Six of the eight federal judges who have struck down state bans on homosexual marriage were Democrats

From Fox News:

. . . In Pennsylvania's case, the judge who threw out the ban was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush. Only one other judge -- of the eight who have ruled against gay marriage bans since the DOMA decision -- is Republican-appointed. The other is Bernard Friedman, a U.S. District Court judge in Michigan who struck down that state's gay marriage ban in March, though the decision is being appealed. Friedman was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Three of the judges -- in Oregon, Virginia and Utah -- were appointed by Obama in the last few years. Two were appointed by Clinton. One, in Idaho, was appointed by regional judges. Several of these cases are still being litigated. In 29 states, judges are being asked whether gays should have the right to marry. . . .

Another example for why campaign donations should be anonymous

With the flood of unidentified donations to the Obama campaign, it seems that a huge number of donations are de facto anonymous.  Indeed, anyone who followed the attacks on donors after California's Proposition 8 knows the problems they faced.  While this isn't strictly campaign related, this example shows the attacks people face when they reveal their personal opinions.

A family-owned Christian bakery, under investigation for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, has been forced to close its doors after a vicious boycott by militant homosexual activists.   

Sweet Cakes By Melissa posted a message on its Facebook page alerting customers that their Gresham, Ore. retail store would be shut down after months of harassment from pro-gay marriage forces.   

“Better is a poor man who walks in integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways,” read a posting from Proverbs on the bakery’s Facebook page.  

“It’s a sad day for Christian business owners and it’s a sad day for the First Amendment,” owner Aaron Klein told me. “The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics.” . . .

No one minds people not shopping at a particular shop, but the attacks here have gone well beyond that and have been malicious.

Within days, militant homosexuals groups launched protests . . . . Klein told me he received messages threatening to kill his family. They hoped his children would die.   

The LGBT protestors then turned on other wedding vendors around the community. They threatened to boycott any florists, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa. . . .

My question is whatever one's views on whether marriage should be between a man and a woman or between any set of consenting adults, why isn't this type of threats of violence and other actions condemned?

In the new military you can't even keep your views about homosexuality to yourself, Senior Master Sgt questioned about views and then relieved of duty

From Fox News Radio:

A 19-year veteran of the Air Force said he was relieved of his duties after he disagreed with his openly gay commander when she wanted to severely punish an instructor who had expressed religious objections to homosexuality. . . . 

“I was relieved of my position because I don’t agree with my commander’s position on gay marriage,” Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk told Fox News. “We’ve been told that if you publicly say that homosexuality is wrong, you are in violation of Air Force policy.” 

The Liberty Institute is representing the Christian airman in case the Pentagon decides to retaliate. 

“Are we going to have a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy for Christians so we don’t get harassed for our beliefs?” attorney Hiram Sasser asked Fox News. “Here’s a guy who wants to have his religious liberty and serve in the military. He shouldn’t have to believe in gay marriage in order to serve.” . . .

Is Obama serious that the Supreme Court homosexual marriage decisions were "a victory for American democracy"?

President Obama makes me think of the book 1984 when he claims that the Supreme Court decisions on same sex marriage "a victory for American democracy."  But how exactly is the decision to strike down an initiative supported by a clear majority of the California voters "a victory for American democracy"?  A position that was twice approved by California voters.  The point of the unanimous California Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court overturned, was that the very point of the initiative process was to force outcomes that politicians didn't want to happen.  If you then leave it up to politicians to decide whether to defend the initiative, you give them the power to gut initiatives they don't like.  Finally, it is amazing how inconsistent the two SC decisions are on standing.  The court gutted initiatives, but since the Obama administration wouldn't defend DOMA, if they had used the same reasoning there, the court wouldn't have been able to gut DOMA.  Whatever one's views on same sex marriage, these court decisions are lawless and are an attempt by justices to get political outcomes no matter what the cost is in other areas.

Here is what I think is the key quote from Kennedy's dissent in the California Prop 8 case

From Justice Kennedy's dissent:

The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California,which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend theinitiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation. . . .

So the US Supreme Court claims that it knows more about how the California laws should be interpreted than a unanimous decision by the California Supreme Court.  But worse, as Justice Kennedy says, if the politicians in office don't like a decision, they can just encourage a lawsuit against the law and then refuse to defend it in court.

