New York Broome County Clerk Resigns Over Same-Sex Marriage Law

She's probably had it up to here with the rim station freaks.

See New York Daily News, "N.Y. clerk Laura Fortusky resigns in protest of gay marriage; refused to sign same-sex licenses." Also at New Yorker's Family Research Foundation, "Barker Town Clerk Resigns, Rather Than Compromise Convictions."

And Forutsky's resignation letter is at New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, "First Town Clerk Announces Resignation in Light of Gay 'Marriage' Legislation":

“The Bible clearly teaches that God created marriage between male and female as a divine gift that preserves families and cultures. Since I love and follow Him, I cannot put my signature on something that is against God. Deuteronomy 10:12 says, ‘…What does the Lord your God ask of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and soul, and to observe the Lord’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good.’”

“I would be compromising my moral conscience if I participated in the licensing procedure. Therefore, I will be resigning as of July 21. I wanted you to know my position as I understand the marriage law goes into effect on July 24.”

Also at New York Times: "Settled in Albany, Gay Marriage Draws Opposition."

The Gay Hate Campaign

Now that's what I'm talkin' about!

Man!

Read this post at Uncoverage, "“Gay Mafia” Threatens, Vandalizes Traditional Marriage Supporters in Washington State."

As I've said many times, it's lies, violence, and intimidation that's putting the gay agenda over the top. You gotta call these people out for what that are: Homosexual criminals, mobsters, perverts, and thugs. And that goes as well for the hetero progressives who're enabling the hate.

Gauging Consequences for Republicans Who Backed Gay Marriage

At New York Times, "After Backing Gay Marriage, 4 in G.O.P. Face Voters’ Verdict":

A day and a half after he voted to legalize same-sex marriage, State Senator Mark J. Grisanti went to church.

There, across the pews at St. Rose of Lima in North Buffalo, sat 81-year-old Ann Deckop, and she felt betrayed, since Mr. Grisanti had vowed in 2008 that he was “inalterably” opposed to same-sex marriage.

“I voted for him and I’m writing a letter indicating that I will not be voting for him in the next election,” Ms. Deckop said.

But there was also Greg Fox, a 52-year-old technology industry salesman, who called Mr. Grisanti “a gentleman.”

“It’s important that we uphold Catholic values,” Mr. Fox said, before adding, “This is also 2011, so things change.”

And at the front of the church was the priest, who, Mr. Grisanti recalled, “put a hand over his heart and kind of pounded his chest, and pointed to me and smiled.” Mr. Grisanti said he was unsure what that meant.

Now, Mr. Grisanti and the three other Senate Republicans who provided votes necessary to legalize same-sex marriage in New York are confronting the uncertainty of how voters in their districts will react. Voter response will influence the balance of power in the New York Senate, where there are just two more Republicans than Democrats. And the events in New York also have national repercussions: because several Democratic-dominated states have already legalized same-sex marriage, gay-rights advocates increasingly need Republican support if they are to change local laws elsewhere in the country.

Some Republican donors, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and leaders of the gay-rights movement, have promised to support the re-election campaigns of the four New York lawmakers. But the National Organization for Marriage, a group opposed to same-sex marriage, said it would spend $2 million in an effort to defeat the legislators, and key elements of the senators’ traditional political base have vowed to withdraw support.

“One thing I know for sure, these four people will not have the Conservative Party endorsement,” said Michael R. Long, chairman of the state Conservative Party. “That is certain.”

Keep your eyes out for these races. A cautionary warning for RINOs.

Angie Harmon Squelches Rumors That 'Rizzoli & Isles' Characters Are Lesbian

Well, this story gives me a chance to blog Angie Harmon!

At Los Angeles Times, "'Rizzoli & Isles' — are they or aren't they?":

The first season of TNT's crime drama "Rizzoli & Isles" featured an episode with the title "I Kissed a Girl." Its stars, Angie Harmon and Sasha Alexander, played on a softball team, shared some intimate dinners, drank wine over candlelight and hopped into the same bed for girl talk.

But this is not a gay show.

Series creator Janet Tamaro described Harmon's Rizzoli and Alexander's Isles as a "power couple" — the center of a buddy drama, one that broke cable ratings records in its debut run and returns for its second season July 11. But the women are not together, as in together.

