the long stretches of memorizing Papa had made him do was that he could remember things much more easily than any other kid his age in school. But a worry remained, “Why Mama?”

“Never mind that. Just remember, you must do that, or thousands of people will die.” The light had passed overhead. It was dark in the alley, but the sounds of steps and the voices drew closer.

She reached in her pocket and pulled out something. It was a burner. Not a burner like they showed on tv, all glossy and pretty, but a short, battered thing, with a rounded butt, that looked as if it had been assembled together from spare parts. “Papa showed you how to fire these, right? You remember?”

Juan remembered. It was hard to forget as it had been only this week. Papa had taken him to the basement, set a burner on lowest, and had him fire at figures painted on the wall.

Mama said, “If someone tries to stop you, shoot them. Don’t stop to see if you hurt them or killed them. Burn center mass, and run on.”

“Papa said never to point it at a person.”

“No, dear,” she spoke very fast. “Never to point it at a person you don’t mean to kill. But everyone is allowed to kill, if the other person would kill them.”

“How do I know—”

“Trust me, Juan. If they try to stop you, if they catch you, they’ll kill you and Angelita. Or worse.” She pushed something into his pocket. He didn’t know what it was, but she said, “There are two scraps of flag there, Papa’s and mine. Papa’s is the one with the stain on the corner. Keep it when you grow up. Give mine to Angelita, when you’re sure she understands. Now go.”

“What about you?”

“Never mind me.” Mama leaned over and kissed him, a brief touch of lips on his hair, and then she pushed him, hard, down the alley.

He ran to keep from falling, and then he kept running, down the alley, at full speed. He was aware of burners firing and of cries. Was Mama shooting people or had she—

He couldn’t imagine Mama hurt, Mama dead, anymore than he could imagine the end of the world. And that’s what it would be if Mama died.

Instead, he held on to the idea that she would escape, she would join him.

He ran as fast as he could, the route she said.

He met no opposition, until, running so fast he almost couldn’t see, and sweat trickling into his eyes, making them sting, he almost ran into the Plaza of Peace. There a uniformed soldier turned around and said “You, Kid!”

Juan didn’t think this counted as trying to stop him, and he didn’t want to shoot the man, who was young and looked a lot like the brother of his friend Klaus, back at school. So instead he ignored him, and turned left, into the alley with the dumpsters. Mama hadn’t said it would be this long.

He ran down it as fast as he could, but it wasn’t very hard, because his legs felt as though they were made of water, and his breath was coming in short puffs. He felt like he would collapse, but he remembered what mama said. Could he live with knowing he’d caused the death of thousands of people? Or failed to save them? He tried to picture thousands of people, but he couldn’t. That would be like everyone he knew.

“Hey, Kid, stop,” came from behind him. And as he ignored it, another voice told the first, “It’s just a kid, why are we chasing him.”

“It’s not just a kid. His description and that he’s carrying a baby is on the bulletins. He’s going to alert the other rebels. Those damned Usaians.”

Juan didn’t want to turn. Juan didn’t want to shoot these young men. But Mama’s words rang in his mind, and he could not doubt these people wanted to stop him. And they’d said damned Usaians. These men wanted to kill them. People like him and Mama. Mama had said–

He pulled the safety on the burner, as dad had taught him to do it, by touch. And he set it on high. Papa said it was just like the games, point and click.

Juan wanted to close his eyes, but he knew that if he did he’d miss, so he turned and fired, center mass, only he kept the beam on and cut straight across. He had the impression of cutting two bodies in half, but he didn’t stop to look.

Angelita had started crying and squirming. Papa used to joke she slept through everything, but judging by the smell, she must be dirt. He murmured soothing words he knew wouldn’t help, as he ran and hoped no one looked out the windows to see where the crying baby was.

He came to the dumpster and turned, in the almost blind dark, and ran. This alley was shorter, and it ended in a brick wall. There was ivy growing along the wall, and, fortunately, Juan was light. Fortunately, too, he’d always liked climbing.

Even so, Mama was right, and it was difficult. It was very difficult to hold on and not to squish Angelita against the wall. Particularly, since she was crying.

At the top of the wall, he hesitated. There was a man with the dog in the enclosure. He was old, about Papa’s age, and he had a pipe, and a little yellow puppy playing at his feet.

He looked up, as Juan sat there, and Juan didn’t want to kill him, because he didn’t think he was the authorities, but he had to go up and give the message… He had to.

The man blinked at him, in confusion. “Hello, there. What is wrong?”

The last was said in a tone of concern, as he looked from Juan to the baby.

“I must see my uncle,” Juan said. The idea just came to him. Anyway, at the great fall festival, when people gathered in some secret place to eat and trade stories, the kids called every older man uncle and every older woman aunt, so, it must fit. “James Remy.”

The man’s face froze. There was a long silence. He opened his mouth, closed it, opened it again. He looked kindly, with pale hair streaked with white, and grey eyes, and he said, “I see, you must be my nephew, Jimmy.”

“No. Juan,” he said. “Juan Johnson.”

“Of course Juan. Sorry, I got confused with your brother. Here, let me help you down from the wall.”

There was a bad moment, as the man reached up and took Jimmy’s hands, and helped him, till he was holding him and Angelita in his arms, together, and Juan thought he would hold him and not let him go, and then Juan would have to kill him. But the man must have sensed Juan’s discomfort, and put him down. “We can’t talk here,” he said. “We’ll go on up to aunt Mary, shall we.” He whistled for the puppy, “Come on Pie.”

“Pie?” Juan asked, as he noted they were going in through the back door and trotting up the stairs Mama had described.

“Pumpkin pie. My daughter Jane named him. She’s very silly.”

The puppy followed at their heels, as they got to the top of the stairs.

The shock when the door opened was almost too much for Juan. He’d been living a bad dream for the last hour? Eternity? But here was normal life, just like it had been at home before that knock on the door. They had a Winter Holidays tree set up, all decorated and lit with lights, and presents under it, and there was a smell of food, and there were two kids, just older than him, and a baby, and a large blond woman, with a kind face, who looked at the man he’d come in with, and then at Juan, with Angelita, and said, “Now, Jim, what?”

But the man was walking past her, and telling the two children, “I think this is bugout. You know what to do. Go.”

The woman said, “Oh, no. Can’t be. They’ve eased the restrictions on religions. We can even have trees if we don’t call them—”

But the man turned to Juan and said, “Son, what is your message?”

“Paul sent me,” Juan said, feeling like he would cry, and he wasn’t sure why, repeating Mama’s words. “Treason.”

The man said a word. One of those words Papa said when he cut himself with one of his tools. And then took a deep breath. “I’ve been wondering. First the Christians, then us. Anything that might stop the state…” He looked at Juan’s uncomprehending face.

“How do we know?” his wife said. “how do we know it’s not a trap so we reveal ourselves?

The man looked at Juan and said, very softly, “In congress, July four, seventeen seventy six—”

Juan nodded and answered with the remembered words, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires—”

“Enough, son. He’s one of ours. Mary, I’ll pack, you change that baby and give this young man something to drink, and maybe something to eat. I think he’s been through hard times, just now.”

The big blond woman took him by the hand. She felt like Mama, even though she couldn’t be because Mama was small and dark. Presently, she was giving Angelita a bottle while Juan ate a bowl of warm oatmeal with cream and brown sugar and told her what had happened. Her eyes got misty when he talked about Mama being left behind.

Juan had been thinking, he said, “She’s dead now, isn’t she, ma’am?” It seemed impossible, and yet he was sure of it, in a way. “Papa said if you died defending the Usa, you’d be born again in a land of freedom, is it true? Do people live more than once?”

The woman’s eyes misted, blue beneath a veil of tears. “Some people think so. Some of our people. But my husband and I we’re Chri– We believe in another religion, too, an older one. We just think there is a better land, and your mama and papa are already there. You should call me mom now. It will make things easier. Your name is Juan? Maybe we should call you John.”

“Juan is the name on my birth certificate,” he said, “But Papa said my real name was John Adams. And Angelita is Martha Washington. Johnson.”

“Let’s forget the Adams and the Washington. We need to be even quieter than we’ve been,” the father of this family said, as he did things around them. Juan wasn’t sure what the things were, but he was bringing small bags from inside, and checking burners, as though to make sure they were okay, then setting them atop the bags. “Your name now is John Remy, can you remember that? And Mary is your mom and I’m your dad. And Angelita is Martha. Just Martha. I think we’ll call her Marty, shall we?”

Juan was too tired to protest. The oatmeal had hit his stomach and somehow made him feel warm and really sleepy.

“You go with your brother Jimmy and mom,” the man he was to call dad said. “You know where to go,” he told his wife. “Take the baby. I’ll take Jane and go the other way after I pass on the alarm. We’re just a normal family, going to visit relatives. If you run into trouble, send me signal. I’ll try to retrieve you. That message – someone gave away our enclaves and we don’t have very long. I’ll pass on the codes, and then I’ll join you.”

“Where are we going, sir—uh—dad?” Juan said.

“Olympus Seacity. We’re not forbidden there.”

“Yet,” his wife said.

“Yet, but we’ll survive this,” her husband said, and kissed her. “You can’t erase the idea of the USa until you kill every one of us. And they can’t. We’ll move on. We’ll be secret. We’ll keep going. And someday, someday, we’ll be free to be and to believe again. The idea of freedom and equality we hold might be small and frail compared to the will to power of the tyrants, and the idea that our betters should always lead. But once it had been kindled in human breasts, it is unquenchable. We’ll go to Olympus. We’ll start again. They always need skilled people. And if we should fail and if we should fall, someone will go on, someone will believe. Maybe one of these children.” He kissed his wife again. “Go on. Jane and I will join you and take Pie with us.. And you too, Johnny, go on. Your Mama and Papa and you saved a lot of people tonight. And you might have saved the hope for a future in freedom.”

Juan didn’t understand it all, but as he went out into the night again, this time held in the arms of his adopted mom, he felt somehow that he’d accomplished something big, something that would be remembered. The young man, Jimmy, was carrying Angelita, who was asleep again.

They walked down the street, in the muted street lights. Above the moon shone with a bright, clear, silvery light.

And it seemed to Juanito that up there, somewhere, Mama was watching and smiling. Perhaps he’d saved many people, but he’d only done what she wanted.

That was enough for him.

She’d believed that the words he’d been taught, the beliefs she held, would one day make the world better.

He didn’t know if she was right, but she was Mama. Dead or alive, he’d follow her beliefs.

“Life, liberty,” he whispered to himself.

“And the pursuit of happiness,” his new mom said. She kissed his forehead. “And we will pursue all three, little one. We will. However long it takes to attain them,There are dreams so big you must keep chasing them, no matter how long it takes.”

Juan only half heard her.  He was falling asleep, slipping into a dream where the great summer high holiday was held in the open, in a park with green grass, and there were red blue and white streamers floating in the wind, and fireworks, like what dad had told him about in the old days.

Mama and papa were there, holding hands and looking up at the fireworks.  And in their faces was the most radiant happiness he’d ever seen.

It was a terrible and beautiful sight, which he would never forget.

353 responses to “It Came Upon A Midnight Clear — a blast from the past 12/21/2014

  1. Thank you. And timely, too, as we prepare for the great summer high holiday.

    • Yes indeed. I’m hoping to be done with the other house, so we can properly celebrate 🙂 Robert wants a Liberty Tree this year, red foil around the base and all…

      • Just don’t blow a crater in the back yard with fire work experiments. 😉

      • Oh, I like that idea. We celebrate by firing our field howitzer after we read the Declaration of Independence.

      • Please be aware that the Holy Musical has been released in a new BluRay edition, offering yet one additional cut, a “Director’s Cut – 4K-Mastered” — WTHTM*.

        http://www.amazon.com/1776-Directors-Cut-4K-Mastered-Blu-ray/dp/B00UHAJ16C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435418463&sr=8-1&keywords=1776+bluray

        It includes a second commentary track, featuring director Peter H. Hunt, William Daniels, Ken Howard, and Peter Stone as well as some minor additional “special” features.

        And … Voila!!!! Since first I looked up this release somebody has offered a comment explaining the new cut and the history of the variously released cuts to date:

        And now (finally, in 2015) the director’s cut of 1776 has made its way to Blu Ray that includes a “branching version of the movie” which incorporate many of these missing moments mentioned above from the Pioneer Laser Disc,scrubbed up and restored to as pristine a quality as possible. The results (I’m happy to say) are magnificent.

        Via seamless branching there are two distinct cuts available on the Blu-ray: The Director’s Cut and the Extended Cut.

        The Extended cut has everything that was on the Laser Disc except the following:

        1) Overture [created for the LD… even in its longer form, the movie was not meant to play with a pre-credit overture]

        2) Entr’acte [also created for the LD release… no intermission was intended]

        3) The scene of Jefferson (sitting on a window sill in Congress) watching some children playing (rather patriotically) as a young girl looks back up at him and smiles.

        4) an extended scene (just after the conclusion of Yours, Yours, Yours): Instead of the blackout (that now occurs between scenes) there was one continuous scene showing the breaking dawn as Franklin arrives, after taking a piece of fruit in the marketplace, and finds Adams asleep on the stairs below Jefferson’s room while a lamplighter blows out a nearby streetlight

        5) The underscoring to John and Abigail’s final scene [leading into “Compliments”] — though the underscoring to Franklin’s entrance has been restored.

        The Director’s Cut has a line restored that was changed prior to the theatrical release… When Stephen Hopkins comes back from “visiting the necessary” he now says, “You’d think Congress would have its own pisser.” In the release print and all other home video editions (including the Blu-ray’s Extended Cut), the line is “You’d think Congress would have its own privy.”

        Other than that, the Director’s Cut is mostly the same content as the DVD [though the Franklin underscoring is in, and there may have been some tweaks in the Martha Jefferson scene]

        However, under the circumstances this should not deter anyone from buying this (now majorly improved) version of the a great American musical on Blu-ray. This is, perhaps, the best-looking restoration of 1776 we have yet to see and (most likely) the last – at least as far as content goes.

        Read the whole thing.

        One final observation: this is a freaking <I<musical and not an accurate presentation of History. Some of the characterizations, notably of John Dickinson & Judge Wilson, are shaded for dramatic purpose. Read the Wikis (which admittedly have their own problems but offer a more comprehensive view of the roles played by these men.)

        *Whatever The Heck That Means

        • Gol-durnnit! That war s’posed ter be a /BLOCKQUOTE, not an additional one!!!!

          The problem a wallaby has with hanging the head in shame is that all one sees is one’s feet.

        • And ordered…thank you for the pointer.

          Earlier this year I was getting up in a bootblack stand to get my Docs done and joke was made about needing music. I started off with “Sit down, John, sit down, John” and the woman in the stand next to me chimed in with “for God’s sake, John, sit down.”

          Made the moment even more memorable.

  2. SSM: Well within the umbrella of pursuit of happiness, but a Federal Republic does not impose such decisions from above.
    SCOTUScare: Congress writes the words, but the IRS ‘interprets’ what it means? The Greeks did this with the oracle at Delphi, and that didn’t turn out very well.
    The real *bad* decision was ‘disparate-impact’ on discrimination (here in real estate, but in practice everything). SSM will actually have a very minor impact on the lives and social structure for most of us, it merely legalizes what is already happening. While Scotuscare was a bad decision, it is a decision that leads to a clarification of what to expect for both insurance companies and people needing healthcare. Disparate-impact is nebulous, and faults agents not for deliberate actions, but ‘unconscious unintentional discrimination’. If it is unconscious and unintentional then exactly what is my guilt. Now, of course, the Supremes imposed limitations on the ruling…. translate: Lots of lawsuits, lots of uncertainty, lots of expense. A great decision if you want more lawyers and judges, a poor one if you want equality and accountability.

    • Disparate Impact means Quotas, plain and simple or fancy and complicated, however the bureaucracy likes. There is no way short of that for businesses and people to find safe harbors. They are looking at equality of results

      It also means suppression of investments and hiring, because who knows how safe the harbor is until the storm hits?

      “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” – H. L. Mencken

    • It’s much worse than “a Federal Republic”: a vote in the House and the Senate would have been one thing. I personally would still think it violated the 10th Amendment but, at least, that’s how things are done in a representative democracy.
      But nine unelected judges, where the vote swings depending on what Anthony Kennedy had for breakfast… This is kritarchy, pure and simple. Note that the Chief Justice (who led the dissent) says “those who celebrate [this decision]… should not say they celebrate the constitution, since this decision has nothing to do with it” (my paraphrase from memory).