Scalia point on moral values and laws against homosexual marriage

If I had to guess, I believe that the Supreme Court will say that there is no rational basis for opposing homosexual marriage.  Here is Scalia's take on the issue:

"If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?" Scalia said, according to The Associated Press.  

The justice's comments are sure to draw attention with the Supreme Court set to enter the debate over gay marriage in its coming term.  

Scalia was asked about controversial comments he had made in the past that argued that the constitutionality of subjects like the death penalty, abortion or sodomy laws were all "easy" to decide by considering the Constitution as understood by its writers. . . .

I am not sure that is the best argument.  Murder by definition hurts someone else.  It isn't obvious that the same claim can be made of homosexual marriage, but some comparisons might be possible.  For example, some might believe that children raised with two parents of the same sex will not turn out as well as those raised in families with opposite parents.  Whether that argument is right isn't as important as whether it is reasonable for them to believe that relationship exists.  

Possibly laws on drugs that people take might be a better analogy.  People voluntarily take drugs, though the government believes that it has the responsibility to protect them from themselves.  

Interesting patterns in who identifies themselves as homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual

In a massive survey of 120,000 people over four months, Gallup claims that 3.4 percent of people identify themselves as either homosexual, bisexual or transsexual.  Among the striking findings are the huge increase in those categorizing themselves this way among the young.

Past surveys that were done a decade or so ago showed a fairly similar percentage across age groups.  I wonder to what extent TV shows showing homosexual stars has played a role in this.  It would be hard to do empirical work on this in the US because you would only have purely time series data to deal with, but I wonder if it could be done across countries.  The relatively low income shown for those in this category is due in significant part to the large percentage of young people who identify themselves as having these preferences.  What is perhaps more surprising is that blacks and Hispanics are more likely than whites to identify themselves this way.

There is some other interesting data at a dating website (though this obviously suffers from self selection problems).  This information indicates that about half of the people who identify themselves as bisexual are really heterosexuals.  The other interesting feature is how the percents change over time.  Men are much more likely to be homosexuals when they are young and women when they are older.  Is this result really surprising given that men find it more difficult to obtain sex when they are young and because of the relative shortage of men the same is true for women when they are older?

It would also be interesting to see whether those who might be less attractive to the opposite sex are more likely to be homosexual.  For example, low income males or those with significant prison histories might fall in this category (it also raises the question of whether criminal records explains the higher rates among blacks and Hispanics).  On the last point there is the whole issue of whether prison turns some people to be BLGT or whether their unattractiveness to others because of their criminal activity is what causes them to be this way.  I wonder if any of these various Gallup surveys that asked this question on homosexuality had information on criminal records.

Final note: It is interesting to note that people think that the share of the population that is "Gay or Lesbian" is much greater than the share of the population that is actually BLGT.  It raises the question of why there is this huge gap and presumably it is because of the amount of attention given to this by the media.

Interestingly, this gap can't really be explained by the person knowledge that people have.  For example, there is relatively little difference between the percentage of the population who are perceived of as homosexual by political affiliation, even though there is a huge gap in what parties homosexuals identify themselves.  Also, people in the South think that there are slightly more homosexuals, but in fact there are fewer people in the South who identify themselves as BLGT.

Univ of Texas backs Sociology Professor in attacks by "gay blogger"

This Sociology Associate Professor is accused of being biased because he is Catholic.  Does that mean that atheists can't do research either or any other group?  Who can do research?  "The University of Texas at Austin has determined that no formal investigation is warranted into the allegations . . . ."

The study asked thousands of adult children of straight, lesbian and homosexual parents dozens of questions and compared the results. While many questions did not produce statistically-significant differences, the study found major differences in a few categories. Adult children of gay couples were two to four times as likely to be on public assistance, more than twice as likely to be unemployed and more than twice as likely to have contemplated suicide. . . . .

The Media's strange coverage of shooting at Family Research Council

So why wasn't there the nonstop coverage of the Family Research Council shooting?  From The Hill Newspaper:

The head of the Family Research Council accused the media Monday of ignoring the shooting last week at the group's Washington headquarters because "it doesn't fit the storyline." 