Tamaro chalks up the rampant are-they-or-aren't-they discussion to throwing "two gorgeous actresses together who have great, natural chemistry." She contends that Harmon's tomboyish homicide detective and Alexander's stylish medical examiner "are straight women who don't fear the interest in or the speculation about their relationship."

That hasn't stopped gay pop culture blog AfterEllen from dubbing the show, "totally gay, it just doesn't know it yet." Or another lesbian blog, CherryGrrl, from creating a "Rizzoli & Isles" drinking game, advising viewers to take a shot for interaction between the title characters that includes "stares lasting longer than three seconds," "sleeping in the same bed/couch/squad car," "adorable bickering which generally relates to sexual tension," or "complaining to each other about their inability to find a compatible mate, all while being completely compatible mates." The Washington Post even pointed to a hunky visiting FBI agent as a short-lived distraction from the "faintly lesbian undertones that the show keeps trying to establish."

Harmon, a veteran of "Law & Order," said she's familiar with the online chatter and that it's "super fun" to play a role that has some same-sex romantic vibes. She's relishing a character who's gruff and aggressive, the polar opposite of her own girlie personality, she said.

But as close as they are, Rizzoli and Isles are just best friends, she said. Really.

"I hate to disappoint, but these characters are straight," Harmon insisted. "If we lose viewers because of it — sorry!"

And that's amazing, that Harmon would note the possibility of LOSING viewers if the characters weren't gay. Reminds me of my post the other day, on the anti-hetero bigotry of Dan Savage. It's hard out there if you're straight. See: "Gay Sexual Abandon and the Perverse Inversion of Values by Same-Sex Extremists."

The Rizzoli & Isles page is here, on TNT.

Gay Sexual Abandon and the Perverse Inversion of Values by Same-Sex Extremists

That's the takeaway for me, from this long piece at the New York Times, "Married, With Infidelities."

Gay sexual abandon. Meaning the gay rights movement is expanding the boundaries of what's morally acceptable to accommodate a model of openly aggressive sexual abandon. Gays want sex when they want it, with whomever they want it, wherever they want it. And they're not afraid of saying it, at all. The Times interviews Dan Savage, the author of the homosexual advice column "Savage Love." Yeah. Savage. And open. Savage is all about openness in marriage. For example, if you're not sexually satisfied, tell your spouse. Say you need more. Get approval and go get laid somewhere else. Savage's mantra is "good, giving, and game," GGG for short. Be good, giving, and game for sexual freelancing. It's a different kind of morality, you might say. Here's this from the article:

Savage’s honesty ethic gives couples permission to find happiness in unusual places; he believes that pretty much anything can be used to spice up a marriage, although he excludes feces, pets and incest, as well as minors, the nonconsenting, the duped and the dead. In “The Commitment,” Savage’s book about his and Miller’s decision to marry, he describes how a college student approached him after a campus talk and said, as Savage tells it, that “he got off on having birthday cakes smashed in his face.” But no one had ever obliged him. “My heart broke when he told me that the one and only time he told a girlfriend about his fetish, she promptly dumped him. Since then he had been too afraid to tell anyone else.” Savage took the young man up to his hotel room and smashed a cake in his face.

The point is: priests and rabbis don’t tell couples they might need to involve cake play in their marriages; moms and dads don’t; even best friends can be shy about saying what they like. Savage wants to make sure that no strong marriage ever fails because an ashamed husband or wife is desperately seeking cake play — or bondage, urine play or any of the other unspeakable activities that Savage has helped make speakable. If cake play is what a man needs, his G.G.G. wife should give it to him; if she can’t bring herself to, then maybe she should allow him a chocolate-frosted excursion with another woman. But for God’s sake, keep it together for the kids.