      One day the Socialist Jacobin Wannabes will see the shoe on the other foot — and they will not like it one bit. They should not celebrate an outcome that is convenient to them when it is obtained by means that can be turned against them, one day when they will no longer be in the ascendent.

      [Thomas More:] “…And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you–where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast–man’s laws, not God’s–and if you cut them down…d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.” (Robert Bolt, “A man for all seasons”)

      • PS: kritarchy=”rule by judges”. Israel has plenty of that with its own activist Supreme Court. One of our former Chief Justices, Aharon Barak, was notorious for saying “ha-kol shafit” (everything is subject to judicial decision)

      • This spate of decisions represents the Triumph of the Technocrats. Wesley J. Smith, writing at National Review gangblog The Corner notes:

        I think those who divide the SCOTUS between conservatives and liberals are making a fundamental error in interpretation. The better understanding, I think, is that the Court is 5½–3½ Technocrat.

        The “liberals” will always vote in lockstep to support the liberal political agenda, which includes promoting the technocratic enterprise.

        The three “conservatives,” Scalia, Alito, and Thomas, can be more counted on to apply the law as written and Constitution as intended.

        Roberts is very pro-technocrat — hence his two Obamacare rulings — and Kennedy is a wobbler technocrat.

        Hence, most rulings will promote the technocratic agenda regardless of the subject. And that will soon include issues of international governance.
        http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420304/judges-serve-technocracy-wesley-j-smith

        In one of the dissents, I forget whether Roberts’ or Scalia’s, it has been noted that the nine members of the SCOTUS represent two elite schools and a very narrow geographic portion of the nation.

        Say what you will against Sandra Day O’Connor, at least she wasn’t a product of the Northeastern corridor, growing up in Arizona and earning her undergraduate and law school degrees at Stanford (while elitist, it is neither Harvard nor Yale.)

      • The 10th amendment has nothing to do with it. A federal law requiring all states to recognize all marriage licenses from any other state is well within Congress’ powers under the Full Faith and Credit clause.

        • Randy Wilde

          If that were true, then it would also be true for firearms licenses.

          • It would. Though I think the NRA should use this decision to force Kansas concealed carry laws onto California just like the Progs forced San Francisco marriage laws onto Texas.

        • And as Bob Owens pointed out over at bearingarms.com, they based this on the Due Process clause…. which means they just mandated concealed carry reciprocity nationwide.

          • And are we expecting scrotus to be consistent?

            • Four of them are. See Andy McCarthy today at NRO:

              for all the non-stop commentary, one detail goes nearly unmentioned — the omission that best explains this week’s Fundamental Transformation trifecta.

              Did you notice that there was not an iota of speculation about how the four Progressive justices would vote?

              There was never a shadow of a doubt. In the plethora of opinions generated by these three cases, there is not a single one authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, or Sonia Sotomayor. There was no need. They are the Left’s voting bloc. There was a better chance that the sun would not rise this morning than that any of them would wander off the reservation.
              [SNIP]
              It is simply accepted that these justices are not there to judge. They are there to vote. They get to the desired outcome the same way disparate-impact voodoo always manages to get to discrimination: Start at the end and work backwards. Guiding precedents are for the quaint business of administering justice. In the social justice business, the road never before traveled will do if one less traveled is unavailable. But there’s a problem. Once it has become a given that a critical mass of the Supreme Court is no longer expected, much less obliged, to do law, then the Court is no longer a legal institution. It is a political institution.
              http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420417/supreme-court-john-roberts-marriage-health-care-constitution

              The question is, What is to be done about this?

              Of course, as is expectable, Hillary! has an answer, and it is (as is expectable) the wrong answer: a promise to demand any Supreme Court nominee of hers commit to overturning the Citizens United decision. Geeze, wonder what her problem is with that one?

              • Ginsburg is 82 and doesn’t look at day under 95, there’s a lot of pressure on her to retire while Obama is still in office. I’m hoping (probably in vain) that the Senate has enough backbone for force Obama to nominate the liberal version of Kennedy. Of the three justices in their 70’s, one is liberal, one is conservative, and the other is Kennedy. If President Cruz can nominate replacements who can not only think, but are willing to overturn previous bad court decisions, he could change the direction of the nation for a generation. Especially if he has Senate leadership willing to go nuclear to defeat the Progs.

                • With Rubio, Cruz and Paul running for the presidential nomination it is highly possible the Republicans in the Senate will hold the line. A President (or AG) Cruz would certainly not be diffident about interrogating any higher court nominees; the performance of other nomination-seekers in regard to court appointments is less confidence building.

                  That is not the reason to vote for Cruz, but it is a reason. All candidates for the nomination will claim to be concerned about appointing strict constructionists but many — even those who strive mightily — are not successful.

                  • I just used Cruz as a placeholder name. Right now I would gladly vote for Walker, Cruz, or Perry. I would vote for Rubio or Paul over Bush, and I would vote for Bush over any Democrat.

                    • Pffft – I would vote for Trump over any Democrat.

                      I used Cruz because he is the one I am most sure of in this regard. Others of the candidates may be much more effective executives, but all I know of Cruz (Dershowitz’s endorsement, clerk to Justice Rehnquist, director of the Office of Policy Planning at the FTC, associate deputy attorney general at the DoJ, Texas Solicitor General, adjunct professor of law at UT-Austin where he taught U.S. Supreme Court litigation*) indicates a man who will very carefully select his judicial appointments.

                      Again, there is more to the office than just this issue, but looking at Cruz’s wiki I am impressed

                      Education
                      Cruz attended high school at Faith West Academy in Katy, Texas, and later graduated from Second Baptist High School in Houston as valedictorian in 1988. During high school, Cruz participated in a Houston-based group called the Free Market Education Foundation where he learned about free-market economic philosophers such as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Frédéric Bastiat and Ludwig von Mises. The program was run by Rolland Storey and Cruz entered the program at the age of 13.

                      Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts in Public Policy from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in 1992. While at Princeton, he competed for the American Whig-Cliosophic Society’s Debate Panel and won the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship and the 1992 North American Debating Championship. In 1992, he was named U.S. National Speaker of the Year, as well as Team of the Year, with his debate partner, David Panton. Cruz and Panton represented Harvard Law School at the 1995 World Debating Championship, making it to the semi-finals, where they lost to a team from Australia. Princeton’s debate team later named their annual novice championship after Cruz.

                      Cruz’s senior thesis on the separation of powers, titled “Clipping the Wings of Angels,” draws its inspiration from a passage attributed to President James Madison: “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Cruz argued that the drafters of the Constitution intended to protect the rights of their constituents, and that the last two items in the Bill of Rights offer an explicit stop against an all-powerful state. Cruz wrote: “They simply do so from different directions. The Tenth stops new powers, and the Ninth fortifies all other rights, or non-powers.”

                      After graduating from Princeton, Cruz attended Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude in 1995 with a Juris Doctor degree. While at Harvard Law, he was a primary editor of the Harvard Law Review, and executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review. Referring to Cruz’s time as a student at Harvard Law, Professor Alan Dershowitz said, “Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant.” At Harvard Law, Cruz was a John M. Olin Fellow in Law and Economics.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#Education

                      *Anybody expect the MSM to trumpet this the way they did Obama’s “teaching the Constitution”?

                    • Looking further at Cruz’s Wiki entry, at his legal career, with the admonition that he may have been a minor player in the described instances, having scarcely more influence that did Hillary Rodham in her role as part of the House Judiciary Committee’s Watergate investigation:

                      “After Cruz finished his clerkships, he took a position with Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal, now known as Cooper & Kirk, LLC, from 1997 to 1998. While with the firm, Cruz worked on matters relating to the National Rifle Association, and helped prepare testimony for the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. Cruz also served as private counsel for Congressman John Boehner during Boehner’s lawsuit against Congressman Jim McDermott for releasing a tape recording of a Boehner telephone conversation.

                      “Cruz joined the George W. Bush presidential campaign in 1999 as a domestic policy adviser, advising then-Governor George W. Bush on a wide range of policy and legal matters, including civil justice, criminal justice, constitutional law, immigration, and government reform.

                      “Cruz assisted in assembling the Bush legal team, devising strategy, and drafting pleadings for filing with the Supreme Court of Florida and U.S. Supreme Court, the specific case being Bush v. Gore, during the 2000 Florida presidential recounts, leading to two successful decisions for the Bush team.”

                • Ginsburg doesn’t want to retire, though, despite her age. And that’s been a source of consternation to the Left, who are well aware that it probably means that her replacement will be chosen by a Republican.

                  • Hence the pressure on her. It will be interesting to see what she decides once Hillary! crashes and burns.

                    • If she waits until the conventions, then it’ll be too late for Obama to pick her replacement. He could, of course, always nominate someone anyway. But the Senate could tie the replacement up in hearings that would keep her (since Ginsburg’s replacement would almost certainly be a woman) from coming to a vote until after inauguration day. And at that point, the new president could withdraw the nomination.

                    • The current Congress ends January 3 2017, so Obama would have to renominate after that. Unless Hillary! wins and lets it known that she approves the nominee, nobody’s going to care who the Lamest Duck nominates. The danger window is between October and the end of the year. If – as I think likely – the Republican looks to win, I wouldn’t put it past the Democrats to hire someone to mug Ginsberg. Obama will try and nominate the furthest left judge he can find. We would need McClellan to show some backbone and refuse to confirm anyone. Let the next President nominate a justice as one of his first acts (right after ordering Obamacare gutted – the Executive gets to interpret the law to make it work, SCOTUS said so – and deporting all the illegal immigrants who signed up for Obama’s programs).

                    • I am not much concerned about the senior Senator from Kentucky in such event; take a look at the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: Grassley, Hatch, Graham, Cornyn, Mike Lee, Cruz, Flake …
                      http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members

                      Anybody think Graham & Cruz will roll over and invite a Justice nominee to rub their bellies? Nor are Cornyn, Lee and Flake pushovers. I don’t have strong opinions about the other Republican members, but when I glance at the Democrat dugout and see the likes of Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, Franken and the rest, all I can do is hum a song.


                      In the immortal words of Crash Davis, “You ain’t getting that cheese by me, meat.”

                    • If the Dems vote in lock-step (and let’s face it, that’s what Dems do), two defections from the majority would get Barry’s nominee to the floor. If Cruz is busy with his transition team or prepping for his own confirmation, only one defector is needed. I can’t see the Judiciary Committee as that high of a hurdle. Though I hope Cruz is available to make the hearings interesting. Put that on pay-per-view and we could put a dent in the deficit.

                    • Yep, it only needs two defections and I can think of 5 without trying.

              • Yeah, I saw that. I guess consistent was the wrong term.
                umm, ‘follow the rule of law’?
                Anyway, I wasn’t surprised.

              • expectable- Is that a word?

      • As I recall, in the pilot for Star Trek, Next Gen, Q adopted the trappings of a judge from a World War III – era courtroom. Judges in this environment are apparently absolute dictators, at least in their courtrooms and probably elsewhere too.
        If judges have established the premise that they can rule on what a law “should” mean, we’re well on our way.

    • BobtheRegisterredFool

      Minor impact? I doubt it. This is pretty clearly going by the back door to avoid even the light of day that the status quo had.

      In hindsight, the only reason to prefer so heavy handed a decision of the issue is to borrow blind force from the government to use against religious organizations. Which suggests that the support they had for forcing gay weddings was insufficient for the real goal. This leaves religious orphanages as the main plausible explanation.

      Nobody goes to such effort without intending to see results.

      Furthermore, by arranging the dockets the way he did, Roberts has weakened his persuasive force.

      This will be abused in ways that people will find objectionable, and the process will be enough to forcibly quiet people, but not enough to permanently suppress them.

      • … Roberts has weakened his persuasive force

        For some ‘splodey head fun, remind those praising Justice Kennedy’s decisions this last week that his was also the deciding vote in the Citizens United decision.

  3. Honestly, after the SCOTUScare decision I’m starting to feel pessimistic. The law as written by Congress now means nothing; the only thing that determines the law in America is now nine individuals, who were not elected and can never be removed from their positions, peering at the words written by Congress and deciding what Congress “really” meant. We fought a revolution 200+ years ago to be out from under a monarchy, but now we’re under a nonumvirate. And since the ballot box can do nothing, how long until someone opens up the other box?

    I’m afraid there are some very not-good times ahead.

    • A nonumvirate where often (by no means always) eight judges split in two equal 4-4 blocks, and the decision hinges on what the ninth ate for breakfast.

      • Yeah, it’s more a “best-of-nine-pentamvirate”. Although to be fair, some of them aren’t virs; but we’ll just include virae.

        • Though a nonumvirate is still the right name even when most decisions are 5-4, because the point is that there are nine people whose opinions matter, and the rest of the country can go hang. (After all, a triumvirate would have a lot of 2-1 decisions, but it’s still a triumvirate.)

          some of them aren’t virs…

          *cough*Roberts*cough*

    • “since the ballot box can do nothing, how long until someone opens up the other box?”

      I was wondering the same thing. The ballot box may still have some effect, it does still elect those that then appoint the “untouchable” nonumvirate. One wonders how long before someone decides that to make the ballot box effective, one must first elect the proper people to do the appointing, and then open the other box to “touch” the appointees in order to make slots available for properly leaning appointees.

      • The reaction of Charleston and SC are more typical of the “low-brow” portions of this nation than what we got from Ferguson, Baltimore and Memphis.

        Of course, those last three cities are Democrat run, using their time-honedhonored practices of doling out patronage and employing thugs to enforce their policies.

        The Democrats have been playing the race card since their party’s founding; is it any wonder they keep playing it now. With the J-School grads working in the MSM all having been indoctrinated in Amerikkka as the embodiment of racism is it any wonder the Dems get away with it?

  4. Wonderful story, I can’t read it too often.
    Scalia accurately said the decision reads like a fortune cookie. I checked at the two blogs run by people I assume are gay friends of yours, Gay Patriot and Classical Values, they are both very, very leery of it. Could this be the launching point of the World-War-by-fall so many are predicting? From experience we know all it will take is a statement in MSM that mosques may be required to marry gay men and lesbians, even if it’s a joke, we’re talking about people with no sense of humor.

  5. I liked your story,and the emotion behind it.
    I agree also with your position that the more govt. ” gives” the people rights, the more likely the govt. can manipulate, and eventually, eliminate them.

  6. The whole thing is going to end badly. Why do I say this? Because, it’s not the organic result of a true change to the opinions and values of the majority. This whole normalization of gay & lesbian behavior is not happening because the majority of people have consciously chosen to change their minds, it is, instead, happening because the gays and lesbians have captured the high ground in terms of law and cultural institutions. And, because they’re not going to be able to restrain themselves, they’re going to use this as a wedge to enforce their values and beliefs on the rest of us, which is not a good idea when you’re really only about 3% of the population, at most.

    Here’s where I see this going: The gay and lesbian activists are not going to stick to just having this as a victory in their long hunt for normalcy and acceptance. They’re going to go on, and it won’t be too long before they’re in your churches demanding things that you won’t want to give up to them. They’re going to take this, and go so far over the edge that the end state is going to be a situation where the rest of us are herding them back into the closet at gunpoint. The crap going on with all these activists seeking out bakeries and flower shops to sue out of existence is only going to grow exponentially, because the activists simply can’t accept mere tolerance. They want more, like affirmation, and free reign to do as they please, whatever that is.

    I give it maybe ten, twenty years, at the most. And if they’ve managed to reach a state of equilibrium with the rest of the human race, maybe things will work out. I don’t see that happening, however. The complex of mental issues that results in what we might define as “gay culture” is not amenable to this happening. And, why? Because most of them are flat-out fucking nuts in the first place. There’s a reason that this stuff has been kept in the background in most cultures throughout history, and it is precisely because it is a sign of mental imbalance and abuse. Something like 80% of the gay/lesbian population reports childhood sexual abuse, far higher than the “normal” population. Couple that with the rate of abuse victims becoming abusers in later life, and you start to see why the hell it is that most “normals” instinctively avoid gays and lesbians. Unfortunately, not all gays and lesbians are subject or prone to these deviancies, but there are enough that this crap has become a stereotype–Which are things that don’t come out of nowhere.

