Rightank

Ahhh, it nice to be back.

I love Ohio State football. I received my law degree from Ohio State. I love alot of things about Ohio State. Yet, despite all I love, the incessant liberal tripe that cascades into the classrooms of its scarlet and gray halls has once again reared its head.

Evidently, an Ohio State librarian who decided to recommend four conservative books for freshman students to read is being accused of sexually harassing three Ohio State professors by virtue of his book recommendations alone.

How excruciatingly despicable. Let me say it more directly: Professors Kennedy, Buckley and Jones–you are an embarrassment to academia and to Ohio State. How condescending of you to deem your personas to be of such infinite worth that a recommendation of a conservative book which happens to disagree with homosexuality offends you to the point of feeling sexually harassed. I would hope that being part of the “educated” class, you might have learned to deal or handle opposing views. Perhaps, you have lived inside warm, academic cocoons to long that you have been insulated from thoughts, ideas, arguments and theories that are different from the stream of conscience you like to talk about in your classrooms and pontificate about in “scholarly” journals.

To the Ohio State administration: How idiotic of you to continue your pursuit of such a ridiculous, uninformed, and illegal complaint. Do you really believe that a book recommendation is an act of sexual harassment? Why in the world are you taking this complaint seriously? Do you not realize that many of your alumni are conservative and who do not donate to the University precisely because they have no desire to support such incorrigible and baby-like decision-making?

I hope this idiocy stops soon. At least the profs (and hopefully the adminstriation) at Ohio State can’t ruin the football.

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court handed all the law professors engaged in homosexual activism a lesson in humility–and the law. In Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., CJ Roberts wrote the unanimous decision informing Eskridge et al. to take a hike and put your money where your mouth is.

It must be exasperating for liberal law professoriat to come to grips with reality–the reality of losing big time on a gay rights issue. In most lawschools, gays and lesbians tout their agenda brazenly and openly. At my alma mater, roughly 95% of the professors sent around a letter decrying the military’s policy of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and puffed out their chests exclaiming their dismay while chastizing the troops from their incubated office spaces. It was rather patronizing of them, but heck, law school is about promoting an agenda and not about teaching law.

Similiarly, the homosexual agenda isn’t about “equality.” Rather, it is the design of a tiny minority to overthrow the moral tradition of America by undermining through litigation and fearmongering the traditional family unit, particularly heterosexual marriage. You see, everyone who opposes gays and lesbian “rights” is a homophobe and the root of his or her opposition is seething hatred. Homosexual proponents believe that any logical argument contra same-sex marriage simply cannot exist and any argument proffered against gay adoption, gay marriage, etc., is vacuous and meritless–which, of course, is absolutely false.

Rumsfeld is great for America and for our military. I give it 8 thumbs up.

Former Senator John Danforth is yet another “moderate” (aka liberal) Republican who is disgusted with the Christian religiousity of the Republican Party and their opposition to gay marriage. Interviewed by the Washington Post, Danforth insinuates that Republicans who oppose same-sex marriage are mean-spirited bigots devoid of rationality:

“I think a marriage is between a man and a woman, but it’s beyond me how the whole thing has become so politicized and people have become so energized by it. Because, what difference does it make? How does it constitute a defense of marriage to legislate in this area?”

In Missouri, where Danforth won five statewide elections, a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage passed overwhelmingly last year. Yet he believes most people would say no if asked, “Do you believe we should just be nasty and humiliate people and degrade them because of sexual orientation?”

Danforth’s belief that denying same-sex couples the right to “marry” is “nasty” or “humilliating” or “degrading” is mistaken and frankly moronic. His belief or regard for the tradtional definition of marriage sounds alot like John Kerry’s presidential campaign prattle–I believe marriage should be between a man and a women but x, y, and z. Contra Danforth, a Republican’s opposition to same-sex marriage does not mean that he or she is a bigot. There are many good reasons why marriage should be limited to male/female couplings. Apparently, Danforth would rather slur the 71% of Missourians who supported an constitutional amendment protecting marriage rather than verbalizing any arguments why they were wrong.

I know that the President’s SOTU address is now old news, but, I haven’t had time to post my “two cents” on President Bush’s Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) snub.

Comparing President Bush’s 2005 SOTU with his 2006 SOTU, Bush stepped back from directly supporting the FMA, completely ommitting any reference of support:

2005

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

2006

Yet many Americans, especially parents, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture, and the health of our most basic institutions. They’re concerned about unethical conduct by public officials, and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage.

The difference in rhetoric is not a distinction without a difference. In 2005, Bush explicitly stated his support for a FMA. Yet, in 2006 Bush relegates marriage to a half a sentence, lumping it alongside scandalous conduct by Washington politicians. Bush implies that while activist courts still threaten to replace traditional marriage with same-sex marriage, the FMA is not part of the solution.

