The ruling comes as no surprise, really. 

The California Supreme Court, striking down two state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman, ruled on Thursday that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

The 4-to-3 decision, drawing on a ruling 60 years ago that struck down a state ban on interracial marriage, would make California the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriages.

Again, is anyone actually surprised?

The decision, which becomes effective in 30 days unless the court grants a stay, was greeted with celebrations at San Francisco City Hall, where thousands of same-sex marriages were thrown out by the courts four years ago.

And the issue will not go away...

It was denounced by religious and conservative groups that promised to support an initiative proposed for the November ballot that would amend the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriages and overturn the decision.

And that brings up a serious question:  Is a mandate from the people really the important factor here?

So they vote to amend their constitution to ban it.  What if California voted in a measure to ban people of a race, and to do so by constitutional amendment?

The Majority may rule, but they are not always right.  Just something to thjink about.

My feelings on the issue hinge more from how the federal and state governments own marriage in the first place, rather than on moral or religious feelings.  So the ruling does nothing for me except on one level:  Once again the Courts are legislating from the bench, as the dissenting opinion makes note that the matter should be resolved by the legislature.

In a dissent, Justice Marvin R. Baxter said the majority should have deferred to the Legislature on whether to allow same-sex marriage, particularly given the increased legal protections for same-sex couples enacted in recent years.

I swore when this first broke I would not blog it, as I thought it patently absurd.  But I also had the sinking feeling that too many people would not let it be, and that I would end up seeing so much stupid bloviating that I would feel compelled to take my shot at it.

And here we are.

I am speaking of the news that JK Rowlings has decided that master Wizard Albus Dumbledore was gay.

Rowling: Potter's Dumbledore Gay

Harry Potter fans,  the rumors are true: Albus Dumbledore, master  wizard and Headmaster of Hogwarts, is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while appearing before a full house at Carnegie Hall.

After reading briefly from the final book, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," she took questions from audience members.

She was asked by one young fan whether Dumbledore finds "true love."

"Dumbledore is gay," the author responded to gasps and applause.

She then explained that Dumbledore was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald, whom he defeated long ago in a battle between good and bad wizards. "Falling in love can blind us to an extent," Rowling said of Dumbledore's feelings, adding that Dumbledore was "horribly, terribly let down."

Acknowledging that this is her story, and she can make Dumbledore a transformed troll or tell us he has a wart on his butt if she chooses, I just don't see the point.  I don't see any references, any hints or any plot devices to suggest anything of the sort. 

Had their been, wouldn't Rita Skeeter have outed him in her book?

Unless of course you concede that an older man who is single and shows no attraction to any woman around him has to by definition be gay, and frankly that is simply too simplistic to be valid.

I know enough gay people that I can honestly say that most gay parents are loving sensible people.

But not all.  And these will forever keep staining the others.  And be clear:  If this had been a hetero S&M festival, my outrage would be equal.  This is not a gay thing, this is a stupid parent thing.

Miller Lite-approved: Toddlers at the Folsom Street Fair

It’s not just 17-year-olds who were welcome at the Folsom Street Fair leather/bondage orgy.

Check out the photos of two-year-old twin toddlers in attendance at the 2005 fair. (Hat tip - LGF commenters)

Look. At. The. Children’s. Clothes.

One is wearing a leather-studded harness.

The caption on the photo reads:

“Veronica Kruschel, 2, drinks water while her twin sister Zola enjoys the Folsom Street Fair environment. Their parents Gary Beuschel and John Kruse (not photographed) watch nearby while having a lunch break.”

More from the accompanying article:

Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.

The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.

Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off.

Of course some these found the kids outrageous too:

“Why do (these people) bring kids here? This is a leather fair for god’s sake,” said Bahran Aliassa

And.....

said Bahran Aliassa, who was masturbating in public. He has been doing it annually for the past six years.

Does anyone else detect the irony that a guy masturbating in public has better sense then the parents of twins?

Sheesh.

First Craig.

I have read the documents, and heard the tapes.  I waited to post this until I had a complete picture.  My first thought is that while i cannot grant him the belief that he was not trolling for gay sex, I am not convinced he was.  The cops case was weak.  Very weak, which is why they pushed so hard for him to agree to cop a plea to a lesser charge.

I think Craig was scared of the scandal, because whether he was fishing for men or not, he would face harsh scrutiny, and that is why he copped a plea.

He is guilty of one thing:  Being an idiot and making an important legal decision for the wrong reasons, and without legal advice.  He was, in my opinion, more worried about the scandal then he was anything else, and frankly that makes me want to see him go away.  His priorities are messed up.