    I’ve been around “normal” gays, men who don’t participate in or condone predatory sexual behavior. I’ve also been around the predatory ones. I have no idea what the real ratio is between the two, but I can tell you this: I cannot, on first meeting, second, third, or fourth, tell the difference. The sociopathic gay men I’ve known, the ones who would molest young men or boys, have all been brilliant deceivers, able to mask their behavior and convincingly portray themselves as decent, normal people. Some have claimed they were straight, some have openly identified as gay. The basic issue is that you cannot, in my experience, tell the difference between the predators and the non-predators with any real reliability. And, the damage that the predators do is far too devastating to the young and inexperienced to be tolerated, especially since many of them delight in “turning” those kids. I’ve seen this crap happen too often, and been around too many situations that became this for me to even begin to think that allowing unfettered and unsupervised access to children and young adults by anyone identifying as gay or lesbian to be a good idea. Certainly, there are those who are perfectly uninterested in perpetrating that pathological behavior, but, as I said: How the hell do you tell the difference? I really don’t like the fact that there are decent people swept up in this, but when three out of four of your past experiences with gays has included this kind of sexually deviant abuse of the young and innocent, what the hell is one supposed to take from that? “Oh, I’ve just had bad luck, with who I’ve run into…”. Yeah. At this stage of my life, that idealistic bullshit has pretty much been beaten out of me, and I’m now in a place where I simply will not take the risk.

    The root issue is that sexual identity is so basic, so integral to the human personality that when you find core confusion on the basics of “What gender am I…”, it’s a sign that a bunch of other things are out of whack, as well. For whatever reason–I don’t care whether you’re untrustworthy because you were molested as a kid or because you’re inherently that way, all I care about is the fact I can’t trust you. How you got that way is immaterial to that. I’ll be tolerant and understanding of the fact you had those bad experiences, but don’t ask me to put you into a position of trust, or watch my kids.

    Chelsea Manning, anyone? There’s a person who should be a poster child for why we shouldn’t be handing off Top Secret clearances willy-nilly to anyone with these issues. Is it fair? No. Is it ideal? No, again–But, like with the question of who to bet on in a war, going with the side of the big battalions is the way to go. Well-integrated, trustworthy, normal people do not wake up one morning and go “Gee, I think I’m really a girl…” when they’ve been born male and lived as such for most of their lives. The fact that the question even arises indicates a certain stack of issues is likely present in those people’s minds. The average person does not have this angst, this indecision, this confusion–We pretty much looked in our pants at one point during childhood, go “Oh, OK… Got a willy, so I’m a boy…” and leave it at that. Or, we find “Slot B” there, instead of “Tab A”, and go with it. The question of “Oh, whatever is my true identity…” never occurs to the vast majority of us non-solipsists. When it does, that’s what you could term “a sign”. Of a potentially dysfunctional mind.

    When I left high school, I was pretty much a fully-indoctrinated true believer in all this bullshit that’s become the “new normal”. Race, religion, sexual preference, use of “mind-expanding drugs”? All of it was OK, you’re human, too. Right? Oh, well…

    Except for that gay guy who won’t take no for an answer on the back of a Greyhound bus, and who I have to pull out a knife on when I wake up to find him fumbling with my pants. Then, there was the black gang I had to deal with, that wanted to kill me because I was white. Or, the druggies who thought I was a snitch, and working for CID. Religion was really the last thing I was still accepting of, and then 9/11 happened. Want to learn intolerance? Spend some time in Muslim-majority countries. If that won’t do it, you’re probably deaf, dumb, and blind.

    At this point, life experience has sadly taught me that a whole lot of the crap I took for prejudicial, casual racism, sexism, and so forth really did have its grounding in reality. Disagree? Gee, turn on the ‘effing news, people: All over the world, these heretofore “abused” elements of the human race are seemingly steadily engaged in proving precisely why they had been subjected to gross prejudice as groups, in the past. Look at Baltimore. Ferguson. Memphis. See anything there that doesn’t read like a tract from the breathless KKK member, insisting on the inherent criminality of the African-American? I swear to God, it’s like a huge swathe of the black population is actively trying to validate that asshole who tried recruiting me into the Klan, back in the day. If there weren’t things like Charleston happening in diametric opposition, I’d probably have to concede that that racist son-of-a-bitch was pretty much right, at this point.

    And, we’re going to see that same syndrome play out with the gay and lesbian population, as they take this recent “victory” over the straights, and turn it into the trigger for some of the most widespread and vicious pogroms you can imagine. The “activist segment” just can’t help themselves.

    Because, they’re (speaking of the “activists”, and not the people simply satisfied to be human with the rest of us) not going to be satisfied with the simple fact that they can now marry like normal people. Some will, but the rest? They want their deviations not only tolerated, but affirmed and enabled. The results are going to be seen as they try to repress others beliefs and norms, and enforce not just tolerance, but outright enthusiasm for their lifestyle choices. Don’t find the Gay Pride events in San Francisco tasteful? Oh, dear… You’re so intolerant, so hateful… We must re-educate you, and make your badthink go away. Brandon Eich was only the precursor. And, since many of these people are mentally ill, along with identifying as gay or lesbian, prepare for a lot of insanity. When they’re done, they’ll have totally justified why we locked their kind into the closet for centuries, and will have triggered the pogroms that eventually remove them from public life. They can’t help themselves; it’s what they do.

    And, the sad thing is? A lot of the essentially decent men and women who happen to be gay and lesbian are going to be caught up in the generalizations, victimized by them, and have their lives ruined. Again.

    • As so often, the “professional activist” class is undermining the same people they purport to serve, and perpetuating the conflicts that got them power and prestige in the first place. Pournelle’s Iron Law, part 132,768

      But lest you think that the pathologies of a certain type of urban “black redneck” (Thomas Sowell’s term) are somehow race-related (rather than, as I see it, created by perverse incentives that will spoil all but the most scrupulous human beings), one sees the selfsame phenomena among the British “chavs” (Council Housing And Violent) — an almost 100% white urban underclass. Read Theodore Dalrymple’s “Life at the Bottom” sometime — and weep.

      • Sowell says flat-out that that “black redneck” does what he does because he’s adopted what my granddaddy called “po’ white trash” as his cultural model. They are “chavs”, just dipped in Man-Tan.

      • “But lest you think that the pathologies of a certain type of urban “black redneck” (Thomas Sowell’s term) are somehow race-related (rather than, as I see it, created by perverse incentives that will spoil all but the most scrupulous human beings), one sees the selfsame phenomena among the British “chavs” (Council Housing And Violent) — an almost 100% white urban underclass.”

        It is not the construct that we’ve termed “race” that’s the problem; it is instead the heritable set of genetic traits that make up the characteristic personality and behavioral traits shared by these groups. There’s a damn reason so few escape the subculture of dysfunction, even when massive intervention takes place. It’s sad that the external traits of skin color are so easily used as markers for these behavioral traits, but they’re prevalent enough that using stereotype is a pretty safe bet, if you’re wandering the streets of Memphis or East St. Louis late at night. Or, some sections of London…

        You can overcome what your genes are trying to tell you to do; doing so, however, requires an acknowledgment that they are doing so, and you have to make a conscious choice not to allow them to control the course of your life. All too many people lack that self-discipline and honesty, and we’re dealing with the repercussions of that fact. That general society has chosen to enable these people, instead of censure them? A cause for despair, and something that increasingly looks as though will require the dissolution of our current society to accomplish. Reality will have her way, though, in the inevitable denouement to come.

        • “The Denouement” hmmmm
          I’ll have to learn how to spell it.

        • Talking about all these poor hapless victims of society has given me an earworm.

        • Short term, family culture tends to predominate over genetic disposition; i.e. a family with the same genes as a dysfunctional one, whose older adults made the conscious choices for self-discipline, education, stable family, etc.that are known to help success, is likely to maintain that family culture to the benefit of several generations.

          • Which in turn will result in the selection of mates without the pathologies, and the eventual breeding-out of the traits making for those pathologies over the long run. There are also probably things happening in the genome that are affected by external factors, as well–Behavioral adaptations brought on by conditions.

            A case in point–The Scots/English borderlands. During the period when those areas were ravaged and under contest, the lawlessness and general amount of skulduggery was epic. Literally–Look at the many, many books and stories from those days. However, comma–Before that? Not a hell of a lot, very, very boring. And, after it all calmed down, because it was all British territory vice disputed borderlands? Boring, yet again. But, those were the same damn people, genetically. There was no general exchange of populations between the days when it was purest nature, red in tooth and claw, and when it was domesticated bliss. So… Was there something going on in terms of which genes got methylated and expressed, versus which were not?

            This might be a factor the SJW types may want to take into consideration, if there is something there. They may be breeding for the conditions where these genes come into play, and creating some rather ugly times for themselves. I wonder if that’s not what is actually happening in some of our inner cities, because I really hate the idea that there is nothing to be done about the level of criminality and dysfunction in those urban areas besides allow them to kill each other off.

            This is all speculation, at best, because we simply do not know enough about what the hell is going on with these issues. I would speculate that it is a complex interaction between genes, the cell structures supporting them, the genetic stew that is our load of commensal bacteria, and the environment they are all reacting to adapt to. Hell, the complexity may be such that it is not even really knowable, but there is something here that goes way beyond the facile picture of human nature that too many of us, especially the SJW types, have and operate on.

    • Strip away the specific question of homosexuality as merely a lesser expression of the greater issue: the predatory nature of human sexuality.

      That is what the concerns really are. It is what is underlying the Campus Crusade Against Rape, Sexual Assault, Sexual Touching, Sexual Gazing and Not Calling The Next Morning. It is what lies at the bottom of the Boy Scouts’ and Catholic Church’s and public schools’ problems with child molestation. It is part of the concern about non assimilation of Islamics into Western Society. Reluctance to discuss this topic gets exacerbated by groundless accusations, such as Homophobe, Islamophobe and Rape Denialist.

      But as stated so eloquently in The Right Stuff, “The problem isn’t pussy, it’s monkey.”

      People are more concerned about sexual predation than depredation, and putting a “phobic” gloss on it suppresses the ability to honestly discuss this. (e.g., http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/209408/ “Police withheld bombshell report revealing how gangs of Muslim men were grooming more than 100 schoolgirls as young as 13 in case it inflamed racial tensions ahead of General Election,” according to the London Daily Mail today.)

      We can rant about the harm imposed by sexual repression but it seems those damages are likely less than the destruction wrought by sexual license — and that is not a debate the Libertines are willing to engage, least of all when they believe themselves to be winning. But it is the core problem we face, and there is no evidence that denying the problem will make it go away.

      Is human sexuality a predatory demon which must be constrained for civilization to exist, and what methods most productively protect society from it?

      • Like with other aspects of the “yetzer hara” (like ambition, …) the difference between medicine and poison is mainly a matter of dosage.

      • You (a generalization…) see a loving gay couple; I see a relationship where one or more of the participants was almost certainly sexually abused as a child. Which of us is right? I don’t feel disgust because I see two men kissing, or two women in close contact, I feel disgust because of the implications I know are there. At least one member of those embracing couples was probably a victim; odds are, the other is taking advantage of that fact to further abuse that person. An acquaintance I’d describe as one of the very few “freely willing” gays I know describes the reason he can’t date the majority of the other gays he runs into as being because they’re mostly child-like victims in their mentalities, and for him to be dating them would be like a straight male such as myself at age 50 dating a 17-yo girl. There is virtually no way such a relationship can be between equals. Almost always, there is one predatory exploiter involved, and who is in which role shifts as the partners age.

        I don’t mind you bringing your gay lover into my home where my children are; I feel disgust because you are bringing your abuser into my home, and trying to normalize that abuse as being something that is acceptable, even wholesome. A lot of the time, there’s a co-dependence, a Stockholm Syndrome thing going on. That, and the fact that all too many abused wind up becoming abusers themselves are what I really object to. Individually? Yes, that’s unfair and prejudiced. As a group, statistics are not on the side of the gays, however. Protestations to the contrary, that’s the way my experiences lead my opinions on the matter.

        If we take the statistics as being accurate, and I believe they are, the majority of homosexual behavior is coincidental with childhood sexual abuse. That 80% reporting rate of gays saying that they were sexually abused is probably even understated. Should the fact that you were abused be stigmatized? No, emphatically not–But, when you perpetrate and enable the same behavior you were subjected to, what does that say about you? “I was raped… In essence, I think everyone ought to be raped…”.

        You see the same unthinking monkey-like behavior going on with a lot of hazing situations–“I was abused in training; therefore, everyone ought to be…”. It’s a mental disease, and the justification used for all too much abuse of power, whether in education, marriage, or the military. I have no respect for people who take their abuse as license to abuse others, and that is unfortunately a pretty large percentage of the gay community.

        After a lot of soul-searching, I find that much of the instinctive dislike/abhorrence I have had to consciously deal with in my own reaction to homosexuals stems not from disgust at the inherent nature of their chosen sexual orientation, but at the actual implications of it. It’s difficult enough to deal with the psychically wounded as it is, but when those victims of sexual abuse try to justify what they had happen to them and further enable their abusers, I have a visceral reaction to that, which is not necessarily directed at them, but at the mentality that says “I was a victim of abuse; therefore, I will continue the abuse and abuse others myself…”. It’s not the fact that you’re kissing a guy, it’s the other 90% of what is under the surface of that act. If you’re Karla Homolka, to even the slightest degree, don’t expect my sympathy or support.

        What I’m getting at is kind of the way there are some inter-racial marriages I find disturbing, while others are just fine. A couple where they are together because they genuinely love each other? No problem–I actually find that pleasantly affirming, because I want to believe the ideals that say race is irrelevant.

        However, there are couples I’ve known where the racial component to their visible relationship is flatly disturbing and disgusting–Cases where they’re together because she’s openly trying to get back at her father by being with a black man, and/or the black guy is putting the fact he’s with a “white chick” up in the face of all other white males. There’s a component there that I find essentially disgusting, because the people involved (and, not usually from both sides–I’ve generally seen partners who were oblivious to what their other halves were saying/doing/signalling) were engaged in turning their relationships into caricatures, dehumanizing the people they were with. That dehumanization, that objectification is what I find abhorrent, not the race of the involved parties.

        About the only time I’ve been around a couple like that without having to grit my teeth was a pair I knew back in the 1990s, who were so far over the top into “I’m with her/him because of what they are…” that it wasn’t even funny. Those two actually deserved the hell out of each other–She abused the shit out of him because he was black, and he took it because she was the white chick he used to get back at “the man”. I still don’t know where the hell her daddy issues came from, because her dad was a Sergeant Major I knew, and he seemed a pretty OK sort, so far as I could tell. You met her, and you expected to find her daddy was an in-bred daughter-raping KKK Grand Kleagle, or something–The reality was, he was a well-respected by all CSM that didn’t appear to have any of those issues going on. Of course, who the hell knew what was going on behind closed doors? I do shudder to think what that couple’s potential children were likely going to go through, though.

        • … the mentality that says ‘I was a victim of abuse; therefore, I will continue the abuse and abuse others myself…’.

          Minor editorial quibble:
          “I deny that what I experienced was abuse and manifest my denial by treating others in that same way. If I declare, by word and action, that such behaviour is normal then I erase my abuse and eradicate my shame.”

          It is the sad fact that so many sexual relationships are exploitative to the level of being predatory (often they can be mutually predatory, as when a “sweet young thing” exploits her youthful body to attract a “sugar daddy” — or invert to consider the less common “sugar momma” — and an older person exploits financial power to attract the attention of a youthful companion) which leads me to consider whether the hedgerows limiting sexual expression are necessary for society’s protection. It is not that all such are exploitative, but those that are are given cover and room to spread by acceptance of the ones that are not.

          We cannot find a balance if we deny the problem’s existence.

          • Your phrasing addresses a different aspect of what I was trying to get across, and far better than I was saying it.

            Sex, to a large degree, is a power game. It’s when it leaves the level of “game”, and goes into actual predation that I start to have a problem with it. There is a distinct difference between an act that gains one the frisson of the forbidden, the taboo, and the one that actually slips over the edge into either of those categories. You can have fun with your adult girlfriend, a set of handcuffs, and a schoolgirl outfit (all her idea, mind you…), but the moment you start following actual schoolgirls home from school with her, in a van stocked like a torture chamber, you’ve both crossed a line.