Bush’s decison–or perhaps that of his speechwriter(s)–to sidestep the FMA raises a gentle suspicion that Bush’s support of the FMA might be waning. One wonders how much VP Cheney’s nonsupport of the FMA in method (believes the decision should be left to individual state legislatures) or in priniciple (does not favor a complete ban on same-sex marriage) factors into Bush’s apparent neglect of supporting or encouraging the FMA’s passage. Looking back at the 2004 SOTU, Bush’s 2006 snub of support for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage is disconcerting:

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act . . . That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their abitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

President Bush plays a crucial part in the constitutional amendment process he explicitly refered to in 2004 and 2005. Similar to Bush’s strident defense of wiretapping American communicants of Al Qaeda, Bush should vociferously urge Congress to pass the FMA when introduced again in the House and Senate. That is, if he still believes America should “defend the sanctity of marriage.” By failing to pass the FMA, America places its hope in an unelected branch of government which if unchecked by the masses, will redefine marriage, furthering acerbating the problems of family that threaten to cripple our nation’s social fabric. Please, Mr. President, don’t cloister your support for the FMA.

There is good news on the horizon for Marriage Amendment supporters. NRO’s Steve Spuriell revealed that Republican Study Committee (”RSC”) Chairman Mike Pence said that the top three areas of focus among the conservative Republicans who are members of the RSC are “budget, marriage, and ethics.” Further, each candidate for Majority Leader (Blunt, Boehner, and Shadegg) were questioned on “legislative strategy” and “timing” of the Marriage Amendment. Congressman Pence described the push for a Marriage Amendment as “standing up for the sanctity of marriage.”

This is great news for true conservative (economic and social) Republicans. I am very pleased with Congressman Pence’s position on the importance of marriage–placing it ahead of ethics, which is a striking and poignant statement, given the political buzz regarding Abramoff and the polished guffaw Democrats have been nervously confiding to the press about Republican corruption. The vast majority of Americans want to preserve and protect marriage, as evinced by the state majorities who have voted to constitutionalize the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Hopefully, whomever is selected to fill the Majority Leader’s seat, that Republican will be dedicated to putting the Marriage Amendment on the table and then advocating for its passage. Time is of the essence in preventing state and federal courts from usurping the legislature’s constitutional law-making power to force gay marriage on an unwilling American populace.

Today, Judge M. Brooke Murdock declared Maryland’s law defining marriage between a man and a woman unconstitutional because it is unlawful sex discrimination under Maryland’s constitution.

Judge Murdock followed the yellow brick road laid out before her by the four Masschusetts Justices, usurping the legislative (and the people’s) perogative to define social policy and codify that policy through the constitutionally mandated process. Murdock based her “constitutional” decision enthroning gay marriage by claiming Maryland’s marriage law treated men and women in a discriminatory manner based upon sex. She reasoned that because a man cannot marry a man, Maryland discriminates because it restricts a gay or lesbian’s choice to marry someone of the same sex. But her supposition is mistaken. Marriage is open equally to male and female alike, but they must marry someone of the opposite sex. An individual’s homosexuality–a choice to sexually align with a member of the same sex–does not take the place of one’s gender identity. Murdock’s transmogrification of gender is indefensible.

Rejecting the state’s argument that a male/female coupling provides the optimal environment for child rearing, Murdock plunked:

This Court is unable to agree [that a traditional married couple provides the optimal environment for children] because the vast number of assumptions necessary to do so, exceeds the scope of reasonable legislative speculation.

Wow! You can’t get any more activist than that. It is revealing that Murdock cites absolutely nothing to support her conclusion. Then, to put the icing on the her judicial cake, Murdock deduces from the legislative speculaion that social morality does not matter:

Although tradition and societal values are important, they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a discriminatory statutory classification.

In other words, neither the longevity of marriage nor the societal values that undergird heterosexual marriage can bar gays and lesbians from marrying.

This decision is yet another case of a judge who actively legislates her morality from the bench and lectures the legislature for their outlandish belief that social values and tradition matter in determining marriage policy. What a joke.

I’m sick and tired of homosexual advocates labeling those who oppose homosexuality as “homophobic.”

Espn.com, which is blantantly critizes any athlete who objects to homosexuality and gushingly promotes or hypes-up any gay athlete (e.g., Sheryl Swoopes), had a Page 2 article that dropped the homophobic card on Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller because he refused to play “Brokeback Mountain”–the liberal establishment’s hit movie of the year because of its anti-traditionalist gay love affair. LZ Granderson, who wrote the Miller piece, cries foul, characterizing Miller’s decision as an “act of blatant discrimination.” Granderson implies that Miller’s act is homophobic, prefacing his discrimination diatribe about Miller by calling an NBA player’s comment that he wouldn’t want to play on a team with a gay player a “homophobic comment.”

As I’ve explained in a previous post, toleration of gays–rather than overt approbation–does not make one homophobic. From the perspective of someone who disagrees with the gay lifestyle and their attempts in the courts to overthrow traditional marriage, my mere disagreement should not (and does not) make one a homophobe–someone with an abnormal fear of gays and lesbians. If I owned a movie theater like Larry Miller, there is no way I would have shown “Brokeback Mountain.” Miller had no obligation to show Brokeback and promote its gay agenda.

