Gov: Bake the Cake

The Anglican Church in North America responds at some length.

Scott Walker made a great statement in response to the Supreme Court decision.

Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that the author of this decision acknowledges ‘has been with us for millennia.’ . . .

Read the rest of this entry »

It was almost too perfect a reflection on the intolerance of the “tolerance” crowd when a blogger yesterday responded to my constitutional arguments by calling me an A’hole, saying that he does not “take kindly” to people disagreeing with him, and erasing the indication that my blog had linked to his so that none of his readers would have to be exposed to any differing views, either.  (Surprisingly, if you block out everyone who doesn’t agree with you, you will find yourself surrounded by people who agree with you!)

Read the rest of this entry »

At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey has great further discussions of how today’s Supreme Court decision threatens conservatives’ and Christians’ freedom, and what Republicans in Congress are doing about it.

2005: Our marriage won’t affect your rights.

2014: Bake a cake or be destroyed.

2015: We won’t touch your church. Promise. Tee hee.

Re today’s Supreme Court decisionMy Friday Blog is at pains to emphasize that the Civil War was about slavery.

The states themselves, in their official secession declarations explicitly said it was about slavery.  Look it up.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sandy Beach Writings (“(Marriage) Equality but at What Cost?”) emphasizes that she is in favor of today’s Supreme Court decision (“Let me be clear, I completely agree with the fact that gays and lesbians should have the right to marry”), but wonders, reasonably, about vertical separation of powers and federalism.

Read the rest of this entry »

Re today’s Supreme Court decision, the blog Intellectual Prostitution (“Love Rules and So Does SCOTUS”) argues,

And Scalia’s dissent has only proven how asinine the arguments against marriage equality have always been.

…the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law…Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its ‘reasoned judgment,’ thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.

Read the rest of this entry »

Barwick, HeatherVia Wintery Knight (whence title above), a great short piece at the Federalist by Heather Barwick: “Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting”

Do you remember that book, “Heather Has Two Mommies”? That was my life. My mom, her partner, and I lived in a cozy little house in the ‘burbs of a very liberal and open-minded area. Her partner treated me as if I was her own daughter. . . .

Read the rest of this entry »


March 27, 2013

I think this video strikes a reasonably good balance:  It tries to present a lot of the (pretty abstract) arguments for the traditional definition of marriage; at the same time, it tries to be brief and engaging for a general audience.

Read the rest of this entry »

In the last few years, some libertarians have responded to the ongoing fight between conservatives and liberals about whether to redefine legal marriage by asking, why is marriage the state’s business in the first place?

Via Wintery Knight, Jennifer Roback Morse has a new series of three articles explaining why the libertarian “third way” is not an option:

“Privatizing Marriage Is Impossible”

We cannot escape the fact that marriage is an intrinsically public institution. We can’t avoid making collective decisions about its meaning and purpose. If we don’t do it explicitly, we will end up doing it implicitly.

“Privatizing Marriage Will Expand the Role of the State”

Read the rest of this entry »