Okay. Right. What else did Savage do up in his hotel room with the young cake boy? Pattycakes? Folks should read the whole thing when they have a few minutes. And I'll tell you: Savage Love won't work in my house. My wife and I are traditional. We love each other exclusively. And we do so because that's how we conceive marriage. When you marry you're committing to that one person you want to share your life with, exclusively, "forsaking all others." There are lots of reasons for this. But most of all is the integrity of the institution itself, and what it means for the sanctity of vows, honesty, and the regeneration of families. Dan Savage and his husband Terry Miller have a child by adoption. How's that going to look as the child get older and sees his parents f**king around with whoever they want? And back to the article, Savage talks about how a man would feel giving his wife permission to have extramarital affairs, but then he realizes he can't abide by the thought of someone else vaginally penetrating his wife. You think?!!

I don't look at the gay marriage issue from a religious perspective primarily, because the argument against gay marriage is at base socio-biological, about preservation of families and society, and the regeneration of cultures. It's about preserving that which is eternally right and good. There is nothing natural about same sex marriage in terms of creating life and living in commitment for strength and safety in family. Same sex couples cannot naturally reproduce, and marriage is most basically about binding one man and one woman for the purpose of natural regeneration. For the gay movement to abandon that to uncontrollable desires is obscene. But there's the morally religious argument as well, seen today at the Wall Street Journal, "Evangelicals and the Gay Moral Revolution."

The Christian church has faced no shortage of challenges in its 2,000-year history. But now it's facing a challenge that is shaking its foundations: homosexuality.

To many onlookers, this seems strange or even tragic. Why can't Christians just join the revolution?

And make no mistake, it is a moral revolution. As philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah of Princeton University demonstrated in his recent book, "The Honor Code," moral revolutions generally happen over a long period of time. But this is hardly the case with the shift we've witnessed on the question of homosexuality.

In less than a single generation, homosexuality has gone from something almost universally understood to be sinful, to something now declared to be the moral equivalent of heterosexuality—and deserving of both legal protection and public encouragement. Theo Hobson, a British theologian, has argued that this is not just the waning of a taboo. Instead, it is a moral inversion that has left those holding the old morality now accused of nothing less than "moral deficiency."

The liberal churches and denominations have an easy way out of this predicament. They simply accommodate themselves to the new moral reality. By now the pattern is clear: These churches debate the issue, with conservatives arguing to retain the older morality and liberals arguing that the church must adapt to the new one. Eventually, the liberals win and the conservatives lose. Next, the denomination ordains openly gay candidates or decides to bless same-sex unions.

This is a route that evangelical Christians committed to the full authority of the Bible cannot take. Since we believe that the Bible is God's revealed word, we cannot accommodate ourselves to this new morality. We cannot pretend as if we do not know that the Bible clearly teaches that all homosexual acts are sinful, as is all human sexual behavior outside the covenant of marriage. We believe that God has revealed a pattern for human sexuality that not only points the way to holiness, but to true happiness.

There's more at the link, and see also Maggie Gallagher, "New York's GOP Lets Down the Base."

The media may portray the New York victory as the decisive turning point that makes gay marriage inevitable across the country—as they almost always do. Yet every victory for our marriage tradition that I have personally helped make happen was heralded as impossible: from Prop 8 in California, which overturned a state supreme court decision imposing same-sex marriage; to overturning gay marriage in Maine in 2009 through the referendum process; to blocking gay-marriage bills in New Jersey, Maryland and Rhode Island; to passing a marriage amendment through the Minnesota legislature that will go to the people in 2012.

Our string of unheralded victories is possible only because the American people, though they have few visible champions, continue to stubbornly believe that gay marriage is not a civil right and that marriage is different for a reason: These unions make new life and connect children to a mom and dad.

Gallagher's group, the National Organization for Marriage, has pledged $2 million to defeat New York legislators who voted for the bill, and they're gleefully targeting freshman Republican Senator Mark Grisanti, one of the lawmakers who flip-flopped on the issue.

Anyway, at Keith Olbermann interviews Savage at the clip. The political and religious discussion, with sex talk, is at the second half. Savage is super articulate. He makes sexual abandon and immorality sound cool. He jokes about people who "butt f**k" and then offers himself up to Tony Perkins. Savage also goes off on people with strong values as being religiously abused. The most interesting argument is that Savage claims that you can't hold traditional values and also be friendly with gays or have good friends who are gay. Savage perfectly embodies gay bigotry. He says if you are traditional on marriage you must instinctively react violently to gay people. That'a lie that makes people of values primitive. It's also fundamentally dishonest. But this is how gay activists win. They paint conservatives as potentially violent anti-gay extremists, and people of values, because they have values not to offend, capitulate. That's how the gay thuggery of sexual abandon wins. It's evil.