“It was stunning that most of the coverage, with the exceptions of just a few reports I saw over the weekend, were from Fox,” said Tony Perkins, the head of the conservative organization, in an appearance with the network. 

Perkins went on to say other networks "ignored" the shooting — which wounded a security guard — because it broke with their preferred narrative. 

“I think the reason is, it doesn’t fit the storyline,” Perkins said. “You know, it’s supposed to be conservatives who are angry, who are filled with hate. And that’s not the case.” 

Authorities charged Floyd Corkins of Virginia last week with the shooting of the security guard. According to The Associated Press, Corkins was carrying Chick-fil-A sandwiches and ammunition in his backpack when he entered the organization's lobby; the Family Research Council has opposed gay marriage, as has the fast-food chain's president, Dan Cathy. . . .

The Media Research Center has this:

Neither NBC Nightly News nor CBS Evening News produced a full story on the FRC shooting, instead committing only 17 and 20 seconds respectively for anchor briefs that omitted the shooter’s motive. Only ABC World News produced a full report on this politically motivated act of violence. . . .

and this:

CNN's Brooke Baldwin couldn't find a motive behind the Family Research Council shooting, on Thursday afternoon – despite CNN having earlier reported that "politics" was involved in the shooting at the conservative organization.
"You know, who knows what really was the motive behind this particular individual Floyd Lee Corkins?" Baldwin wondered at 3:10 p.m. EDT, even though anchor Suzanne Malveaux stated at 1:31 p.m. EDT, "Witnesses say that Floyd Lee Corkins walked into the conservative group's headquarters, told the security guard 'I don't like your politics,' and then shot him in the arm." . . .

and this:

Even after the shooting of a security guard at the Family Research Council, the Huffington Post can’t stop slamming the pro-family organization as a “hate group.” The Huffington Post waited less than 3 hours before publishing an article which complained about “the Family Research Council, which the Southern Poverty Law Center deems a hate group.” . . .

Children raise by homosexual parents apparently have some real problems

A new study finds significant problems in children raised by homosexual parents.

Those who knew that their mothers had had a lesbian relationship fared significantly worse on measures of educational attainment and household income, reported more depression, used marijuana more, more often reported forced sexual encounters, felt less close to their biological mother, felt less safe and secure in their family of origin, had more often pled guilty to a minor criminal offense and were more likely to be on public assistance.
Those who knew their fathers had had a gay relationship were more likely to have been arrested, to have thought recently about suicide, to feel depressed, to report sexually transmitted diseases and to have experienced forced sex.
Twenty-three percent of young adults who knew their mother to have had a gay relationship reported being forced to have sexual contact with a parent or adult caregiver, while only 2 percent of intact families with a mother and father reported such contact.  For female young adults, that figure leapt to 31 percent (while only 3 percent of young women from intact heterosexual families reported this). . . .

Keith Ablow has a general discussion beyond what is quoted above about this research.

Gay Marriage Amendment doesn't qualify for the California Ballot

Who cares about what the voters want if you think that you have the courts to create a new right?

A challenge to California's gay marriage ban failed on Monday to qualify for the 2010 ballot, leaving gay activists mulling a 2012 push and hoping a federal court will overturn the measure before then.

Los Angeles-based Love Honor Cherish carried out a volunteer-driven signature-gathering effort after large groups decided there was not enough time to ensure victory this year, even with some polls showing more than 50 percent support for same-sex marriage.

A 150-day period to gather signatures to place the question on the ballot ended on Monday. . . .

Americans Expect Supreme Court to Reject Gay Marriage

Well, people may think that will be the case, but they might be too hopeful. If the Obama administration replaces just one of the five moderate or conservative Supreme Court justices that won't be true.

As you may know, a U.S. District Court is reviewing the constitutional validity of California’s Proposition 8, which restored the definition of marriage in California as being between a man and a woman. It is expected that the case will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which may end up ruling about the validity of same-sex marriage at the federal level. If this case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, what do you expect the outcome to be? If this case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, what do you expect the outcome to be?

A ruling that defines marriage federally as between a man and a woman
52%
A ruling that defines marriage federally as between two people
28% . . .