            It’s all about self-discipline, when it comes to these things. Keep it at “game”, and you’re OK; slip over the edge into actual commission of your fetish, with real people who aren’t into your kink? Now we have problems.

        • Thank you for putting this into words. I’d been struggling trying to define exactly why homosexuality has been so viscerally repellent to me, and I think this is it. The implications of what such a lifestyle entails and likely has entailed. It’s also why I’m so angry at the school of thought that if we just normalize and pretend the pain away that everything will be all right. It won’t be, not until we, as a society, are willing to discuss and deal with the root causes.

          • Only it’s not true. We’re not sure what causes it. It’s almost certainly a combination of factors. But. It is neither covalent with nor caused by child abuse. Pedos hide in thegay community& might use it as a defense but pedo is not the same as gay. This is THOROUGHLY disproven as is the abuse cannard.

            • I agree that it’s likely a number of factors. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I specifically meant those for whom this is true. I have come across accounts of people who are both gay and have been abused as children. Whether there’s a correlation there or not, I honestly don’t know. Unfortunately, being human, this is going to have a bleed over in my perceptions of the group overall.

              The problem I have is that it seems as though no *good* research is being done to look at the root cause–whether it’s genetic predispositions, environmental factors, a combination, etc. Or, if there are, I haven’t come across them yet, so I haven’t been able to take–if they exist–them into consideration. On the other hand, I have come across much anecdotal information–which is not without its own set of flaws–that points to sexual identity(? brain is freezing on the correct term. Orientation, maybe?) is more fluid than people are willing to account for, with some people moving one way, and then back again. Such a group of people would disprove the theory that gay people are of necessity born that way and will always identify that way. How big that group of people is vs the group of people who identify as gay early on and remain in that camp permanently is also something else I don’t know, and I’m not sure if anyone knows at this point. Because (so far as I’ve been able to see) there is little research that has been done or is being done to look at this through an objective scientific lens. This irritates me quite a bit, because how can people make good, informed decisions if we have giant holes in the data set we’re drawing from?

              What I have come across is people who refuse to have any discussion whatsoever (elsewhere, not here) and do what they can to shut the conversation down by declaring the science as settled (which it rarely ever is, because human error and information not taken into account because we don’t have access to it yet) and name calling. It makes it difficult for those of us who do have these visceral reactions and want to understand why and to understand people in general better so we can empathize to a greater degree. It makes it even more complicated when you (general you) oppose homosexuality in terms of mortality, but not people who identify as gay. Too many conflate the one with the other, and so you (general) get labeled as a bigot and a hater simply because you oppose the action–not the person.

              The last part of my earlier comment deals more with people who identify as trans than as strictly gay. (Apologies if I’m getting the terms wrong.) I haven’t been in good enough health to research and check the research of claims I’ve seen floating around, so I could be wrong. But gender dysphoria was (or still is, not sure) a real thing. People that suffer with this disorder are truly suffering, and it makes me angry (again, there could be research out there I haven’t come across and have missed) that rather than trying to figure out the cause and from there a cure, society is expected to go along with the disorder. It is a lie to call a person who is biologically a man a woman, no matter how many operations or hormonal therapies they’ve undergone. Men and women are different biologically–bone structure, DNA, musculature, and our brains are different. It does neither the person nor society any good to force the lie. In fact, I believe it does much harm. Which just compounds the suffering. 😦

              • Part of it comes from whether you are “making love” or just playing with the fiddly bits. If the latter it doesn’t really matter who is doing the fiddlin’ about, does it — you, your spouse, Uncle Ernie, whoever.

                Modern male sexuality seems to be bent this way, with male-male relationships more expressive of this element. The idea of a weekend spent having multiple sexual encounters (e.g., the 80s bathhouse scene) makes most women go “ewwww” and most men think, “well, if the girls are pretty …” There is a reason Hefner has been successful selling that particular fantasy; anonymous sex is mostly a male thing.

                For whatever reason, the predators (as Sarah notes) swim more easily through the gay pool. And because this is their hunting ground they are very adept at donning sheep’s clothing and distracting investigation by claiming homophobia (see: Dahmer, Jeffrey).

                This doesn’t make gays predators, it just makes theirs a subculture in which predators move too easily.

                • Part of it comes from whether you are “making love” or just playing with the fiddly bits. If the latter it doesn’t really matter who is doing the fiddlin’ about, does it — you, your spouse, Uncle Ernie, whoever.

                  To a degree, maybe. I don’t believe casual sex (which I would classify your second example with) is without its consequences–both to the people engaging in it or to society.

                  Definitely agree to the “ewwwww!” and Hefner part. :p

                  For whatever reason, the predators (as Sarah notes) swim more easily through the gay pool.

                  This would be something that would very much be worth examining, but looking at anything that connects to homosexuality critically (analyzing) seems to be nearly impossible in wider circles, because so many act in such a way as to shut down all conversations on those topics. This sort of attitude puzzles me. Especially as it could work to prevent (or at least bolster against) more victims.

                  I don’t see gays as predators, per se. I haven’t enough data to draw any useful conclusions from, and humans are messy creatures, so I doubt there would ever be the possibility of a 100% consensus for yes or no. Some are, and some aren’t. Rather, I see a specific group within the group (again, I have no idea how large each group truly is) who have been preyed upon. It would be worth investigating whether that group identifies as gay because of the abuse or whether they would have identified as gay anyway. Or if this is a genetic predisposition that was flipped on due to environmental issues.

                  • It would be worth investigating whether that group identifies as gay because of the abuse or whether they would have identified as gay anyway. Or if this is a genetic predisposition that was flipped on due to environmental issues.

                    I don’t think we are anywhere near understanding the mechanisms and extensiveness of brain plasticity. Remember, it is just recently that we determined that the idea that we were born with all the brains cells we would ever have, wired up and ready to go, was an invalid hypothesis.

                    • Precisely. Which is why those waving the “Science is Settled” flags tends to grate–for me, at least. And we’ll never get there so long as the sorts of conversations these questions engender (specifically in regard to homosexuality) are not allowed (without flash fire rhetorics–society* in general) or such studies are either not done or are not done with as much objectivity as humanely possible. Always keeping the aim directed at Truth rather than Desired Outcome for That Which is Politically Expedient and Necessary.

                      And yay! for that proving to be an invalid hypothesis. I must admit that I have always been rather protective of my brain cells as a result of that particular hypothesis–with mixed results. :p

                      *(Which is why I appreciate blogs such as Sarah’s where we can have discussions like this, even if we all don’t come to the same conclusions.)

                • The Other Sean

                  “This doesn’t make gays predators, it just makes theirs a subculture in which predators move too easily.”

                  Like the priesthood, or the Boy Scouts of America, or high school teachers.

                  • Other communities don’t actively hide their “problem children” like that; Mary Kay Letourneau was reported by her fellow teachers. Most homosexually abusive priests were hidden away by their hierarchy, many of whom were also gay.

                    For whatever reason you can figure out, the reticence of the gay community about their problems with this has been pretty clear–You never hear anyone talk about “abusive homosexual priests”, just “abusive priests”. It’s almost like they didn’t pick same-sex victims, ya know? Wonder why that sort of dishonest framing is almost always present? It’s like there’s an agenda, or something…

                    • Communities who feel under attack do. All of them.

                    • Many communities that feel under attack, police their own. They don’t want negative publicity, so they take care of their own bad apples rather than let them come to light. When was the last time you heard of a homosexual pedophile priests (or any homosexual pedophile, for that matter) house being burnt down by gays?

                    • Amongst my people, growing up, the watchword was always, “IS this Good for the Jews?”

                      Once upon a time the question of being “a credit to your race” was not deemed offensive.

                    • They can deem what they want. It doesn’t mean squat to me.

                  • Only the Boy Scouts attempted to profile against predators, and were castigated, sued, stigmatized and reviled for it.

              • On the other hand, I have come across much anecdotal information–which is not without its own set of flaws–that points to sexual identity(? brain is freezing on the correct term. Orientation, maybe?) is more fluid than people are willing to account for, with some people moving one way, and then back again.
                ————————

                There is a known sub-type of female bi-sexuals that are purely interested in a loving partner. The gender of that partner isn’t as important as the fact that the partner exists.

                From what I’ve heard, the rad-fem lesbian types rabidly deny that women like the above exist.

                I’ve had an instance related to me (the person telling the story apparently knew the individual in question, though he didn’t provide the name; and I didn’t ask) in which a gay male decided that he was going to start living in accordance with the teachings of his church, which prohibited homosexual practices (along with sex outside of marriage). So he moved out of the place he was sharing with his boyfriend, and essentially became celibate. Some time later he inadvertently realized that he was starting to find women attractive. Building upon that realization, he was able to work and develop his attraction to the point where he eventually fell in love with a woman, proposed to her, and began a happy and successful marriage.

                I’ll note a couple of quick points here. First, he didn’t engage in any form of therapy, and initially had no reason to believe that he’d ever be interested in women. He simply became a gay man who wasn’t having sex. Second, the fact that he developed an attraction to women was an unexpected surprise, and is not something that should be expected to work with other gay males. He developed an attraction. There’s nothing to indicate whether that would occur with other gay males. But having said that, it’s interesting to note that at least in his case, his sexual attraction ultimately was fluid.

            • I disagree with a lot of the studies purporting to show that childhood abuse, both sexual and otherwise has little to do with later life choices regarding sexual orientation. I’ve done a fair amount of reading with regards to this issue, over the years, and what has struck me more than anything else has been the agenda many of the researchers have had. Like Kinsey, who deliberately chose many deviants to include in his studies without bothering to inform his readers of that fact, the numbers have been skewed. How much? I don’t know, but when you go and look at how the studies and questionnaires have been structured, I find little to commend in any of the ones that amount to apologia.

              On the other hand, most of the ones finding a high incidence of correlation between the two factors have been fairly even-handed, and bend over backwards to avoid the suggestion of being judgmental. The numbers are still there, and significant.

              Of course, it’s all in what you chose to accept. The majority of my personal encounters with homosexuals in the context we’re talking about here have been negative, and the relationships of those I’ve been around have almost all been highly one-sided and exploitative of the junior partner. This colors my perceptions and what studies and data I have found to be believable. A list of those things, I don’t have to hand, but Clayton Cramer (a fairly even-handed sort of guy, in my experience) has a pretty good list of what I’d term even-handed research:

              http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2014/03/not-running-from-elephant.html

              That’s from one of his more recent, pre-stroke blog posts. I’ve used him for pointers to other scholarship on the matter over the years, and found most of what he’s looked at to be fair and even-handed. There is no doubt that confirmation bias may be present, but I’d submit that experience matters in that regard. When many of your encounters with homosexual behavior have been of the nature mine have been, you start to develop a very jaundiced view of that form of sexual expression.

              Normal, mentally-healthy, and respectful humans of any sexual orientation do not go crawling naked into the beds of their roommates, and start sexually caressing them trying to initiate sexual congress uninvited. That would be intolerable from someone of the opposite sex, and characterized as at least attempted rape. Over the course of my military career, I had to deal with same-sex stupidity of that nature fairly often, more than I ever expected possible. And, every time? Initiated by a homosexual male. Never once, not once, did I ever have something like that happen with a heterosexual male on a female when the opportunity arose for that sort of thing to happen. Not that the opportunity was relatively common, but the only complaint of that nature I remember having had happen came not from boy on girl, but from girl-on-girl.

              Wanna know what was funny? Having my known Lotharios, the guy I’d have pegged as “Least likely to do the right thing with regards to an attractive girl…”, and most likely to commit sexual assault on an unconscious woman turned out to be the sort of guy who found a female soldier passed-out drunk in her room, covered her nearly-naked body up after turning her over so she wouldn’t choke, and then standing guard on her door until her roommate returned a lot later the next morning. Granted, I shouldn’t be surprised when someone does the right thing, but the contrast to a similar event taking place around that time where one of our other binge drinkers woke up with his roommate’s erect penis against him was kinda severe. Oh, and that was after the guy with the erection “helped him undress…”. Yeah. Lovely days, those, and so, so glad I don’t have to deal with that bullshit anymore.

              Oddly enough, this life experience was emphatically not what my oh-so-sensitive and politically correct liberal teachers told me to expect. Instead, what I’ve found is pretty consonant with the nastiness I was warned about with regards to male homosexuals coming on to me as a kid and young man by my unreconstructed and entirely primitive Eastern European stepfather. Whose advice had me keeping a Buck knife handy when sleeping on a bus. Turns out, he had a better handle about human nature than those teachers did, which is again, not what I was told to expect.

              Kinda funny, that… People keep telling me about all these healthy and decent sexual relationships between two men, but about all I seem to actually encounter in person are these assholes who are impossible to differentiate from molesters and abusers. The world of the barracks and working-class living accommodation is considerably different than the typical middle- and upper-class home, where you get to keep your fantasies about human nature at its worst. Which is why I tend to accept the negative numbers produced by a lot of these studies, I guess.

              Like anything, there are two realities–One where the college-educated upper classes have their perceived reality, and then the one where the rest of us find ourselves, where the horror stories are real and relevant to everyday life. Thanks to the illusions and willful stupidity of the intelligentsia, all y’all are probably going to be living in my nasty little world, probably sooner rather than later. My advice? Bring ammo. And, guns. Lots of guns. When they start burning your churches and homes down because you’re “intolerant” of their life-choices, whatever the hell they are, don’t blame me. The ball has started rolling down the hill, and I have a distinct, disquieting feeling that I’m going to be telling a lot of people “I told you so…” real quick-like. Like before the end of the decade.

              With this latest Supreme Court decision, the day is not too long off when your religious freedom is going to be severely circumscribed because one of the protected classes find it offensive. I’ll be shocked if I’m wrong, and I hope I am for the sake of those of us who are openly involved in organized religion, but the trend lines are there for the viewing. The recent use of the courts to impoverish and destroy those who merely want to follow the imperatives of their religious faith are right there to be seen, and don’t think that those tools won’t be used against you, as well. Because, they will be.

              • Thank you for the link. 🙂

                I disagree with a lot of the studies purporting to show that childhood abuse, both sexual and otherwise has little to do with later life choices regarding sexual orientation.

                I have to agree with this. I don’t know if it’s black and white or shades of gray, but from personal experience, childhood abuse has a huge effect on life choices period. Mostly because you have to untangle a worldview that has been so messed up and you always have to remember that the things you thought you could take for granted aren’t things you can take for granted.

                I don’t know, but when you go and look at how the studies and questionnaires have been structured, I find little to commend in any of the ones that amount to apologia.

                Yes. What has driven me crazy with this, and other scientific issues–at least the ones that have gotten a lot of face time in the media–is how unscientific either the research has been or the conclusions that have been drawn. Most of the studies I’ve come across have the feel of the researchers deciding the outcome they want and then structuring the study to fit in with that. Pretty much all of our studies are going to have some cracks and flaws in them because of the human element, and it would be very difficult to remove all bias from the researchers. But the more studies we have from different sources, the clearer the picture will be as we would have more to look at and compare so we could scrape off a bit more bias. It would be nice to have more to work with, and the studied lack of curiosity in scientific circles–at least those that have been given media attention–perplexes me. Although the way people have been manipulating and changing data to “prove” anthropogenic warming/climate change does not give me confidence in the integrity of any of the past and present (if there are any) studies.

                And amen to your last paragraph. It does not bode well that such decision was reached in such a manner.

                • Clayton Cramer has a lot of interesting stuff on his site; his work on mental illness and gun control are both commendable and more even-handed than most of what passes for historical research in regards to both subjects. In a sane world, he’d be a lot better known than he is–But, since we’re in the crazy years, he’s a relatively unknown working in a backwater.

                  I think you’re touching on a big thing with your post–Most of the stuff we’ve been told is “scientific research” is purest fakery, especially in regards to the social sciences. More background material showing this is coming out every single day, and I’m reaching the point where someone is going to have to repeat the research in front of me before I take their word on it. It is pretty bad when you can find issues with something before you even begin to break out the numbers they came up with. And, knowing how hard it is to get honest answers out of people in a survey setting from having proctored dozens of the things over my military career, I don’t trust a damn thing anyone tells me that was based on answering even anonymous questions. I’m developing the opinion of late that you really can’t tell a damn thing about what people will do except by way of actual observation of real-world behavior, and even then, you have to be careful: Situations drive behavior more than ideals, and the guy who does “A” in one circumstance may never have considered it in another.

