New York Minority Parents Protest National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT)

Hopefully we'll be seeing more protests like this.

At Big Government, "Inner City Parents Protest Teachers’ Union, NAACP Over Charter School Lawsuit" (via News Alert):

New Tracy Morgan Comedy Rant Slurs Mentally Disabled

I didn't think he was all that funny back in the day, when he was on SNL. He came under fire for homophobic rants previously, and even after apologizing, is at it again. At Los Angeles Times, "Tracy Morgan apologizes, then tries out a different offensive rant":

Also at TMZ, "Tracy Morgan ... From Gays to 'Retards'."

Male Being and Unhappiness

An excerpt from a rant by Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert cartoon (via Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology):

The way society is organized at the moment, we have no choice but to blame men for bad behavior. If we allowed men to act like unrestrained horny animals, all hell would break loose. All I’m saying is that society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness. No one planned it that way. Things just drifted in that direction.

Adams' blog is here.

I'm interested in this primarily in that I've been following the Thomas Ball suicide. I'm politically incorrect. But I'm also happily married. Society develops normative regimes to control and satisfy men and their desires. There's something about Adams that's extremely discomfiting, and that's saying a lot. That said, Adams' rant bothers me less than Amanda Marcotte's response to Tom Ball's self-immolation. It's all wrenchingly interesting, in any case.

And here's a radical feminist take, FWIW: "Scott Adams' defense of rape mentality."

Wikipedia Removes Thomas Ball Page

And Dr. Helen Smith asks, "Why has Wikipedia removed the Thomas Ball page?"

Following the link takes us to A Voice for Men.

Now, lets imagine a world so totally twisted that the media totally blanks this as a news item. That dismissive and scant reporting of this act of political self immolation is written off with throw away lines calling you, the burned corpse – a deadbeat, a lone nut.

Imagine all that. It's pretty far-fetched, but try.

At the video, the self-immolation of Thich Quang Duc in Saigon, June 11, 1963.

A Voice for Men made a copy of Thomas Ball's page.

Gay Marriage and Sexual Exclusivity

David Frum gets all wishy washy, "I was wrong about same-sex marriage." (Via Memeorandum.) Frum indicates that he'd long opposed gay marriage, and he'd engaged Andrew Sullivan on the topic in online debates. But he's had a change of heart. Here's the gist of Frum's argument:

... I find myself strangely untroubled by New York state's vote to authorize same-sex marriage -- a vote that probably signals that most of "blue" states will follow within the next 10 years.

I don't think I'm alone in my reaction either. Most conservatives have reacted with calm -- if not outright approval -- to New York's dramatic decision.

Why?

The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test.

Since 1997, same-sex marriage has evolved from talk to fact.

If people like me had been right, we should have seen the American family become radically more unstable over the subsequent decade and a half.

Instead -- while American family stability has continued to deteriorate -- it has deteriorated much more slowly than it did in the 1970s and 1980s before same-sex marriage was ever seriously thought of.

It keeps going like that, on the not-so-bad decline of the traditional family structure in America. But it's a lousy argument. I wrote on families the other day. In California just 23.4 percent of households include a traditional married family with children. The causes are complex, but making same-sex marriage easier will cause those numbers to further erode.

I don't think David Frum has a clue. More likely, he's just consolidating his shift away from the conservative right-wing. And this seems like a losing proposition, since it's not like there aren't enough incisive and influential commentators on the left, which is where Frum's headed. He's basically doing a Charles Johnson, except that he was a major pundit and conservative insider rather than a husky pony-tailed psychotic narcissist.

Anway, since Frum's using data from the mid-2000s, let's flash back to an article from 2004, by David Tubbs and Robert P. George "Redefining Marriage Away":

Conservative advocates of same-sex marriage insist that their goal is not a radical alteration of the institution itself. They favor the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships as marriages in order to secure "equal rights," they say. Their goal in redefining marriage is not to weaken or abolish it but to expand access to it, while leaving its core features intact. Far from harming marriage, they contend, the move to same-sex marriage would strengthen the institution.

Though this argument has a certain superficial appeal, it is profoundly mistaken. The issue is not one of equality or the right to participate in a valuable social institution. What divides defenders of traditional marriage from those who would redefine it is a disagreement about the nature of the institution itself. Redefining marriage will, of course, fundamentally change the posture of law and public policy toward the meaning and significance of human sexuality, procreation, and the bond between the sexes. Even more important, there are powerful reasons to fear that the proposed redefinition of marriage will destabilize and undermine this already battered institution.

To understand the destabilizing effects, consider this scenario. A young man and woman are engaged to be married. A month before the wedding, the man approaches his fiancée to ask whether she will consider an "open marriage," in which they will free each other from the duty to be sexually faithful.