He should have lawyered up and fought it if he was innocent, and he would likely have won.  he could have raised reasonable doubt with what I have heard.

As it is, he is apparently planning to resign, which is good.

But that raises an interesting point.  Notice who the first ones to demand he resign were?  the Republicans.  The Republicans tend to hold a narrower line in behavior, and consistently reduce their ranks as they purge the fools and scum.  The Democrats typical rally around the guy, call for patience and demand that justice finish its course first.  They also typically jump into rehab and look for excuses, but that is another blog.

One of my side thoughts was that in a way, I wish the Republicans would play by the Democrat's rules, and fight some of these things instead of sheepishly admitting guilt and retiring to the sidelines.

But I actually appreciate the fact that the Republicans actually have a moral compass and the desire to police their own.  I also wish the Democrats would notice that and play by the Republicans rules more often. 

I don't really have a dog in the fight in Massachusetts, I live pretty far away and I am not gay, so it affects me not.

What bothers me is the principle at stake here.

Legislators vote to defeat same-sex marriage ban

A proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was swiftly defeated today by a joint session of the Legislature by a vote of 45 to 151, eliminating any chance of getting it on the ballot in November 2008. The measure needed at least 50 votes to advance.

The vote came without debate after House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, Senate President Therese Murray, and Governor Deval Patrick conferred this morning and concluded that they have the votes to kill the proposal.

"Today's vote was not just a victory for marriage equality, it was a victory for equality itself," Patrick told reporters as cheers echoed in the State House. "Whenever we affirm the equality of anyone, we affirm the equality of everyone."

And it was a blow to democracy in general.  What happened here is the legislature decided the people did not need a chance to vote on this.  So they killed it.

My question is "why?"

What are they afraid of?  Had they placed it on the ballot and the population validated gay marriage, the issue would be nailed down.

Instead they wouldn't take that chance, and the reason is simple:  People still overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage.  The legislature did not the trust the people to validate its decisions by referendum.

So what we have here is a legislature that is suppose to represent the people has decided the people have no voice.

I won't argue for or against gay marriage, but I believe in the democratic process.

So let the activists cheer, and let the politicians pat themselves on the back.  Feel free.  

But be honest and call this what it was:  An end run around democracy.  I don't see the need to feel proud.

I find this outrageous.  The students were given a class without parental consent and then encourage via contract to conceal the class from their parents after the fact.

The schools are way too eager to violate the parental rights of their students parents.   Note that I may not totally agree with all the conclusions from the WND article below, but I do agree that the schools and the courts have grossly overstepped their authority in dictating to the parents what values their children are being taught in school.

Ignore the gay agenda accusations and substitute any other form of controversial teaching, and the answer is still the same. 

We are the parents and we have the right to determine the values our kids are taught.  It is that simple.

Question:  Why the confidentiality?  Why conceal this?  Why keep parents away?  Why not share the materials taught and make them available for review?

What are they hiding?  If this is just harmless awareness discussions, then concealment is unnecessary, isn't it?  Assuming for sake of discussion that they have no dire progressive gay agenda, their own furtive actions create the appearance of an agenda.

If your motives are pure, your actions should reflect that.

Just my 2 cents.

‘Confidentiality’ promise requires students ‘not to tell their parents’

Officials at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., have ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a “gay” indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

“This is unbelievable,” said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America. “It’s not enough that students at Deerfield High are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to unhealthy and high-risk homosexual behavior, but they’ve essentially been told by teachers to lie to their parents about it.”

It should be pointed out that minors can’t enter into a binding contract. Therefore, “confidentiality agreements” are illegal, worthless and total BS.

Ann Coulter has done it again, and done it big. One thing you can count on is that the High Priestess of Anti-Liberalism will never drop out of site for very long.

When the news on this broke and went viral, I thought Oh God here we go. Being a fan and admirer of Ann I wanted to defend it but honestly it is not easy. But trying to be objective, I got the quote in context and tried to analyze it.

And examining this, I see a problem, and it isn't just Ann.

First, what she said¹:

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I - so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

Obviously her comment was geared to link to the recent controversy with the two Greys Anatomy stars. In an on set fight, Isaiah Washington reputedly called gay actor T.R. Knight a Fag. In an awards ceremony, Isaiah made matters worse by saying² essentially that he never called Knight a faggot.

During a backstage interview Monday at the Globes gala, Washington denied involvement in a heated on-set incident in October during which an anti-gay remark was reportedly uttered.

"No, I did not call T.R. a faggot," Washington told reporters. "Never happened, never happened."