                  One thing about the scientific flim-flammery going on these days is that so few people actually pay attention to it, or have the background to question it. Anthropogenic global warming is a perfect example–Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Norse settlement of Greenland knows that the Norse were able to transport and set up a pretty complete Scandinavian agricultural system to the island, growing barley and other grain crops successfully, along with typical animal husbandry. That only failed as the climate cooled, and eventually wound up leaving Greenland populated by Inuit instead of ethnic Norse. For whatever reason, that happened. And, what does that tell us, when we hear about AGW? Gee, the world was a lot warmer than it is before now, and then it was a lot colder… All without the intervention of the SUV. So… What does that set of facts tell us about AGW? While it doesn’t rule it out, it certainly puts the burden of proof a lot higher than it is, and when you factor in the various attempts to massage the data to show that the medieval warming period never really happened… You start to get a few suspicions going about the veracity of the involved parties. Especially when you remember that many of them were trying to parlay the cooling of the 1970s into the same sort of crisis-mongering panic we hear so much about today with the warming thing. And, oddly, both “crisis situations” called for the same solution–Giving power to technocratic elites who would take us back to the stone age in service of their ideological opposition to industrial civilization.

                  There’s a reason I look at all their products, whether it is “social justice”, reform of the legal system, or the change to long-standing tradition with regards to sexual mores with a decidedly jaundiced eye. These jackasses haven’t been right about much of anything in my lifetime, and I don’t think this latest excess is going to be the first time they were, either.

              • My encounter with shipboard predators was when I awoke while hands were roaming over my body at 0200 or so. I yelled, and the redneck in the rack below slashed out with his knife- but missed. He bounded off into the next compartment before white lights were energized. I reported it to the quarterdeck watch officer, who wasn’t surprised at the report. It wasn’t the first he had heard, though word had yet to filter down to the majority of the crew. About a week later, someone in deck department berthing fell down 3 decks worth of ladders all on his own. All the witnesses said so. Which, if you’re familiar with how hatch ladders are arranged, is extremely difficult to do. He was carried off the ship in a stretcher, and never heard from again. And the incidents stopped.

                • How clumsy of him. 😉

                • Incidents like that are what many are missing about the supposed incidence rate of sexual assault in the military: The majority of the victims are male, and the perpetrators are other men.

                  I just have to marvel at the depth of deviancy displayed, when it is: Who the hell pulls something like that in the typical military environment, and expects to get away with it, or even survive? Yeah, I’m going to sexually assault that chick I’m issuing a fully automatic rifle to, and taking to a range with live ammo–Oh, yeah, that’s a recipe for success, right there.

                  One of the more gruesome “training accidents” that happened around where I was was rumored to stem from this sort of thing, and I can’t even fathom what the hell the perpetrator thought he was doing–He knew he was going to be alone on a range involving high explosives with the kid he was trying to play chicken hawk with: What the hell did he think was going to happen? What did happen was an “inexplicable accident”, one that nobody could explain other than by acknowledging that the kid in question committed suicide with some C4 and a couple of hundred pounds of duds, and took his first-line supervisor with him.

            • “Pedos hide in thegay community& might use it as a defense but pedo is not the same as gay. This is THOROUGHLY disproven as is the abuse cannard.”

              Misread this at first, but there’s still a point to be made about it. The “gay” community has successfully convinced the vast majority of the people that sexual abuse of males in the Boy Scouts and by Catholic priests was a pedophilia problem, not a homosexual problem. That is false. By definition, pedophilia is sexual attraction towards the pre-pubescent. And by all accounts, the predation of both groups was of teenagers. Sexually functional teenagers. BSA has 3 basic parts, Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Venturers/Explorers. If there was pedo abuse going on, we would see it in the Cubs. I’ve never heard of any scandal involving a Cub Scout pack. There have been cases in Explorer posts of male advisors engaged in sexual relations with female Explorers. Most I know of involve 20 something males with 17 year old females. Some involve older advisors. Most of the well publicized cases involve Boy Scouts, and older males with teenage boys. Not pedo abuse, but homosexual abuse. (Come to think of it, I can’t recall any in the co-ed Explorer/Venturer groups) Same with the Catholic priest abuse, almost exclusively teenage boys were involved.

              As we all know, or should know by now, there seems to be a HUGE problem in public schools of female teachers with underage males. Again, not pedo, they’re sexually fully functional males. Everyone I’ve read of involves drugs and alcohol being supplied to the boys. I’m not even going to try to understand why a female wanting a male for sex would go that route, guaranteed to destroy her life if found out, when even the ugliest woman can find a sex partner in any bar if she waits until closing time. Interesting to note, though, that, so far, even though there are female leaders in Boy Scouts, there have been zero recorded incidents of this occurring. In this case I will venture a guess as to why the difference. Liberal teachers in a liberal atmosphere, versus conservative women involved in Boy Scouts. I have yet to meet a liberal woman involved with Boy Scouts. Maybe they exist in big cities… certainly not where I’m

              • This is my big basic problems with the gay community: They know they’re harboring deviants that abuse the young and confused, and they refuse to do anything about it, or acknowledge the problem.

                I’ve heard this kind of thing discussed, and the “activist types” all acknowledge the perpetrators, but refuse to call them out publicly or admit to the problem because of the predictable effect on the rest of their agenda. This, in my mind, is unforgivable, and a perfect example of functional sociopathy.

                I know this: If one of my peers admitted to me that he’d sexually abused one of the kids under his authority as an NCO in the Army, I’d have never looked the other way to show solidarity with him, or out of a concern for potential embarrassment to the NCO Corps. I’d have reported his ass immediately to the responsible authority, and if nothing was done and I knew he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I’d be in prison for killing his sorry ass myself.

                That’s how you police your own, and I see none of that taking place in the gay community, at all. Hell, they won’t even acknowledge that there’s a problem, and as one of the more morally uncompromised ones put it to me, there’s a good reason for it: If they did, it would cut down on the numbers of younger gays coming into the community. Although, I don’t know if he was right about how there’s a lot of “recruiting” going on, but he did claim that it was a common thing to go looking for the sexually confused to “convert”. Since he was pretty self-hating, I don’t know how to evaluate that one, at all.

                • I know this: If one of my peers admitted to me that he’d sexually abused one of the kids under his authority as an NCO in the Army, I’d have never looked the other way to show solidarity with him, or out of a concern for potential embarrassment to the NCO Corps. I’d have reported his ass immediately to the responsible authority, and if nothing was done and I knew he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I’d be in prison for killing his sorry ass myself.

                  Yes, but there aren’t people like, well, you who are looking to paint Army NCO’s as pederasts and abusers. Being under attack drives a person – and a culture – to desperate things in the name of defense (see: Churchill and the USSR).

                • Regarding policing your own –

                  The problem exists elsewhere as well. When San Diego Mayor “Filthy” Filner was finally nailed on sex abuse charges (from what I’ve heard, this had been going on even all the way back when he was in DC), the California Democrats voted on whether to take any action against him. And the vote was a tie. Roughly half the people who voted thought that it was best for the party not to take any action against him because he was a fellow Democrat who was the mayor of San Diego (which – at least up until recently – wasn’t the kind of city that elected Democrats as mayor).

                  And that doesn’t even get into the fact that, as mentioned above, there had been rumors about this guy dating all the way back to his time in DC. People knew about him for years and years, but ignored it because putting a stop to his actions could hurt the political party.

                  • Instead, they waited until the election and basically filed a false rape charge:

                    On Friday, the ex-staffer admitted in federal court that he lied when he claimed to have gotten an anonymous email threatening that he would never work again in politics if he revealed that he had been sexually harassed by DeMaio.

                • I have seen folks from community bragging about converting straights. In addition, if you look at erotica sites the straight to gay trope is not uncommon with forcible conversion not uncommon.

            • Purely anecdotal, but I would say from my discussions with lesbian and bisexual women (I have never discussed this with a gay guy, because I know few of them, I’m not really comfortable having heart to hearts with any I have met, and guys just don’t normally discuss such stuff) that the 80% being molested as children fits with those I have discussed it with. Now not all of those were molested by women, or only by women, but it seems to be one of those things where opposite abnormal experiences produce the same abnormal results. Molested by a woman as kid? Identify as lesbian and seek female lovers. Molested by a man as a kid? Don’t trust men, and so seek female lovers.

              Also note that a clear majority of lesbian couples I have seen/known have an obvious mature/immature, almost adult/child aspect to them.

              Let me point out that both you and Kirk are right. Clearly not all gays are pedophiles, many of them would never consider molesting a child. But, not only do pedophiles hide out in the gay community, but they are openly accepted (The Man, Boy Love Association, etc.) and actively hidden by it. And as Kirk points out, you cannot tell from casual acquaintance that someone is not a pedophile (you may be able to tell they are, but absence of proof is NOT proof of absence) so it is only prudent to limit and/or supervise their access to children.

              • Female homosexuality is different. Still not all molested gkrls become lesbian. Ask me how I know.

                • No, they most definitely do not, and I wasn’t trying to imply that they did. I was stating that most lesbians I have known were molested, not that most molested girls become lesbians.

                • Sorry rereading my post, I can see where you would think that is what I was implying, I could have worded that more clearly.

            • Without going into the argument, perhaps a point of definition.
              *”Pedophilia”, defined as s3xual attraction to prepubescent children, is (thank G-d) extremely rare in hetero- and homosexual populations alike
              *”Ephebophilia”, defined as s3xual attraction to adolescents, is another phenomenon, and much less rare among people of all orientations. (From “Lolita” to female teachers sexually initiating high school boys to, yes, the male teacher b*ggering boys — which anecdotal evidence suggests is the most common of the three.)

            • Come on, Sarah, you’re reacting. Based on the readily available statistics alone, a gay man is 14 times more likely to abuse a child than a straight man. Or if you prefer percentages, 1,300 percent more likely to do so.

              That’s not a coincidence. Are they all pedos? No. But the probabilities are problematic.

              • ESR had an interesting discussion on his blog recently (thread drift in the comments to Why I won’t mourn Mozilla) regarding the correlation between various non-standard sexualities. He attaches no moral weight to this, at least as far as the “consenting adults” sorts are concerned; but he also notes just how impossible it is that a rigorous study will be done on the matter in the foreseeable future. (Basically, the Boy Scouts were at least not terribly wrong to ban openly gay scout leaders, and the data simply do not exist to say whether they were at all wrong.)

      • I _think_ I got this in the right thread. A couple of things all at once, at the end rather than scattered around:

        Gay men going after the young (High School and less) is very rare in my experience, and I know 100s of gay men.

        Gay men going after straight men: It depends on the gay man’s age. For the young, we don’t get the signals!! My older brothers were always joking around about blowjobs and buggery. How is a kid supposed to understand? They made the same sort of jokes about women. I made a very unwanted pass at a friend in high school because of this. For the older ones, I would posit two categories: The stupid and those in it for the challenge. I really have no idea. And in the military?!? I had a couple of encounters in the Air Force, but I never would have initiated anything. Not everyone can do cost/benefit analysis, apparently.

        Power imbalances/relationship dysfunction. Oh G*d yes! I have no idea why, but the drama and the repetition of doomed behavior! I endeavor to live a drama free life (I said I knew 100s of gay men; not that they were my friends) and I’ve kicked several people out of it for just these sorts of reasons. I’m going on 16 years with the same partner/husband (we sort of became insta-married due to common law). I’ll happily never have another (although we each plan on being the first to die; I may change my mind if I’m not).

        Immaturity. My theory is that not having children allows for extended (into the 70s for some men I know) adolescence. They never develop a sense of responsibility because they’ve never had to be responsible for anyone other than themselves. If I’m right, it should hold true for childless straight couples as well. I don’t know enough of them to know. The gay men I know who married and had children certainly seem more “grown up” than those that did not (and they didn’t “come out” until the children were out of the house; I assume their wives figured it out at some point).

        Abuse. I have insufficient data. I know it didn’t happen to me, but that’s it.

        Justice Roberts can rot in hell for that comment, which I happen to agree with. What makes him think that he can just make shit up (“established by the State” means “established by anyone, anywhere, under any authority”) but the other justices cannot do the same? Sow the wind…

        Backlash/activists. It could go the MADD route, instead. They are still around, but everyone ignores them as neo-temperance idiots. I’m fairly sure we’ve reached peak crazy. The pushback is starting all over the place (go Sad Puppies!). By the time the gaystapo starts grabbing for even more power, the support base will be evaporating (we can hope). If the late 20th century trends continue, it will get ugly.

        I think I got it all 😉

        • My theory is that not having children allows for extended … adolescence. They never develop a sense of responsibility because they’ve never had to be responsible for anyone other than themselves. If I’m right, it should hold true for childless straight couples as well.

          That seems reasonable, with one caveat. There are sufficient differences between male and female brain that the bumping of heads will force a degree of maturity on successful straight couples to a greater extent than seems likely in same-sex couples of wither plumbing.

          I reserve the right to expand and revise that remark.

          As for Justice Roberts, I am inclined to be charitable and point out that, as it was a 6-3 decision we can be sure Obamacare would have survived without him. As I understand SCOTUS rules, the Chief Justice only gets to assign writing up a decision if he votes on the winning side, so he may (emphasize: may) have cast his vote that way to ensure his privilege and get to write a decision that was most constrained (which would leave us wondering just what insanity would have made its way into the decision without him. Against that is how far beyond the minimal necessary bounds he went.) If that is the case, I think the opprobrium heaped upon that decision, which will remain on the books so long as this nation survive (at least another couple weeks, then) is ample punishment … and we need not force him to the dark side of the Court quite yet.

          The sad fact is that there are four members of the court (I disdain calling them “justices”) who can be relied upon to vote politically rather than judicially. By being such committed hacks they undermine the structure of the Court far more than do a couple of squishes like Roberts and Kennedy.

          On your final point, the question was answered, almost to the month, 150 years ago:
          “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan–to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”

          Or. more recently, these words:
          “In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Goodwill.”

          • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

            Matt P, an expert on Constitutional Law, said on the Bar that Justice Roberts by his actions very likely prevented a “decision” that would have given more power to the President to “modify” Laws.

            It’s bad enough for the Supreme Court to “modify” a Law but imagine the Fun if the President had the power to “modify” a Law.

            At least the Supreme Court can’t act until a case comes up through the lower Courts.

            The President (if he had the power) wouldn’t have to wait.

        • Agree along the line. Have same experiences with gay friends. Don’t know any who were abused (know TWO straight friends abused by men, btw) OR are interested in kids. Heck, most of my friends — one exception, waves — like OLDER men.
          Seducing the straight gay is — I UNDERSTAND — a fantasy “I’m so good that I” it’s like all the porn on straight sites about the reluctant chicks who love it. It’s like… Thinking that is “reality” of gay guys is like the SJWs thinking ALL men are rapists because of those fantasies.

          • Which option you see as being more prevalent is dependent entirely on what your experiences have been. Yours have been mostly positive, mine have not.

            Which, if you stop and think about it, is pretty damn likely to be the case: You’re a woman. Automatically, you’re not going to be the target of the predatory gay male. You will never see or experience the same sort of crap I have, simply because you’re invisible to them. Thus, you have a much more positive point of view on the issue than I do. You’re never going to see or experience the downside, which colors your perceptions.

            Best analogy? You’re an elephant, telling a rabbit not to worry about the eagle flying overhead–Those birds have never targeted you, so why should the rabbit be concerned and hide in the shadows? Legends of the Roc notwithstanding, you’ll never need to worry about an eagle breaking your spine with a strike, and then flying off with your broken body. Of course you don’t see the problem for the rabbit.

            Likewise, I’m not likely to see the positive side, either. And, I’m going to be predisposed not to, having been through the things I have. Which is why I struggle to deal fairly with the gay males I have in my life, and who I encounter–But, I cannot help but do so with a distinctly jaundiced eye, just the way I cannot help but stereotype the average “urban youth” upon first encounter. Survival can be dependent on immediately taking the proper precautions, particularly when several move to surround one in the wrong setting.

            • Several facts need to be taken into account.

              She’s female: she has had ample opportunity to observe male predation.

              She’s female: she has had ample opportunity to observe female predation.