Lady Gaga's Gay Pride Gig in Rome?

I had no idea? Much less the fact that the State Department sponsored. Rim-station diplomacy. Who knew?

At CNS News, "Hillary: State Dept. ‘Instrumental in Sealing Deal’ For Lady Gaga’s Gay Pride Gig in Rome":

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday that the State Department played an instrumental role in “sealing the deal” for pop-rock star Lady Gaga to perform at a gay pride rally in Rome, Italy.

Clinton specifically pointed to a letter that David Thorne, the U.S. ambassador to Italy, sent to Lady Gaga urging her to participate in the event.

“And then there is the work that our embassy team in Rome has been doing,” Clinton said. “Two weeks ago they played an instrumental role in bringing Lady Gaga to Italy for a Euro Pride concert.

“Now as many of you know Lady Gaga is Italian American and a strong supporter of LGBT rights,” said Clinton. “And the organizers of the Euro Pride event desperately wanted her to perform and a letter to her from Ambassador Thorne was instrumental in sealing the deal.”

Via Memeorandum and Weasel Zippers.

Beyoncé's Exclusive Pop Star Deal at Target

The question is why, considering Lady Gaga bailed out three months ago.

Needed the money, I guess. She's less controversial, in any case.

At Brand Channel, "Target Safe On Beyonce Deal, Not On LGBT Pride Events Sponsorship."

The "Telephone" video is here ("clean version").

Homosexual Activists Outraged at Not Getting a Google 'Doodle' for This Year's Gay Pride Month

It's amazing the level of nitpicking, but gay rights groups are mad at Google for not getting a "doodle"?

At PC World, "Google Fights Perception it Doesn't do Enough to Support Gays."

Just read it all at the link. New York passes a gay marriage bill and all hell breaks loose. And Google sponsored this "It Gets Better" campaign earlier this year. Kinda manipulative. Google gives, and gay rights accuse them of discrimination. Figures.

San Francisco Gay Pride Parade 2011

Photos at San Francisco Chronicle, and also, "S.F. Pride - a grown-up vibe, cheers for New York."

And an excerpt from Shane Phelan literature review, at the American Political Science Review, "Queer Liberalism" (June 2000):

The problems of orthodox liberalism led gays and lesbians, along with other new social movements, to explore other theoretical resources. Gay liberation theory grew out of Marxism, in particular Marcuse's treatment of sexuality in Eros and Civilization (1955), and focused on the relation between sexuality and capitalism. Dennis Altman ([1971] 1993), Mario Mieli (1977), and Guy Hocquenghem (1978) each offered analyses suggesting that without the guilt and renunciation demanded by capitalist discipline we would all be polymorphously perverse, free to experience pleasure with a variety of different partners. This "liberationist" theorizing is now virtually unknown and/or discredited even by students who see themselves as radical (Lehring 1997). In academic circles Marxism was pushed aside not by liberalism, however, but by poststructuralism. This shift marked the decline of utopian or universalist theories that aimed at the end of repression in favor of theories that sought to account for the particular constructions of self and society that include not only repression but also forces of desire, meaning, and agency -- that is, theories that understand the heterosexual self not simply as one forced to abandon its homosexual desires upon pain of expulsion but as a self created and given meaning precisely by the lure of belonging to the "normal."

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."

NYPD Raids Homosexual Eagle Bar During Gay Marriage Celebration!

Well, you can't make this stuff up.

A report from Kenneth in the (212), "Did the NYPD Raid the Eagle Last Night as the LGBT Community Celebrated Marriage Equality?" Hmm. Kenneth in the 212? Actor212? Maybe Carl Salonen was also on hand? Coincidences? Who knows? They apparently share common interests. And what fun!

Anyway, see New York Times, "Sudden Inspection at Gay Bar Mars Victory Celebration for Some" (via Memeorandum):"

An unannounced inspection that several agencies carried out at a gay bar in Manhattan on Friday night occurred at nearly the same time that patrons were celebrating the passage of legislation in Albany legalizing same-sex marriage.