Afterwards, Isaiah simply for the use of the word was branded a homophobe. He then decided to get help, and ended up in rehab, for using the word faggot.

"With the support of my family and friends, I have begun counseling," Washington said in a prepared statement. "I regard this as a necessary step toward understanding why I did what I did and making sure it never happens again. I appreciate the fact that I have been given this opportunity and I remain committed to transforming my negative actions into positive results, personally and professionally."³

http://www.komotv.com/news/local/5566451.html

Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriages annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage. In that 5-4 ruling, the court found that state lawmakers were justified in passing the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and woman.

Under I-957, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriages would be subject to annulment

Of course its absurd.  The sponsors, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, readily admit it.

"Absurd? Very," the group says on its Web site, which adds it is planning two more initiatives involving marriage and procreation.

But they feel that the state opened the door.

"But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying the Supreme Court's ruling.

...

...Gadow noted that the Supreme Court's majority decision specifically mentioned procreation throughout.

The opinion written by Justice Barbara Madsen concluded that "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state's interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both."

Gadow said the argument is unfair when you're dealing with same-sex couples who are unable to have children together.

"What we are trying to do is display the discrimination that is at the heart of last year's ruling," he said.

Merits of gay marriage aside, by framing the debate as involving procreation, the Starte Supreme Court opened the door to arguments about having children as well as the validity and relevence of heterosexual marriage.

Given an order by the court, the NJ lawmakers have approved a measure to allow Civil Unions, but have reserved the word marriage for traditional marriage.

Ordered by New Jersey's highest court to offer marriage or its equivalent to gay couples, the Legislature voted Thursday to make New Jersey the third state to allow civil unions.

Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine said he would sign the measure, which would extend to same-sex couples all the rights and privileges available under state law to married people. The bill passed the Assembly 56-19 and the Senate 23-12.

"Love counts," Democratic Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo, a chief sponsor of the bill, said as the debate opened. "The gender of whom one loves should not matter to the state."

News to you Wilfredo, but love is not the issue in a lot of marriages.  But never mind that for now....

Massachusetts is the only state to allow gay marriage. Vermont and Connecticut have civil unions, and California has domestic partnerships that work similarly. Since 2004 New Jersey has had a more limited version of domestic partnerships.

Among the benefits gay couples would get under New Jersey's civil unions bill are adoption rights, hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights. Officials could begin granting civil unions 60 days after the governor signs the legislation; Corzine did not say when he would do so.

I would note that all the above could be conferred by other means, but honestly I support civil unions.

But the reservation of the label marriage has caused its own issues:

Gay rights groups have argued that not calling such unions "marriage" creates a different, and inferior, institution. But they welcomed Thursday's legislation as a step toward gaining the right to marry.

Until the federal laws change to recognize same sex unions, that is a pointless objection.  And until we take the government out of marriage altogether, there will always be this conflict between morals and legal rights, as I have noted here and here.

First a history lesson. 

Growing up in the Bay Area, I spent many a day or night in San Francisco.  Going to China Town for dinner, Riding the Cable Cars, walking along Fisherman's Wharf, going to Ghirardelli Square, Coit Tower, The Cannery , Pier 39, etc etc.

But one day will always stand out.  It was May in the early 1980s, to be exact, the third Saturday in May:  Armed Forces day.

And I was in a parade.

I had not been stationed long at nearby Travis AFB, and I was selected along with a few other newbies to march in the parade down Market Street.  It was not a popular task, the complaints were legion.  Having just left Basic Training, marching and parades was supposed to be a thing of the past.  Yet here we were, along with Airmen from other nearby Air Force bases, and contingents from all the other services as well.

It was epic.  We marked 8 abreast in mostly perfect harmony down the streets I had driven many times.

I was strangely humbled by the crowd that day in "The City" who cheered and waved flags as we marched to a spirited band.  I remember older people standing rigid at attention as we marched, kids waving flags and much applause.

And yet...all was not perfection.  Near the end we heard catcalls.  The most memorable was "El Salvador is Spanish for Vietnam!".

My initial stunned thought was "huh?", followed by "why tell me?"  I was an enlisted Airmen who fixed electric winches for Air Force cargo jets.

Did they somehow figure I had enough clout with the CIA and the Joint Chiefs that I could call them up and demand we leave El Salvador?

They wanted to protest what they hated about the military, but they were protesting to the wrong people.

This week in San Francisco, history repeated.

S.F. school board votes to ban Junior ROTC

The San Francisco school board voted Tuesday night to pass a resolution that will phase out the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps in San Francisco high schools over the next two years, a spokeswoman for the school board said Wednesday.