              She’s a mother. Of two boys. She’s had ample experience of protecting them while they grew to adulthood.

              DO NOT underestimate the power of maternal protection instincts.

              • When you’re a woman, and have a woman’s experiences, it’s damn hard to grasp what goes on over on the male side of life. Barracks life in all-male units has a totally different dynamic than mixed-sex ones, and from what I have been told of life over in the all-female areas, it is very different, as well. Men don’t get what goes on behind closed doors over on the female side, just as women don’t “get” somewhat similar things that go on over on the male side, as well. It’s pretty much the way most men can’t comprehend the concept of “lesbian rape”, either–Although, I will grant that that seems to be a phenomenon with a far lower incidence rate.

                I speculate that this is why women, in general, seem to have a far lower rate of negative reaction to male homosexual behavior than straight men generally have. Women see hot boy-on-boy yaoi action, and men remember getting groped by an adult male when they were a teenager. Any wonder the response to homosexuals is so different?

                I was actually told, once, by a woman, that no man has any idea what it is like to be raped, or forced into sex. What I had to tell her was “Sweetheart, you have no fucking idea how common that is, for men… It’s just not ever talked about, ever…”.

                Biggest difference I see between men and women? A woman can go for help, after a rape, and expect to see some. A man? Rape? Don’t make me laugh–Most victims can’t even admit to themselves what happened, let alone do anything about it. And, it happens a lot more than the typical white-bread, middle-class person is ever going to find out, especially among the lower orders where these things aren’t cared about, let alone policed. Try exploring a homeless shelter or camp, as more than a do-gooder on a day pass, sometime. Better yet, go there as a young, attractive male, and see what happens to you. I guarantee you it won’t be so different from what you’d experience as a young, attractive female. Now, to really gain comprehension for the difference between the two? Go try reporting what happens, afterwards. I can almost guarantee that the only person who’s going to get either attention or sympathy is going to be the one with tits…

              • Yep. On top of which his thought sounds JUST like the SJWs “#yesallmen because I’ve had bad experiences with scum.
                Humans always have despicable elements, regardless of orientation, culture, etc.
                Fortunately unless there are truly perverse incentives (things like the Soviet Union or some Islamic nations come to mind) in place, they’re not the majority.

                • We’re going to have an opportunity to see “true natures” revealed here, in the next few years. Will this be the opening moment, which enables the persecution of the religious who feel their scriptures call for opposition to the things gay marriage symbolizes? Or, will it be a moment when all this starts to calm down, and people accept each other for what they are, and move on to mind their own business?

                  I hope it’s the latter. I’m expecting the former, based on known past behavior. The things that have gone on, including the persecution of Eich, for merely expressing and supporting an opinion? That doesn’t bode well, at all. I really hope I’m sitting here in ten years with egg on my face, but I’m pretty sure I won’t be. Instead, I’m probably going to be shaking my head sadly as a bunch of people get a very unpleasant lesson about human nature, and why, precisely, this hasn’t been done before in any other human society. If I’m still around another twenty-thirty years down the line, I won’t be a damn bit surprised if I’m helping hide formerly open gays from the people who want to burn them at the stake. Of course, that’s assuming I haven’t joined the mob in outrage at the goings-on during their moment in power over the majority.

                  3% of the population can sway the other 97% for a short period of time. How long that remains effective depends entirely on how and what they do while they have the power to do that. From the looks of what’s going on now, I’m not at all sanguine about the amount of restraint we’re going to see. I fully expect that that asshole I mentioned above, who wanted to get back at his parents and siblings by having sex on top of their churches altar as a part of his wedding ceremony, is probably actually going to try to make something like that happen. He was stupid enough. People like that aren’t going to be satisfied with mere victory–They’re going to want to rub it in the faces of those they see as the opposition, and in the most outrageous way possible. That doesn’t bode well for the long term.

    • only about 3% of the population

      Try reducing that by one order of magnitude, you’ll then be much more accurate.

      • See below for actual statistics. Self-identified homo- and bisexuals together amount to about 3.5% (not the 10% of propaganda).

        • whether 3 or 10, it is a tyranny by a minority. They glom onto a group that needs their numbers to hold sway, and ignore the fact they are often among the first up against the wall when it goes pear shaped. Normally by “their” side, or a “side” they supported.

    • “Look at Baltimore. Ferguson. Memphis. See anything there that doesn’t read like a tract from the breathless KKK member, insisting on the inherent criminality of the African-American? I swear to God, it’s like a huge swathe of the black population is actively trying to validate that asshole who tried recruiting me into the Klan, back in the day. If there weren’t things like Charleston happening in diametric opposition, I’d probably have to concede that that racist son-of-a-bitch was pretty much right, at this point.”

      This is why I have said repeatedly that the current political climate is causing racism. We had for the most part obliterated racism in America, on there were fringe elements, but even the most well known ones, like the KKK and the Black Panthers were just vaguely recognizable names to most people. But over the last fifteen to twenty years, and particularly the last five to ten, I have seen racial prejudice grow in leaps and bounds, and the reason is simple. People resent being insulted, denigrated, and falsely accused. They particularly resent others being given preferential treatment, while they are told that they have ‘white privilege.’ When they see this being done repeatedly by the same demographic; well they put two and two together, and come up with; you really can’t trust blacks, they’ll lie, cheat, and steal, and then blame it on us. From there it really isn’t far to, may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

      I see this going the same way with the gays and lesbians. As you pointed out, this is a bad idea, when you are just a miniscule percentage of the population. If you insist on ramming your lifestyle down other peoples throats, don’t be surprised if they chew you up and spit you out, instead of smiling and telling you how good it is.

      • Without racism, or what ever the “ism” of the day is, the leftoids really have no leg to stand on and many of them would have to actually be functional members of society, so if it doesn’t really exist it must be ginned up (Djinned up in the case of “islamophobia?) and any that is still there fanned to flames, or at least have a magnifying glass put in front of the nearly non-existant hatred so it seems far larger than it is.
        Typical leftoid tactics. LIE. early and often

    • For those still following this thread, Sultan Knish has an amazingly clear-eyed distillation of what is going on here, and I highly recommend reading it:

      http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2015/06/no-truce-with-left.html

      The gist of what he says here is precisely why this whole “gay marriage” thing pisses me off so much–It is not, in the final analysis, the issue itself. It is, instead the way it has been weaponized, and will continue to be used as one on the rest of us. It’s not going to end here, by any means: It will be used as a bludgeon to bash in the churches and family structures they support, leaving the rest of us with a vastly diminished cultural commons.

  7. Pierre the Pug Puppy has been running around the back lot of the book store for a half hour, and he still hasn’t found where Hamlet the new girl cat is hiding!

    • Sniffs, vague upset look, barks hysterically, and he’s three feet away from where Hamlet has camouflaged herself. Adorable.

  8. Randy Wilde

    Abigail Williams tweeted out that there is no slippery slope, that the progressives are devoted to preserving ALL rights, including of people who disagree with them.

    She also wanted everyone to know that Goody Proctor is a conservative.

  9. OT: This morning, my wife went to walk Nemo at our hotel here in Chattanooga. She slipped and fell forward apparently with her arms extended, and broke both her arms at the shoulders. The right one is chipped at the ball, and the left is greensticked just below the joint.

    The ER docs say that there isn’t much they can do but put her arms in slings for 6 weeks; when we get back to Plano on Tuesday, we’ll see an orthopedic surgeon for confirmation. The chip worries us the most.

    She won’t be able to comment until I can rig up voice dictation, but she’ll follow along.

  10. Via Insty: a roundup of conservative and libertarian reactions at The Federalist. http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/27/gay-marriage-is-here-now-what/ many of them by legal scholars. Note that even those who approve of the decision (like Ilya Shapiro) generally deplore the legal reasoning on which it is based. (I’m an interested layman at best when it comes to constitutional law, but even I can see this.)

  11. On FNC’s Redeye Friday morning, Ben Domenech (publisher of The Federalist) commented (Transcribed by moi):

    “I want to tell you about a problem, a very problematic thing. It is called The Past, and in The Past people did things, okay, and when they did those things people would build monuments about those things so we would remember those people and the Good and the Bad that they did.”

    Remembering things is very problematic, because if you remember them then you have to have opinions about them and learn about them. And if you talked about them you might express the wrong opinion and then you could end up as a hashtag.”

    So I think that what we really ought to do is really declare war on the real problem here, which is The Past. We must wipe out The Past. History is a different country and we must end its existence because as long as it exists we will never have Peace. F— The Past and everybody who is in it.”

    • Randy Wilde

      He who controls the present…

    • That is the most absurd comment I have ever seen. Now, I know where it comes from, the ‘noble savage’ mentality that all the evils of the world are a result of the vile white patriarchy, and if we could somehow start from scratch, everything would be *utopia*!
      Wipe out the past… like the formulation of gunpowder, like Pasteur’s Germ Theory, Newton’s laws of motion?
      As Kirk commented, there are a lot of old ‘traditions’ and ‘prejudices’ that may actually exist for a reason. The safest to mention is not eating pork; Trichinosis may be a thing of the past, but when the old farts, through observation and experienced noticed your chance of dying was less by not eating pork, they arrived at a valid conclusion, at least until better understanding (again in our *PAST*) determined otherwise.

    • walkerhound

      ” really declare war on the real problem here, which is The Past. We must wipe out The Past. History is a different country and we must end its existence because as long as it exists we will never have Peace. ”

      considering the debate in Richmond has (just) reached the point were it’s tear down the monuments (well expect Arthur ashes’) on monument avne …..or maybe just “put ’em in a museum some ware”

  12. Christopher M. Chupik

    From Twitter:

    “Jim Treacher ‏@jtLOL · 27s27 seconds ago
    #LoveWins #OrElse”

  13. Now you’ve gone and made me cry. Great story.

  14. (Not that anyone was) speaking of the Confederate flag:


    “We agree: All Confederate emblems Must. Come. Down.”

    • And now, a differing view:


      “The only leftist-approved bikini.”

      • What in the seven circles of Hell is WRONG with you?

        • That is far too broad a scope, sir. To find what is wrong with him, look in the second circle, perhaps the fourth. Maybe the ninth, because puns are treacherous.

      • Now, Now, there can’t be a leftist approved bikini; we all know bikini’s are merely a means by which the patriarchy perpetuates rape culture…

        (Where’s the scotch, I need to exercise the prog from my brain.)

        • RealityObserver

          While exercising it, keep it on a short leash. (See above – the prog is trying to trip you, unlike a pet dog.)

        • …bikini’s are merely a means by which the patriarchy perpetuates rape culture…

          That is unless it were to be worn by the right person, such as Ms. Caitlyn Jenner, as a statement of self-empowerment and personal identity.

        • (Where’s the scotch, I need to exercise the prog from my brain.)

          You must floss your mind with barbed wire to get the proggy out…..

          • kenashimame

            but scotch is so much more pleasant, but barbed wire is cheaper.

            (If your barbed wire isn’t cheaper than your scotch, you’re buying the wrong scotch.)

      • Real leftists don’t think Obama is leftist enough.
        In order to receive leftist approval, it would have to be a rainbow design, and the person wearing it would have to have been born male.

    • Randy Wilde

      The South shall rise again…

  15. RealityObserver

    What the “Justices” have done this week is finally make clear that the contract between the governed and their governors – is null and void.

    To my mind, we are no longer bound by the provisions of this contract, and are no longer obligated to carry them out.

    Yes, this does restore the original “law” – that of the jungle. If that was their intent, they have succeeded. They may not care for the consequences as it is enforced, though.

  16. What happens if a mixed-race same-sex couple asks a baker to make this cake …


    … for their wedding?

  17. Completely OT: WIP1 (work in progress 1) just came back from developmental editing. Based on that it looks like major rewrite and restructuring, but it’ll probably be going on KDP eventually rather than be released for free under a Creative Commons license. I made a number of rookie mistakes, it seems (as expected) — most egregiously, repeated sinning against the “Show, don’t tell” principle. On balance, I like the editor’s work.

  18. Another OT; One of the public incantations that has annoyed me for years is “Information wants to be free”. It is chanted as defense of pirating and hacking, by people presenting as everything from LIRPs to Libertarians, and every time I run into it, I think “Yes. I understand. I, too, have been in a place where my hinder for content far outstripped my ability to pay for it. That doesn’t mean that what I wanted to do, and what you are doing, is not theft.”

    Today, a slogan occurred to me that, I think, is a counter-incantaion;

    “Creative work wants paying for, and if it doesn’t get it, it goes away.”

    Comments? Criticisms?

    • “Information wants to be free”

      Your login ID and password are information. So are your banking data and medical records.

    • Clever, but of course the creative urge exists regardless of the market.
      Nice to get paid though.

      • Creatives gonna create, sure enuff, but it’s great for the rest of us when the creatives can quit their day jobs.
        http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/06/25/how-authors-get-paid-part-2/

        • Cool. Consider me chastised, though I’d get more writing done if you guys would shut up. 😉

          • are ya done yet? are ya done yet? are ya done yet?
            Huh?HUH?!

            • LMAO

              Rain tomorrow, hoping to make great progress, so shhhhhhhhh.

              • okay, I’ll Shhhhh. I’m not one to natter one when I been told to Shhhh why just the other day I Shhhed for maybe 3, almost 4 seconds and then I … What are you doing? Why are you looking at me like that?
                Um.
                Put that down …

                • You’re on a roll. What did you get into?

                  • been working 12 hour shifts plus a half hour for lunch so it has been a 4pm to 4:30 am shift, and yesterday I was off but, after a whole 4 hours of sleep, mowed the lawn, and broke the belt on the mower, fixed it, finished the mowing, then lost internet due to weather, so I went to sleep, but 3 hours later got woke by another storm (just what we need in Texas, More Rain!) and slept in fits and starts until giving up at %am. Then I got up and rode the motorcycle to a lunch meetup in Nixon, some 271 miles travel away, through rain, some road flooding, and after the lunch (Paradise BBQ), dodged rain on the back so the ride total today was 572 miles. I also had three redbulls but I’m not sure they did anything for me ……HA!

                    • “I also had three redbulls but I’m not sure they did anything for me ……HA!”

                      That depends. Are you still up?

                    • Well, I was not, and I did get to sleep ahead of schedule. The last of the 3 was before 4 pm, and I was still slightly buzz-brained at midnight. The crash was soon after.
                      I used to drink Monsters so often I could drink one then fall asleep. Now I just use Coke or HEB cola for my Caff fix and cut back, on those as much as possible.
                      I should do more unsweetened tea.

                    • or um… coffee? That chemical s**t will kill you.
                      Me, I finished my coffee and passed out. Felt bad this morning to have left you pinging off the walls with no one to laugh at your, uh… jokes.
                      😉

                    • coffee and I do not get along well, I can if forced drink it, and Cold Brewed is about the only way I do it voluntarily, but I need so much sugar and cream in it I may as well go a Cole route and likely have less sugar. Not too long after that though I crashed from the day. 572 miles ridden. almost 200 in rain, the afternoon 300 miles in hot temps wearing a waterproof riding suit. Almost as bad as being at work in Tyvek.

                    • That’s good, and for a good long while, seemingly.

                    • for a change, yeah, slept a good long time and feel almost human for once.

          • Never forget opportunity costs.

      • The thing is, when it doesn’t get paid, then it stops being offered as much, or as widely. Because the creator has to make a living at something that DOES pay. And because, no matter how small the costs, the cost still have to be met.

  19. BTW, as far as numbers go, my HS graduating class (1973) was 400, about evenly split m/f. 4 gay males I know of, about 2%. Haven’t kept track of everyone, of course. Of the 200-300 males I interact with at work and play, maybe a half dozen. 2-3%. Lesbians? One relative on facebook, and of course, her partner. If the oft-quoted and false figure of 10% of the population was gay- I’d know a lot more. And so would you. It’s not scientific, but stop to think of all the people you know and interact with. How many are actually gay? How many do you suspect might be? Not that many, unless you happen to live in San Francisco or Minneapolis or some other major city. And that’s going to be skewed by self selection.

    • The “10%” number comes from Kinsey. More realistic numbers:
      http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/
      TL;DR summary:
      The true figures (from two different 2011 anonymous surveys, one by the UCLA School of Law that probed primarily for identity, the other by the Centers for Disease Control that also probed for specific acts):

      * 1.7% of Americans self-define as “gay” or lesbian
      * 1.8% as “bisexual”
      * This adds up to just 3.5% who have either a homo- or a bisexual identity, nowhere NEAR what people think!!!