Even today, the man's proposal is shocking, and his bride-to-be will almost surely be horrified by it. Nearly everyone would say that what the man has proposed is something other than a true marriage, since the norm of sexual exclusivity within marriage is essential to the institution. That is why the overwhelming majority of couples entering marriage do not even discuss whether they will follow the norm; they simply accept it.

Do most American husbands and wives honor the principle of sexual exclusivity in practice? The best evidence says yes. In their rigorous and acclaimed 1994 study on American sexual behavior, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann and his associates found that 65 to 85 percent of American men and more than 80 percent of American women (in every age group) had no sex partners other than their spouses while married. These figures are remarkable, especially if we recall the many ways in which popular culture has mocked or trivialized human sexuality and the demands of marriage in recent decades.

But do most same-sex couples accept the norm of sexual exclusivity? In a 1999 survey of such couples in Massachusetts, sociologist Gretchen Stiers found that only 10 percent of the men and 32 percent of the women thought that a "committed" intimate relationship entailed sexual exclusivity. An essay called "Queer Liberalism?" in the June 2000 American Political Science Review reviewed six books that discussed same-sex marriage. None of the six authors affirmed sexual exclusivity as a precondition of same-sex marriage, and most rejected the idea that sexual fidelity should be expected of "married" homosexual partners. For more than a decade, a wide array of authors who favor redefining marriage to include same-sex partners have advanced similar views. In a 1996 essay in the Michigan Law Review, University of Michigan law professor David Chambers even suggested that marriage should be redefined to include sexual unions of three or more people--so-called polyamorous relationships.

Sorry, David Frum. That's decidedly NOT keeping families stable. What an idiot.

Anyway, I cited news reports earlier that the battle for gay marriage has a long way to go nationwide, and I'll be writing more on this, since New York has energized the Democratic Party's rim-station base.

Meanwhile, Robert George had a major research paper out last year, which updates some of the arguments above, "What is Marriage?"

New York City Gay Pride Parade 2011

At Detroit Free Press, "New York Gay Pride parade follows legalization of same-sex marriage":

And the morning after, at New York Times, "For Gay Marriage Movement, Momentum but Challenges." And at Wall Street Journal, "New York Gay Marriage Vote Alters Political Battle Lines."

Obama Heckled at LGBT Democrat Fundraiser in Manhattan!

BWAHAHA!

He's such a pussy.

Gay rights extremists thought Obambi was their man back in 2008, and since his election it's been one disappointment after another. And in recent weeks the gay pushback against the administration has been relentless (progressives threw Obama under the bus at Netroots Nation).

Anyway, the pain's not going away. See NYT, "Obama Speech Is Interrupted by Gay Marriage Supporters":

President Obama said he expected some heckling and he got it. More than 600 gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people paid $1,250 each to attend a Democratic fund-raising dinner in Manhattan on Thursday and, to the vocal disappointment of some, they did not hear him endorse same-sex marriage generally or the bill that would legalize it in New York State.

Mr. Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney, had said early in the day that the president would not announce any shift in his longstanding but “evolving” position on same-sex marriage — that it is a matter for states to decide. Even so, some in the mostly male audience at the hotel ballroom seemed to hang on his words as if waiting for just such a shift.

Gay bloggers are debating Obama's fundraiser, but check this clip to see what a puss the president is. It's no wonder they mock this guy as TOTUS. Obama's speech is already measured, but it's like EACH. AND. EVERY. WORD. has to be checked at the front door of the cerebellum before being uttered. What an idiot. Just come out for it. Scared or something? Just come out for gay marriage. We know you back it. You're just chicken, despite polls showing a newfound and clear majority backing gay marriage nationally. And it must suck being a progressive when the president, from your own party, is such a spineless slimeball. Really sucks.

Snark aside, HRC's Fred Sainz sounds reasonable at the clip, but right on cue John Aravosis shows himself to be the classic gay thug we've witnessed since at least the passage of Prop. 8. The dude's a rank rim-station progressive bully.

RELATED: "HONESTLY, IS JOHN ARAVOSIS A PIECE OF EXCREMENT OR WHAT?"

'I can tell you there are not much worse feelings than waking up knowing you've been pounded and not remembering it...'

That's the comment from FreudianNips, at Althouse's interesting post on the homosexual left's response to Althouse's suggestion that Bristol Palin may have been raped: "'I've never understood the assumption that if a woman was drunk and doesn't remember giving consent that it must be rape'."

Wal-Mart Wins Supreme Court Sex Discrimination Case

This is huge.

At New York Times, "Justices Rule for Wal-Mart in Bias Case."

And at Althouse, "'The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a massive sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of women who work there'":

I hope the GOP candidates for President are smart and articulate enough to use this case in their argument against electing the Democratic President to a second term.

Word.