Same Sex Couples in the Census. Again.


Remember how no White House Easter Roll had been streamed on the internet until Barack Obama got to the White House, even though George Bush had done the same thing?

Remember all the other examples of Barack Obama declaring something a first, despite George Bush, Bill Clinton, or some other President having done it first?

Well, news comes out today that the census will ask about same-sex marriages next year.

This is “a first.” Well, to be precise, no state had same-sex marriages in 2000. But the Obama administration is spinning it as another first. Except, it is not really. The 2000 census asked about same-sex partnerships, the only thing that existed at the time.


Opposition to Gay Marriage Wins NY GOP Senate Control [UPDATED]


[UPDATE] As I’ve already noted in comments, Hiram Monserrate is in point of fact no prize: he’s currently under indictment for going after his girlfriend with a broken beer bottle.  Can’t say that he looks any better with an R after his name than he did with a D, although I’m perfectly willing to bet that his former compatriots will immediately proclaim that he magically now looks worse.  - Moe Lane

At least, those are the early indications.

I haven’t had occasion to write about the New York Democrat civil war over gay marriage in several months. The last occasion was here. Basically, New York Democrats finally won a majority in the State Senate in 2008 - the first majority they had in the Senate in 40 years. It seemingly gave them unified control of the state government - as long as they could reach some compromise between Democrat Senators who favored gay marriage, and those who opposed. That agreement eluded them for months. Senator Espada and several others sought assurances that the Senate would not vote on gay marriage legislation in this session. Eventually the two made a deal with Democrat leader Malcolm Smith, but they would not discuss the terms of that deal.

Now, as gay marriage legislation was gaining steam in New York, Espada and Hiram Montserrate have made good on their threat to quit the party. While I don’t see any confirmation yet that their switch is directly linked to same-sex marriage, that’s where the early betting is:

Chaos reigned in the State Capitol Monday as Senate Republicans pulled off an unprecedented mid-session coup to gain control of the chamber.

The GOP managed to flip two Democrats to their side, making one of them, Pedro Espada Jr. (D-Bronx), the temporary president of the chamber.

Read More →

Category: ,

Can Connecticut Forcibly Order the Church to Reorganize? Is the Church a “Lobbyist” for Opposing Such Interference?


The Connecticut Office of State Ethics (OSE) is poised to investigate and penalize the Diocese of Bridgeport for having the temerity to exercise at least four of the five sections of the First Amendment (religion, speech, assembly, petition).

The story begins earlier this year when Connecticut State Senator Andrew McDonald proposed legislation (S. 1098) that would have forced the Catholic Church, contrary to the church’s doctrine, to relinquish control of parish finances (for those from congregationalist traditions who may not be aware of the organization of Catholic Churches, the Catholic Church, by doctrine, is very hierarchical, with Bishops responsible for all the parishes within the bishopric, and those Bishops reporting on up the line, ultimately to the Vatican.  Unlike most protestant demoninations, local parishes exercise little governing control.  This is not merely an issue of secular control but one of theological doctrine deeply entwined in the Catholic Church’s views on the role of clergy, the papacy and the church in fulfilling God’s mission).  Naturally the church opposed this incursion into its governance and doctrine, with the Bishop urging Catholics to contact their legislators and the Church supporting a mass rally in the state capital.

So the state struck back.  From the American Spectator story by Lisa Fabrizio:

It seems that our Diocese of Bridgeport — which in March was forced to marshal the faithful to defend itself from unconstitutional government interference — was notified by the Connecticut Office of State Ethics that it is under investigation for possible violations of the state’s lobbying laws.

Bishop William Lori sent a letter to the OSE challenging the investigation. He describes the activity that led to the investigation:

Following the surprise introduction of Bill 1098, a proposal that singled out Catholic parishes and would have forced them to reorganize contrary to Church law and the First Amendment, our Diocese responded in the most natural, spontaneous, and frankly, American, of ways: we alerted our membership - in person and through our website; we encouraged them to exercise their free speech by contacting their elected representatives; and, we organized a rally at the State Capitol…

On April 23, 2009, the Diocese received a letter from Thomas K. Jones, Ethics Enforcement Officer for the OSE, stating that it was “the subject of an Office of State Ethics evaluation,” which was “being conducted to ascertain whether the Diocese had violated [Connecticut General Statutes Sections] 1-94, 1-95 and 1-96 by failing to register as a lobbyist in Connecticut, by failing to submit all other appropriate lobbyist filings, and by failing to follow all applicable registration procedures.”