      The CDC survey sheds light on another category: 4.7% of people are heterosexual but had at least one homosexual experience/experiment in the past (not necessarily “all the way”). This group was (not surprisingly) overwhelmingly female.
      Of course one can claim that any girl who once made out with another girl while drunk or stoned must be counted as lesbian (even if she never did this again in her life), but that argument could be inverted (“invertido”? ;)) to discount all bisexuals as well as everybody who ever had even one HETEROsexual encounter. At which point you would have as little as one percent “pure” homosexuals left.

    • A more recent CDC survey of self-reported identity here (from a large sample): http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf
      Straight 97.7%
      “Gay” or Lesbian 1.6%
      Bisexual 0.7%
      “Something else” 0.2%
      Don’t know 0.4%
      Decline to answer 0.6%

      • I did some reading on this a while ago. It seems to boil down to Kinsey’s methodology would not stand up if he didn’t agree with one or more of The Narratives, but the people who claim to have “disproven” the 10% huber are as bad. The whole argument about Kinsey and the 10% number is probably hogwash and demonstrably toxic.

        That said, multiple surveys taken in the last 20 years have shown numbers in the 2-3% area. How reliable THERI methodology may be, I have no idea.

        My personal opinion, based on half a century of observation, is that Gays are rarer than they would like us to believe. Rare enough that if they allow their political leaders to continue to use them as an excuse to marginalize and persecute orthodox Christians, they are going to be really, REALLY sorry in the long run. Punishing the people who oppressed you in the past is a common enough human occupation, but so is playing with your own feces. And like plying with your own feces, it stinks, it’s messy, it is likely to case problems, it spreads stubborn stains that are hell to get rid of, and it accomplished nothing worthwhile.

        AND, picking a fight with a group many times your number is, and always has been, an excellent way to get curb-stomped. Not that such a stomping would be legal, just, or moral. But legal, just, and moral only coincide with the real world occasionally.

  20. I find it interesting that all the youtube videos I found of Dixie were labeled as “The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as being potentially offensive or graphic. Viewer discretion is advised. ”

    This for an instrumental song, with the entire “graphics” being a still picture of the confederate flag.

    If you are offended by drums and fiddles, and a picture of a historical flag, maybe you should put yourself in a padded room where you can’t hurt yourself or others.

    • I despise slavery with every fiber of my being and have no patience at all for neo-Confederates, but this is the sort of intellectually vapid Master Bates behavior on the part of YouTube that makes me blast another YouTube video through the house:

      (Black Sabbath, “Into the void”)

  21. Pingback: More Responses to Obergefell vs. Hodges | Enjoyment and Contemplation

  22. OT (what was the topic,anyway?)

    Does anyone know of a wordpress.com theme that lets you pick your own colors?

  23. Having cut my teeth on Heinlein, and read Time Enough for Love in high school, my default setting has been, “let anyone marry anyone else in any number and of any gender”. To the extent that marriage is a private affair, that’s still my default. Live The Dream can do and advocate whatever they please, so long as no major laws are broken.

    However….

    Marriage is not private. It involves at least two families. It involves everyone who attends the ceremony as friends and witnesses. It involves the local government of whatever region the marriage is solemnized in. It may involve clergy. Contra those who say marriage is “only about love”, it’s about a lot more. It’s about binding together not just pairs of people, but entire families. The husband’s relatives aren’t just to the wife “my BFF’s relatives”, they are now “in-laws”, at least a sort of shadow family, with legal and moral obligations that have existed at various levels through history.
    Marriage also imposes obligations on the rest of society. A married couple is treated as a unit in many ways. “Mr. and Mrs. anybody” are treated differently than a random man and woman who happen to be friends. Commentators have identified some 900 rights given to married couples that aren’t available to nonmarried couples. Even though I suspect a fair amount of double and triple counting (or maybe 50-fold counting if the same right is counted separately in each of the 50 states), there are a fair number of such rights. Many of these rights impose obligations on the rest of society, as well.

    I have come to suspect that the form of marriage as male-female bonds is the result of centuries of societal evolution. Advocates for same-sex marriage will proclaim the existence of societies that allowed such, and from that they will assert that limiting marriage to bonds between men and women is a recent invention and not at all normative.
    Frankly, I find the examples cited to be less than convincing. My impression is that these examples represent either narrow exceptions or at best, were norms in obscure cultures with very little impact on other cultures. And I suspect the reason for this is that cultures that didn’t so restrict marriage just didn’t do as well as cultures that did.
    Other examples I’ve heard and read of either ignore the effect of legal sex change (so called “two-spirit” men marrying other men — I submit that legally, the “two-spirit” have undergone a sex change for purposes of marriageability) or define “marriage” in such a way that it ceases to mean what we think of as “marriage”. (A couple of anthropologists wrote an op-ed titled “Marriage: An Elastic Institution” in which they argued for a “generalized anthropologists’ definition” of marriage. This definition was so generalized that it included entering military service, being fostered out, and being legally adopted. With a definition of “marriage” this general, same-sex marriage has been legal for centuries, along with any combination of multiple marriage Heinlein ever may have conceived of.) (And by the way, when I mentioned the implications of this general definition to one of the authors in an e-mail, he agreed and said it was an excellent point.)

    So, marriage tends to be between men and women. It may be between one man and many women, or many men and one woman, but the individual links are male-female. If the husband in a polygynous marriage dies, all the women are widowed. The are not married to each other. Even on Tertius in Time Enough for Love, Lazarus Long had “wives” and “co-husbands”, not “wives” and “husbands”. The presumption of a male-female bond in marriage seems to have a lot of history behind it.

    This presumption no longer exists in American law.

    So what happens now?

    Offhand, I don’t really know.

    I think one of the first things to happen will be that civil unions go away. Why bother with a parallel system when anyone interested in committing to a partner can now marry? We may even see such unions upgraded to full marriages.

    Some churches will withdraw their consent to civil marriages. I imagine that civil marriage has served as an acceptable compromise for a number of religions: “You weren’t consecrated husband and wife in the Fosterite Church, but at least you’re not just shacking up.” Now that marriage is (in many eyes) just legally recognized shacking up, many churches may insist that only marriage by their rite is valid. Go ahead and do the civil thing for the tax benefits, but get our asses in front of an imam for a real wedding.
    There will be a fair amount of balkanization while churches work out reciprocal agreements. Not all will. Wiccan groves may recognize Christian marriages, but how many Christian churches will reciprocate?

    If marriage is seen as being less “special”, fewer people will bother. The argument, “why does it matter, it’s just a piece of paper” will be weightier than ever.

    If the form of marriages affects the evolutionary fitness of a culture, we may see the kind of parallel evolution people have speculated about with respect to abortion and childbirth. (Groups that are more likely to abort their children have a lower evolutionary fitness than those that don’t. Obviously, groups with a higher total fertility rate are more fit.) If marriage is not seen as a prerequisite for bearing children, fewer people will have children even after marriage. But in groups that consider marriage (likely called something else) loading the gun for starting a family, and that expect that loaded gun to be fired promptly, fertility rates are likely to be higher. The result would be that those cultures that accept same-sex marriage because “love is love” will shrink in size and importance. Those that consider marriage to be a male-female bond that sets the stage for having children will grow.

    In the mean time, celebrations continue.

    • I’m a pragmatist. When I observe that something works, I leave it the hell alone. Especially if I don’t understand the why it works part.

      I look around me, and I see that I live in what certainly looks like the best civilization we’ve managed to come up with so far in human history. A large part of this is based on the Judeo-Christian tradition that developed in Europe, and was transplanted here to North America. The cultural commons that resulted from that has given us a lot, including some spectacularly successful material conditions. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the best time and place to be a human being.

      So, when you tell me that it is horribly flawed, unfair, inhuman, and you want to fundamentally change things, I tend to look on you as a total fucking moron, without mincing words or avoiding profanity. You want to change things? You want me on board? Fine, then you’d better figure out why all this crap around us works, and how your proposed changes are going to interact with the existing mental and physical infrastructure. Why? Because all “this” didn’t just happen by some happy accident, and I’d kind of like to have it around in my old age and to pass on to my family descendents. Not to mention, I spent a fair few years on the ramparts defending “this”, and I’d really rather not see that investment evaporate into the night because you want to live in Mad Max World. You may find assless chaps more comfortable, but I prefer my pants with an actual seat in them.

      People fail to appreciate that there are reasons for just about everything in society; unpleasant, unfair, inhuman though they may be, those reasons are generally there behind the unfair and inhumane things we don’t like.

      I suspect that we’re about to find out why the gay and homosexual lifestyle has been kept firmly closeted throughout most of the history of Western civilization, and why it was looked down on during much of the classical era, as well. I honestly don’t know if gays are the way they are “because, persecution”, or if they’ve been persecuted because of how they behave as a group.

      Either way, however, the effect is there, and it’s one that needs to be taken into account before we change things. The little things, the precursors that I see around me don’t bode well for the future: Why on earth does a gay couple feel like they need to bankrupt a little old lady they’ve known for years, who just wants to mind her own business, and not provide their now-legal nuptials with flowers? Why do you suppose that gay couple feels like they have to destroy her financial well-being, in order to make some point? Is their power to do so something we should have enabled?

      Case after case like this is going on, and I don’t think it’s going to stop until they’ve used this issue as a wedge to force their way into the naves of most churches across the land, demanding not just tolerance, but fervent approval–Never mind the side effects, which are going to include some very nasty things being done to them and their fellows here in a generation or two. The pendulum swings, and the only thing you can count on is that the further it gets pushed in one direction, the harder it is going to swing coming back the other way. Yeah, we’ll probably see lawsuits forcing the Catholic church to perform gay weddings, but I guarantee you that it won’t be like that forever: The step past all this triumphalism is probably going to be pogrom. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit to see all the Catholic church gay wedding records used as weapons during the soon-to-be-coming future gay hunts. Because, that’s probably going to be a “thing” in a few years. They’re going to make them very popular by their behavior, while they’re on top. And, when they’re not? Here’s a clue: 3% of the population isn’t going to inflict its values and mores on the rest of it without there being some form of recoil, and that recoil ain’t going to take the form of verbal censure.

      None of this crap has happened “naturally”; there hasn’t been a huge change to human nature, nor has there been an organic, deeply-rooted shift in attitudes. What has happened has instead been the product of a stealthy, long-term project to both convince the general public that there are a lot more gays and lesbians than there really are, and that their lifestyles are not at all deviant. Only thing is, all that is pretty much propaganda. The reality, when the general public gets it wiped in their faces, is going to cause a snap back to the default, and probably past that point to a degree that’s going to make the Victorian suppression of homosexuality look positively tame.

      And, I say this not because I hate gays. Hell, the most I can be said to feel for the majority of the ones I’ve known is pity, because they’ve been some of the most desperately unhappy and miserable people I’ve ever met, as well as some of the most dysfunctional. Out of the population I’ve known personally, I’d have to say that only about two or three out of ten were what I’d call sane and happy people. The rest? Mostly damaged, for whatever reason, dysfunctional victims of either self-induced mental issues or abuse.

      I know Sarah seems to disagree with me, from what she’s said above. My reason for disagreeing with the studies that say that there’s no link to abuse is that every single gay male I know well enough to be familiar with their sexual history has had childhood or early adult sexual abuse in their background. Every. Single. One. So, when I see a study that contradicts what I see around me, I tend to start looking at it a bit more critically, and I’ve yet to find one that I’ve been able to take seriously after looking into the methodology used.

      This whole thing is going to end badly. Very badly. I probably won’t see the end of it, but I can certainly see the potential here at the very beginnings of it all.

      • “So, when I see a study that contradicts what I see around me, I tend to start looking at it a bit more critically, and I’ve yet to find one that I’ve been able to take seriously after looking into the methodology used.”

        Amazingly enough, most studies I have seen that are about anything I have knowledge of, do exactly that, contradict the knowledge I have. So I tend to take any studies, including those I no absolutely nothing about the subject matter of, with a large dose of salt.

        I don’t know if it has been this way throughout history, but I suspect it has. Most people conducting a study (and particularly a “survey”), know the results they want before they start. They then tailor the study to produce those results.

        • Dennis Prager likes to say that every study he has ever seen either confirms what common sense says, or it’s wrong.

          I’m sure there are exceptions. (“There are exceptions to every rule including this one.” — Edwin Meeks)

          The tendency among intellectuals to deny common wisdom and common sense comes, I believe, from two wellsprings of thought.

          Firstly, science has a history of overturning people’s notions of what is or what isn’t true. This happens often enough that people write books about scientific revolutions. But science tends to have its revolutions in areas where people really haven’t had the tools or the opportunity to look, and its revolutionary pronouncements can be tested against the real world.

          Secondly, intellectuals don’t become famous by repeating what common wisdom or common sense tells us. (I use Thomas Sowell’s definition of an intellectual as one whose sole work product is ideas, and these ideas are never tested against the real world.) The way to fame, or at least note, is to find some way to deny what everyone has held to be true. So intellectuals assure us that men and women are the same, “except for the shape of their skin”. Homosexuality is just another preference — Joe prefers redheads, Steve prefers men. Evil people will become good if you’re just nice enough to them. Etc.

          If you’re trying to make a name for yourself and cause a revolution in your field, you don’t do it by repeating the copybook headings.

          • If you’re trying to make a name for yourself and cause a revolution in your field, you don’t do it by repeating the copybook headings.

            Not if you want to maintain your funding and professorial status, at any rate. There is a reason Charles Murray is sui generis, just as there is a reason that John Stossel was unique in the MSM (and eventually had to seek refuge at Fox.)

            A few institutions of Higher Learning (notably Hillsdale) remain as lonely islands in the vast ocean of academia, but their continuance is constantly threatened and the status of their faculty derided. While all here might attend more attentively to the insights of a Paul Rahe than a Paul Krugman, it is clear which gets the perqs and prizes.

            It strikes me that we have now reached a point where demonstrating the validity of Common Sense has become the truly transgressive research.

      • One of the recurring failures of Progressive thought is they so rarely conceive of second-order consequences, much less third-, fourth-, and fifth-order ones.

        Let us stipulate that materially all homosexual relationships are non-exploitative (they aren’t, any more than materially all heterosexual ones are.) Let us further stipulate that we all of us bear no animus toward homosexuals (bisexuals, transexuals, pansexuals, astrosexuals, demisexuals, androsexuals, therians, etc.) beyond what we bear heterosexuals and that such animus is unrelated to what they put where when and under what conditions so long as adults consent.

        Let us instead note that many changes are going to be required of society, that people and institutions are going to have to adapt. Maybe some bakers will simply decide “no capes cakes for weddings.” That means fewer bakeries competing for that business and those that do will be able to charge higher prices. Same thing as certain people and venues decide they don’t care for the risk of lawsuits and therefore their facilities are not on the market for weddings.

        It is unlikely any church can be compelled to, as Kirk puts it, open their naves for same sex wedding services — they will simply forfeit their tax exempt statuses and thus much of the good charitable work they do will have to be picked up elsewhere, typically at higher costs and lower effectiveness; probably increase staffing at various government welfare bureaucracies, too.

        The corporate tax code will either have to be radically reformed or possibly abandoned altogether as unworkable and subject to abuse; see: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/06/could-gay-marriage-lead-to-tax-reform.php and elsewhere in the Conservative blogosphere. Sure, for many that is a feature, not a bug, but planning for investment is a multi-year process and there is going to an economic effect to groups and individuals deciding they need to wait and see how this develops.

        For some reason this whole Obergefell* decision strikes me as the judicial equivalent of saying, “Hey, y’all — watch this!”

        *Contrary to appearances, “Obergefell” is not German for “fall over.”

        • Second-, third-, fourth-, fifth-…. Well, you get the idea. The ramifications of this decision are going to be hitting so many unforeseen “x-effects” that it ain’t even funny. Frankly, were I a Supreme Court Judge, which I ain’t, I’d have walked away from this decision so fast that I would have left a trail of smoke behind me. We really don’t know where the hell this is going to go, when it’s all over with.

          Me? I think the government was stupid to ever get into the marriage business in the first place, and what the court should have done is simply say that marriage is a realm not covered by the Constitution, and that the government has X-number of years to unwind everything relating to marriage out of law, code, and government policy. Because, this is going to become a huge problem, just to administer.