Homosexual advocates or who approve (unwittingly or audaciously) of homosexual behavior pounce on any person who dares object or disagree with homosexuality and automatically define that person as homophobic. Their aim is to silence dissent and scare away grass-roots support for those who have the courage to publicly denounce and disagree with the aims of the homosexual movement. Flipping the coin to the other side, is it accurate to call those who support homosexual marriage “heterophobic”? Of course not.

No one likes to be called a bigot, especially when that slur is undeserved. Granderson’s article is a snide display of a homosexual advocate who can’t believe that a NBA owner should be able to get away with shunning Hollywood’s gay movie of choice. It is Granderson who should apologize, not Miller.

Yesterday in Hernandez v. Robles, The New York Supreme Court (in New York, the Court of Appeals is the highest court) reversed the decision by a Manhattan lower court judge holding that forcing same-sex marriage is the province of legislative authority and not the priviledge of judges who like to rule by fiat. Upholding the legislative perogative in defining marriage, the Court emphasized:

The legislative policy rationale is that society and government have a strong interest in fostering heterosexual marriage as the social institution that best forges a linkage between sex, procreation and child rearing. It systematically regulates heterosexual behavior, brings order to the resulting procreation and ensures a stable family structure for the rearing, education and socialization of children. Marriage promotes sharing of resources between men, women and the children that they procreate; provides a basis for the legal and factual assumption that a man is the father of his wife’s child via the legal presumption of paternity plus the marital expectations of monogamy and fidelity; and creates and develops a relationship between parents and child based on real, everyday ties. It is based on the presumption that the optimal situation for child rearing is having both biological parents present in a committed, socially esteemed relationship. . . .The law assumes that a marriage will produce children and affords benefits based on that assumption. It sets up heterosexual marriage as the cultural, social and legal ideal in an effort to discourage unmarried childbearing and to encourage sufficient marital childbearing to sustain the population and society; the entire society, even those who do not marry, depend on a healthy marriage culture for this latter, critical, but presently undervalued, benefit. Marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for official recognition and support, but about the well-being of children and society, and such preference constitutes a rational policy decision. Thus, society and government have reasonable, important interests in encouraging heterosexual couples to accept the recognition and regulation of marriage. [citations omitted]

Particularly, the court has it right when it says that “marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for official recognition and support, but about the well-being of children and society. . . .” Same-sex marriage advocates want to change the legislative policy determinations and make the American public believe that marriage is about upholding the love interest that unites two persons rather than the well-being of (1) children and (2) society. Moreover, children cannot be produced from same-sex relations. Procreative impossibility aside, government does not protect marriage in order to appease and gratify the solipsistic desires of both the man and the woman. Yet, this falsity of legislative purpose is what the ACLU and their allies want the American people to believe.

The battle to protect marriage will continue to rage. The relentless barrage against tradition and the heritage of American morality will continue unabated unless we have a constitutional amendment that protects marriage. Unfortunately, it isn’t at the top of the Bush Adminstration’s “Things We Need to Do to Save Our Nation” list.

Ann Althouse some thoughts about the Court’s “ringing defense of legislative power to define marriage.”

Yesterday, the Wisconsin State Senate approved (reg. req’d) a bill that would create a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. The vote was strictly partisan–19 Republicans for and 14 Democrats against. If approved by the Wisconsin Assembly (House), the marriage amendment would be voted upon in a referendum in 2006. Here’s the text of the amendment (Senate Joint Resolution 53):

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

The marriage amendment not only protects the definiton of marriage but also prevents any “marriage-lite” institutions from popping up. It will be interesting to see what the people of Wisconsin choose to say about marriage.

Tomorrow, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case testing the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment. The Solomon Amendment, among other things, requires universities to open their doors to military recruiters in order to receive federal funding. Many law professors have banned together, led by the many liberal Yale Law University professors, challenging the Solomon Amendment because they feel oppressed by the military’s presence. Why? Because of the miltary policy “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Rather than stand on their principle (and refuse federal money), the law professors would rather eat their cake and have it too. Professor Peter Berkowitz comments:

[N]obody is holding a gun to anybody’s head, requiring universities to accept federal funds for academic work. If the law professors could persuade their deans and university presidents — to say nothing of themselves — to do without federal funding, then, notwithstanding the war and the needs of the nation’s military, the law professors could, under the Solomon Amendment, keep military recruiters off campus. Trouble is, the law professors want their principle and to pay no price for standing by it.

During law school at Ohio State (where I attended), a letter was circulated each year (signed by almost every law professor) crying foul about military recruitment and how they despised the military recruiters because they discriminated against gays and lesbians. Then, when a military recruiter came to school, a huge disclaimer was placed beneath the recruitment notice stating in unequivocating terms that the military violated the law school’s non-discrimination policy. I’m sure it felt good for the law professors to bash the military and soothe their delicate egos. The Solomon Amendment case (Rumsfield v. FAIR) is an extension of the law professoriat’s unfettered disgust.

I hope law professors smarmy action against the military fails and Justice Scalia blasts them in a heavy-handed majority opinion for their disrespect of the law and our military.