The OSE claims the Diocese acted as a “lobbyist” by: participating in a March 11, 2009, State Capitol rally against Raised Bill 1098 (the unconstitutional attempt to reorganize Catholic parishes contrary to Catholic teaching and tradition); making statements on its website urging its members to contact their elected representatives to oppose Raised Bill 1098; and making statements on its website urging its members to contact their legislators to oppose another bill, Raised Bill 899 (regarding same-sex marriage).

The subtext to all this is that the underlying legislation itself appears to be retaliation for the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage (Sen. McDonald and lead Connecticut House sponsor Rep. Michael Lawler are both gay). 

It’s hard to imagine that in a country with the First Amendment protections we are supposed to enjoy, it should even be a matter of discussion whether it is legal, without government approval in advance, to hold a rally at the Statehouse and encourage fellow citizens to contact their elected officials. Such is the state of “reform” and “ethics” that we do in fact have to have these discussions.

(This post adopted w/ permission from a post by Sean Parnell at the Center for Competitive Politics.


Rally Around Miss California’s Crown


What happens when a judge asks a beauty pageant contestant in front of a live television audience her opinion about a political question? If you answered that the contestant risks her crown if she gives anything other than the liberal-approved answer, you would be right.

That is what is happening right now to Miss California USA 2009 Carrie Prejean after liberal internet gossip maven Perez Hilton asked her, during the Miss USA competition this past Sunday, whether she thought gay marriage should be made legal nationwide, and why. Hilton was obviously seeking to put Miss California on the spot for her state’s November vote for Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution making gay marriage illegal. Hilton used the venue of the Miss USA pageant to sandbag the unsuspecting Prejean, who nevertheless courageously stated her belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman. The answer has launched a firestorm of controversy that has Miss California officials openly condemning Prejean for her beliefs, and hinting that she could lose her title because of them.

Read More →


Iowa court decision may affect 2012 GOP primary


Politico says, 'Hee-Haw!'

According to the Votemaster, the recent decision by the Iowa Supreme Court striking down a state law which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman, “immensely complicates” the 2012 race for the GOP…

Read More →


Andrew Sullivan: Dutifully Defending Marriage from Heterosexuals


Wisconsin University Law professor and blogger Ann Althouse is reportedly marrying a long-time commenter on her blog.

After four years of sparing in the comments section, exchanging several emails, and a few weekend rendezvous, Althouse announced her whirlwind romance in typical Althouse fashion, an emblematic photo essay.

While engagements are generally joyous occasions, not all of Althouse’s fellow bloggers are rejoicing in her impending nuptials.

Upon learning of the news of Althouse’s engagement, The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan ironically adopted the mantle of the marriage brigade, crassly writing, “Ten days of emailing … and she was ready.”

Sullivan, a gay man with a committed partner of 5 years, is one of the most outspoken advocates for marriage equality, a proponent of the notion that all people, irrespective of sexual orientation, are inherently equal. This concept of equality, then, should confer the rights of marriage, proponents of gay rights argue.

Not so, says Sullivan, at least when this concept of marriage equality is applied to what he ostensibly views as frivolous heterosexual unions. Sullivan’s shrewd opposition to Althouse’s marriage is merely a disingenuous excuse for gay rights activists to flex waning political muscle in the wake of Prop 8’s passage.

Ironically, Sullivan is guilty of the same crime of his most socially conservative opponent: He now considers it his responsibility to validate, and likewise invalidate, the unions of others.

It takes a real egotist to make the news of another’s engagement about one’s self. At this rate, Sullivan would wear a white dress to Althouse’s wedding.

Shame on you, Andrew. Your comical egotism aside, the spiteful rhetoric – “OMFG” – likely won’t build the coalition of support necessary for the federal government to recognize your cohabitant as your husband.

Read More →


The Libertarian Variation


Anyone familiar with the lineaments of the debate over same sex marriage will have encountered what we might call the Libertarian Variation. This is the view that all the commotion surrounding this dispute could be avoided if only we could persuade the state to have done with marriage altogether, leaving it a strictly private affair. Most commonly the it will be advanced with a kind of cry of exasperation: “I just want the government out of the marriage business!” The cry is less one of realistic hope for policy reform than a forlorn utterance of resignation.

Commonly Libertarian Variation will be advanced by someone with enough perception to realize that the standard compromise in favor of tolerance on all sides — gays can have their recognition, but don’t worry, no one will ever be forced to participate — is not now a realistic option, and probably never was. In short, the Libertarian Variation is commonly advanced by someone who realizes, deep down, that, indeed, churches will be forced to open their grounds to gays, that wedding photographers will be forced to accept business for marriages they have a principled opposition to. Coercion has happened, and will happen. Hence our poor libertarian’s exasperated cry of resignation.

Read More →