          And, again… For what? 3% of the population? Yeah, that makes sense… Everything else going on in the world, let’s just throw a basic institution of our civilization into chaos and confusion, and deal with that. Instead of the hundred-and-one other major f*****g crisis issues we aren’t even paying the slightest attention to.

          I’d really love to read the work product of the guy who does the inevitable “Decline and Fall of the United States”, a la Gibbon, but he ain’t even born yet. This last week is gonna be at least a chapter, if not a whole damn book.

          We’ve got so many other issues, and everybody is focusing on this triviality. OPM lost control of our entire personnel security database, and God knows where that one ends. Who knows how many Chinese agents had their TS clearances inserted, or who had issues that should have kept them from ever getting a clearance, and all records of those issues were “disappeared”. I’ve been wondering how the hell Snowden got clearance, and now I think I know–I strongly suspect they’ve been in OPM for a lot longer than they’ve admitted.

          But, the gays can marry now. What an achievement.

          • Loss of ability to focus on the serious is a signal of impending doom. Our societal ADHD (abetted by the MSM and certain political factions) may yet prove itself terminal.

        • Another possibility for churches: Clergy no longer signs the marriage license – you’ll have to do the European thing and have a civil ceremony before a clerk, too – and “holy matrimony” is a ceremony for members only. Life-long attendees may become members automatically, new attendees may need to attend a fairly lengthy study in scripture and doctrine, with additional study as part of pre-marriage counselling. If the scriptural study happens to include some fairly definite sessions on what the Bible condemns as sexual immorality, well, that’s just basics. For an LGBT couple to deliberately go thru all that just to rub the church’s face in the law — well, it’d be a rather large and unrewarding effort, and uncommon.

          • Keep in mind that colleges and universities are pushing Christian Organizations off-campus and denying them a fair proportion of student activity funds, all for the “crime” of requiring that candidates for leadership positions — not members but organization leaders — be confessing Christians.

            So yes, they will push that hard just to make their “oppressors” grovel.

            Love to see someone push a demand that U. Cal-Berkely require Islamist groups abide by those standards.

            Suppose a college establishes a dormitory restricted only to single cis-females? Suppose their married student housing is not open to “all” married groups? Suppose their certification and tax status is subject to review and any appeals require prepaid damages in event of a loss?

            Should the Little Sisters of the Poor be required to not just admit a Caitlyn Jenner but also pay for the person’s birth control?

            The geniuses responsible for this have forfeited all moral authority to mock drunken rednecks.

            • Christian orgn’s going off-campus seems like a good idea to me: their message and mission should not be compromised by monetary support from the very institution they most need to reform!
              It DOES mean their parent churches need to pick up the slack — it’s hard to attract students whose interest may be very casual or less if you’re far off-campus, but space availability and rents get expensive close to campus boundaries.

              • BTW – The other benefit of being off-campus is having the independent position from which to demand [repeatedly!] that all other student organizations conform to the rules or separate themselves, too.

              • As long as the students in those organizations are also exempt from paying the “activity fees” used to fund every other organization but them, it’s all good.

                • There are also such issues as access to campus events, listing in various directories, use of campus facilities for meetings, outreach, bringing in speakers, having an official voice in student government and the like. I don’t know what the full range of benefits of being a “recognized” student organization but suspect they are not trivial. It has been so long since I was a student that I admit to being at a loss on this.

          • “For an LGBT couple to deliberately go thru all that just to rub the church’s face in the law — well, it’d be a rather large and unrewarding effort, and uncommon.”

            You’re really, really not getting the whole point behind this effort. They’ve done all this precisely so they can go through that “rather large and unrewarding effort”, and rub their perversion in Daddy and Mommy’s faces at church. That’s the point of this whole exercise, and there are going to be legions of people doing precisely what you say will be “uncommon”, with the intent of tearing the guts out of the scriptures in church. That “lengthy study in scripture and doctrine”? That’s the weapon they’ll use, as a marker that the church is prejudiced and evil.

            End state, as they imagine it? The religion that tells them that what they are doing is self-indulgent and wrong will be dead, and their every impulse is to be validated, nay, hailed with rapturous approbation by all those nasty, nasty people who dared judge them as a bunch of sybaritic exhibitionists. Won’t surprise me a bit if we see a lawsuit or two because a church, somewhere, denied a pair of celebrants the right to consummate their marriage there on the altar, wearing the usual leather assless chaps and ball-gags.

            Think I’m bullshitting you? I heard precisely that fantasy a few years back from one of the “activist” types. That’s how he wants to perform his marriage ceremony, and precisely what he wants to do in the church he grew up in. Basically, he wants to desecrate the altar where his parents and siblings worship every Sunday, as a part of his wedding services. Wonder why he’s a family pariah? That right there might be one reason.

            • The 0ne has been suggesting that those who have shifted in their religious views on the subject “have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them.”

              (Then again, Judaism has been attacked as outmoded since well before Christianity even existed. It’s not the most comfortable feeling in the world, but you get over it, trust us.)

              • Already got over it. Unlike most of the people here, this is the world I grew up in. (Spits) I also read history and some theology, so I know this is the usual Babelic nonsense. (Spits). Whatever. I’ll try to maintain, and raise kids who might be able to stop the pendulum backswing from destroying everything good about this time.

            • I think you’ll see all kinds of scenarios play out. Some churches have adopted rather liberal theologies and are likely to be easily squished by such tactics. Others, not so much. Likewise, some activists have enough hate, resources, and personal endurance to stay the course with their harassment of the church; others, again, not so much.
              Historically, the church becomes stronger under persecution. And ultimately, these activists don’t understand the church.

              For instance, “desecrate the altar” – they can try. They can perhaps force the use of the building for their ceremony – but they can’t force anyone but their circle to come witness it, “Low” churches mostly understand the Church is the people not the building, and “high” churches have long had formal procedures and ceremonies for the re-dedication of property profaned by misuse. Net effect: some horror that evil exists and has touched the congregation, some pity and prayer for the poor idiots who invest so much in so little, life goes on.

          • It’s perfectly rewarding for many of them. They have “issues” with religion and are fairly openly admitting that closing down churches is exactly the goal. If they do, I expect violence. May take a year or so to get going.

            • Unlike you, I don’t expect much violence. Churches have been oppressed before – it never works in the long run. Consider in somewhat recent history, racist attacks against black churches – burnings were usually met with prayer and rebuilding, not with counter-violence. Consider a few other stories, in which attacks with weapons have been met, efficiently and competently, by members of the congregation who happen to be armed off-duty cops. No, I don’t expect widespread violence.

              Most of the individuals I’ve met in life that have had “issues” (usually from one church, or one/a few individuals at one church, which they’ve generallized to all) are happy to resolve them by staying away from churches and looking with suspicion on anyone who references Christianity as a positive. The activists are a very small portion of those.

  24. Christopher M. Chupik

    Saw an activist on Twitter proclaiming not to be “placated by victory”. What, might I ask, would be enough to satisfy them? This is the attitude of a fanatic.

    • Oh c’mon — you know what it will take to placate them: Crushing their enemies. Seeing us driven before them. Hearing the lamentations of our women.

    • Color me shocked.

    • Pretty much all the “activists” are massively hostile to Christianity and Judaism. They plan to crush those religions in civil society.

      • Not the first time. Both are fairly accustomed to it, and still around.

      • There lies the crux: they are idol* worshiping zealots who will tolerate no standards that gainsay their will. They want what they want and they want it now, no matter how greatly their reach exceeds their grasp, no matter how much their effort to grab pushes their target out of reach.

        *Yes, self-worship = idol worship.

      • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

        I’d *love* to see them try their stunts on Muslims in the US. [Evil Grin]

        • Funny dat. They want to attack and destroy Christianity and Judaism, but they leave the religion that actually persecutes and executes them, rather than simply telling them they are committing a sin and praying for their redemption; strictly alone.

          I wonder what lesson Christians and Jews should learn from this?

          • Perhaps Christians & Jews (heck, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Wiccans and anyone else who wants) ought join the Iranians in advocating “Confirmation” for homosexuals, especially as our State Dept. appears to endorse the practice:

            UPDATE NEWSPEAK DICTIONARY ACCORDINGLY: State Department Officially Calls Iran’s Forced Sex Change Surgeries ‘Confirmation:’

            By referring to the surgeries as “gender confirmation,” rather than the much more widespread and morally neutral “sex reassignment surgery,” the State Department seems to be siding with the Iranian government’s false “cure” for homosexuality.

            John Kerry never got the memo that Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning, not a how-to guide.

            Posted at 5:33 pm by Ed Driscoll

            As John Kerry notes:“There is nothing sanctimonious in this,” emphasizing the need for “humility” in the face of the U.S.’ own racial inequality.Because, you know, the Persians have never done anything so awful as keep and traffic in slaves.

            • “.Because, you know, the Persians have never done anything so awful as keep and traffic in slaves.”

              You’re right, there is no past tense, they still do.

          • “I wonder what lesson Christians and Jews should learn from this?”

            Oh, trust me: The lesson is being learned. Not by the current lot of leaders, who are oblivious, but the current lot of “plebs”, who will be the leaders of the next generation. Care to guess what is going to be the policy of the next lot of people leading the ethnic English remaining in Rotherham? I rather doubt they’re going to be multi-culturalists.

            The last time things got this stupid we had the period referred to as the Thirty-Years War in Europe, and we pretty much turned Germany into a charnel house the likes of which modern man can’t even comprehend. My guess is that the end-state of this current situation where unlimited migration is being enabled by the elite is going to end just about as well, and probably with more bloodshed. The nice people of the time didn’t have access to modern weapons, so all that slaughter had to be accomplished with what amounted to hand tools. We’ve gotten a bit more efficient, so I suspect that there will be an awful lot of innovative new practices brought on board–Gene-sniffing drones armed with suicide charges? Maybe that Islamic thing about the stones crying out names was prescient, but I rather suspect the people building those rocks aren’t gonna be speaking Arabic.

        • I wonder if any of them will try it on Muslims, if/when Christians & Jews disappoint them by simply holding fast and not overreacting. (It becomes frustrating to imagine yourself as an irresistible force if you keep spending yourself against immovable objects to no effect.) As you say, could be entertaining…

    • The end of marriage. They have said so in the past — this is only a stepping stone, they want to end marriage.

    • Revenge. They’ve been carefully told, carefully indoctrinated, carefully carefully taught that they are victims. And if victims, there must be someone who has wronged them. And those people must be punished. There are, I think, few things so exquisitely addictive as righteous anger vented upon a deserving foe.
      And so here we are. With those who believe that this indicates a win looking to stick the knife in and twist against those who hold the values that they hate. (Haven’t been by John C. Wright’s page lately, but it occurs to me that what he’s said in the past about what vile progs hate more than anything else seems pretty darn on point.) They’ve got the opportunity now to consolidate the ground they’ve gained by being magnanimous in victory, by appearing generous and gracious. They are, (fortunately?) constitutionally unable to do so. Instead, they give every impression that they intend to drive those of us with traditional values into the sea.
      I unfriended someone on Facebook today – a very rare thing for me – when he suggested that as Christians were shortly to be unwelcome in the country that they might create an artificial island someplace and go live there. (At which point someone else commented “And hurricane season… solves the problem.” That’s what a former “friend” of mine said. Someone who others have said is a kind and gentle person, and which I believed despite the evidence of my own lying eyes. And maybe he is – just not to me and mine (He tangled with Keith a little).
      By pushing this as far as they can as fast as they can and as hard as they can, they believe that they will win some kind of final victory in the culture. But what they’re going to get is… well, politeness. For a while.

      • But, don’t you see — we can use this to further America’s standing in the world!!!

        National Review’s David French, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and attorney concentrating his practice in constitutional law and the law of armed conflict, offers this observation today:

        A Former Obama Administration Adviser Actually Said That Gay Marriage Can Help Defeat ISIS
        By David French — June 29, 2015

        Of all the bizarre commentary that followed Friday’s Supreme Court decision creating a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, this piece [ foreignpolicy[DOT]com/2015/06/26/can-gay-marriage-defeat-the-islamic-state/ ] is beyond parody. Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown University law professor, former counselor to the defense undersecretary for policy, and former senior adviser for the State Department, hails the Court’s ruling and suggests that images of gay jubilation could make a difference in the fight against ISIS. Yes, you read that correctly. After setting up the contrasting images — of ISIS brutally killing gay men versus gay rights supporters celebrating outside the Supreme Court — she says this:

        Do you want to fight the Islamic State and the forces of Islamic extremist terrorism? I’ll tell you the best way to send a message to those masked gunmen in Iraq and Syria and to everyone else who gains power by sowing violence and fear. Just keep posting that second set of images. Post them on Facebook and Twitter and Reddit and in comments all over the Internet. Send them to your friends and your family. Send them to your pen pal in France and your old roommate in Tunisia. Send them to strangers. (Emphasis added.)

        Sure, she calls her idea “sappy” (you think?), but — hey — #LoveWins. But why stop with social media? Since apparently most of our pilots are returning from missions over Iraq and Syria without actually dropping any ordnance, load them up with leaflets, DVDs, and thumb drives full of selected sights from gay marriages and gay rights parades, and just blanket Mosul, Ramadi, and Raqqah. This is the message that tribal Sunni culture has so obviously been waiting for, and it’s only a matter of time before ISIS is buried in a wave of rainbow-colored burkas. Why is Brooks a “former” counselor? The Obama administration needed her once. It needs her again.
        http://www.nationalreview.com/node/420465/print

        Mein Gott!!! Where would America be today without such wise law professors?

        • RES, my desk isn’t that hard, and neither is my head. One or the other is about to give out. But it just goes to show you that no one can be as grossly ignorant of reality as someone who is really well-educated.

          Meanwhile, I keep running through The Gods of the Copybook Headings in my head, with special emphasis on the last two stanzas.

          As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
          There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
          That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
          And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

          And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
          When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
          As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
          The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

          It’s going to be a challenge to have and hold an optimistic attitude as that happens, but it’s what I feel I’m called to do, and it’s why things like Human Wave will be important, and why I think some people are getting the feeling that they should be writing. (in my case, should have been writing for a while now.)

          • “and why I think some people are getting the feeling that they should be writing. (in my case, should have been writing for a while now.)”
            Yup and …yup.

            I always loved that line “wabbling back to the fire”

        • Can we drop her over Mosul?

    • This is precisely why this never should have been decided in the courts.

      Courts make things like this happen by overwriting existing law and precedence; there is no room in their rulings for making these things address all the issues. The courts say “Gay marriage is authorized and legal…”, and due to their nature, that limited ruling is not subject to the sort of complex compromise and conditions normal legislature would grant–Which is why I don’t think this is going to last. Had the legislatural path been followed, all sorts of carve-out exceptions would have been worked into this, which would be necessary if this massive change is going to work. A legislative path would likely have included language that said something to the effect of “OK, you can marry… But, you can’t force a religious institution to participate in that marriage, if it is against their teachings…”. That’s what we call “compromise”, and it’s how we make these changes without building up enough anger to kill each other over them. Since the judicial path was chosen, none of that happened. Which is why I expect this to end in tears. If we don’t see the first lawsuits against established churches based on this ruling within a year or less, I’m going to be shocked. I don’t think I will be, though.

      • I think that’s why the judicial path was chosen, to stir up as much shite as possible. Cause a crisis so you can “not let it go to waste.”

        • And I agree this should not have been judicial.

          • Remember that even Justice RBG has criticized the Court’s excess in the Roe decision:

            May 11, 2013 — Ginsburg told an audience Saturday at the University of Chicago Law School that while she supports a woman’s right to choose, she feels the ruling by her predecessors on the court was too sweeping and gave abortion opponents a symbol to target.
            [SNIP]
            A more restrained judgment would have sent a message while allowing momentum to build at a time when a number of states were expanding abortion rights, she said. She added that it might also have denied opponents the argument that abortion rights resulted from an undemocratic process in the decision by “unelected old men.”

            Ginsburg told the students she prefers what she termed “judicial restraint” and argued that such an approach can be more effective than expansive, aggressive decisions.
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/11/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade_n_3261187.html

            Proving, I s’pose, that the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire.

  25. reddragonhawk

    I loved this the first time ’round. It’s a real gut-punch.