Police officials said on Saturday that the inspection was part of a routine operation planned long ago. But Scott M. Stringer, the Manhattan borough president, said that he was troubled by descriptions of what took place at the Eagle bar, on West 28th Street off 11th Avenue, and that the actions amounted to a raid.

“I am going to ask the police commissioner to conduct a formal investigation concerning the circumstances around this raid,” he added.

The inspection occurred late at night, Mr. Stringer said, and while it was “true that there are these multiagency inspections, I think this one was ill-conceived and ill-timed given the circumstances surrounding the marriage equality celebration, on Pride week.”

According to those present, about 100 people were mingling at the Eagle, when representatives from the New York Police Department and three other city agencies, as well as from the State Liquor Authority, showed up, at nearly the same time as a vote by the State Senate to legalize same-sex marriage and as the thrill of victory was swirling through the place.

“I was on the roof deck, smoking a cigar and having drinks with friends, and all of a sudden, the police showed up and started shining flashlights in everyone’s face and offending everyone,” said Thomas J. Shevlin, a financial markets researcher and the treasurer of the Stonewall Democratic Club.

“Basically, it is offensive,” Mr. Shevlin, 40, said. “It is real serious harassment that they come out on pride weekend.”

Life is so unfair!

New York Churches React to Gay Marriage Vote

At WIVB-TV Buffalo, WIVB-TV Buffalo. A mixed reaction among church groups, but this part is heavy:

In response to the State Senate's vote Friday night , the New York State Catholic Conference released a statement saying, in part:

"The passage by the Legislature of a bill to alter radically and forever humanity's historic understanding of marriage leaves us deeply disappointed and troubled. We strongly uphold the Catholic Church's clear teaching that we always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love. But we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman."

Check the full statement here.

And at the Jackson Sun, "Same-sex marriage vote is a national issue."

Erik Kain of Forbes: Wishy Washy Pussy

Well, if Alex Knapp only knew!

And E.D. Kain responds, at Ordinary Gentlemen, "Classical Liberalism in America":

So, for many readers of my work there’s a sense that I am wishy-washy on a number of issues (though hopefully they also notice where I am consistent: against the war on drugs, for non-interventionism, gay rights, immigration, civil liberties, etc). In my humblest of opinions there are certain tangible truths and certain areas of dispute where the issues become quite a bit more murky. There are also times when the truth and the realm of possibility are not always aligned. So I write a lot about how to reconcile these things (if only to placate myself), and I try to strike a balance.

Well, no. I'm calling bullsh*t.

Readers will remember from 2009 that Erik Kain launched a campaign of workplace harassment and intimidation against this blog, "E.D. Kain Alleges Defamation: True/Slant Blogger's Workplace Intimidation Attempts to Shut Down American Power!" And, "E.D. Kain Contacts Department Again: Intimidation Campaign Escalates; Fake 'Apology' Seals Moral Indictment Against True/Slant Blogger!"

All the background at the links.

E.D. Kain's a sleaze-blogger. Contacting someone's place of work, to silence them, or to get them fired, is un-American. And for me it's unforgivable. I think I've had six episodes of these now, and I'll be writing more about the latest of these soon. Just let it be noted that E.D. Kain changes his position from week to week because he's a sycophant. He keeps a finger to the breeze to see how the debates are going, and makes careful moves not to alienate his rim-station allies. Indeed, here's E.D. at Forbes, on the same-sex marriage vote this weekend: "New York Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage" (which links to his man-crush, RawMuscleGlutes' Milky Loads). The tragedy is the guy's actually got some talent. But to be a good writer takes conviction, and that stuff just doesn't grow on trees. Too bad. Losers. All of them.

New York Legalizes Gay Marriage

Well, six down and 42 to go.

At Los Angeles Times, "New York Legislature passes gay marriage bill."

With the forceful backing of a newly elected Democratic governor, the New York State Legislature gave final approval late Friday to a bill permitting same-sex marriage, enabling gay couples to head for the altar in late July.

After a sometimes emotional hourlong debate, the 62-member, Republican-controlled Senate approved the measure, 33 to 29. Earlier in the evening, the Democratic-led Assembly had amended its version of the bill to match the Senate's, which carried additional exemptions for religious organizations that do not want to acknowledge or extend benefits to gays who marry.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who made the issue a centerpiece of his election campaign last year, signed the bill just before midnight. It will take effect in 30 days, making New York the sixth state, and the most populous by far, to permit same-sex marriage.

"What this state did today brings marriage equality to a new plane," Cuomo told reporters. "We reached a new level of social justice." Outside the Senate chamber, many opponents sat on the floor and prayed aloud for the state.

The amazing thing is how anti-climactic this is.

Gay marriage is coming to America, but it's not coming through a wave of popular, down-home demand. It's coming through the ram-it-down-your-throats progressive politics on the coasts, and the Berkeley-esque enclaves in the major urban areas across the heartland. If there was ever a case for letting federalism prevail, this is it. States should be free to decide their own policies on same-sex marriage. The Blankenhorn and Rauch manifesto is workable, and vital in preventing a progressive tyranny at the federal level from crushing the states. See: "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage." And the progressive sensationalism on this is deeply offensive, for example, "The arc of history bends towards justice in N.Y." Actually, gay marriage is not a civil right. Gay Americans are not an oppressed minority, but one of the most affluent and powerful interest groups in American politics. That's why a federal solution to the gay marriage issue remains vital. The gay radical lobby will browbeat kind and reasonable Americans, folks who don't want to put up with the fuss of being hammered over the head or dragged before Stalinist show trials. It's pretty bad, but it's the way things are going around here.

Image Credit: Good as You, "Photo: Stonewall. Right now. 42 years later" (via Memeorandum).

RELATED: Rim-station radicals celebrate in New York.

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?"

Michele Bachmann Glittered at Right Online

I found the clip at Instapundit, " Failed glitter attack on Michele Bachmann."

But see also, Gay Patriot, "Throwing glitter rather than debating gay marriage":

Yeah, well, throwing stuff is a lot easier than acknowledging your adversary’s points and countering them with well-thought out arguments.

But check the whole thing. Lots more links.

But the thing I notice at the video, is how easily the protester is able to get to Michele Bachmann. When I first saw Bachmann speak at Knott's Berry Farm in January 2010, she had a staff aide or body guard keeping people away, and she left quickly after making her speech. At this year's Horowitz retreat, however, she was meeting and greeting all the guests and taking pictures, etc. I imagine the ambience was like that at Right Online, being around a bunch of fellow partisans, but there are no metal detectors at these big conferences, and it's scary to think what could very well happen unless she's better protected by security.

New Ruling Upholds Proposition 8

I'm not surprised: "Gay judge wasn't required to remove himself from same-sex marriage case, U.S. judge rules."

I wasn't surprised at all. And ICYMI, yesterday's New York Times had a good piece on the road ahead for gay marriage, "Same-Sex Vote Unlikely in California":

Regardless of how the lower courts rule, most legal analysts believe the Boies-Olson case will eventually be decided by the United States Supreme Court. No one seems to want anything to happen outside the courtroom to prejudice judges at any level.

“We’re right at the cusp, and it is the conventional wisdom that we can’t go to the ballot to repeal and lose,” said Kate Kendell, the executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco. She said an electoral loss could “create a very toxic environment” for same-sex marriage and “send a message that might chill an otherwise more compassionate court.”

Evan Wolfson, the president of Freedom to Marry, another rights group, echoed that statement, saying the federal case has been a “tremendous boost to public understanding about how the denial of marriage really harms families,” but it’s also had a chilling effect on a California ballot push. “While the case is pending, it has made it harder to mobilize the volunteers and money and energy,” he said. “That’s really been the good and bad of it.”

In addition to the potential impact on the federal case, some worry that a 2012 ballot campaign could also galvanize conservative groups in a presidential election year, and bring more Republican voters to the polls in California in a year when initiatives on issues like immigrant rights and the death penalty may make the state’s ballot.

But the wait-and-see decision will no doubt displease some who feel that the voter-approved ban on gay marriage — in a year in which President Obama was elected — was a low-water mark in the gay rights movement.

Seems weird how long ago it's been. Polls have shifted a bit toward gay marriage, but not that much. Politics will still matter, a lot.