It's not looking good for those who want to repeal the California Marriage Amendment in 2010. Marriage neutering advocates are squabbling over the timing of ballot measures and court cases. The Los Angeles Times, of course, reports on the matter in an especially biased manner. My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.

I frequently criticize The Los Angeles Times in my blog postings, and often disagree strongly with the editorial board. But I do have some praise for them in this specific case. They have a blog called Top of the Ticket, billed as "Politics and commentary, coast to coast, from the Los Angeles Times". One of the two bloggers is Andrew Malcolm. In addition to informative, I find his entries to be entertaining.  Adding to the fun are some of the comments by readers after certain entries. Most of the comments indicate that the people commenting have completely missed the tone of Mr. Malcom's blog entry. Conservative who do so blast his entries as Leftist and typical of the MSM, though the entries are anything but typical for site like LATimes.com. Leftists who don't get it call him "dumb" and try to enlighten him. It's great stuff, and you should check it out, especially if you like satire, parody, irony, and sarcasm.

Of course, now that I've posted this, the blog will probably fold.

Sometimes, reading the letters printed in the Los Angeles Times is like watching a clumsy, arthritic, stoned clown breakdance in a funhouse mirror.

Brad Scabbard of Woodland Hills actually brings up some good points:

Judith Miller and David Samuels contend that it is not Islam but Islamic heretic extremists who are our enemies. Are they really saying that they know Islam better than the millions of Muslims who follow the Koran's injunctions regarding the infidel? Can they cite any influential non-jihadi imams who have publicly condemned the "extremists"? Have they read the Koran?

I've read up a little on Islam – mostly I did it before 9/11. But I can't tell you with any confidence who is practicing "real" Islam. Clearly, the majority of people identifying themselves as Muslims are not engaging in terrorism.

I can tell you that someone who tries to spread Christianity by the sword is not in line with Christian doctrine.

Frederic E. Bloomquist of San Pedro wrote:

When the George W. Bush administration decided to unilaterally invade Iraq based on a falsehood, we also acted as an extremist group, killing thousands of innocents.

Are you for real, Bloomquist?

The Bush administration, with the approval of Congress including Democrats, and the U.N., led a coalition into Iraq, as the existing regime there had demonstrably violated terms of the Gulf War cease fire. And yes, innocents died. That's war. We take steps not to kill innocents. Our enemies do not.

You have to check out the rest of his letter.

John C. Nangle of West Hollywood tries to equate Sharia law with our Constitutional system coupled with the presence of Roman Catholicism in our nation.

Governments should pursue the common good so that public order prevails despite differing opinion, even on theological issues.

Nangle says we should do something. From where does that obligation arise?

In the U.S., one such issue is availability of abortion, shaped by the religious views of a minority who dismiss factors that should guide public policy.

Really? Abortion isn't available? When was the last time Nangle tried to get one and had trouble? One need not be "religious" to oppose abortion, either. In addition, a majority of Americans want more restrictions on abortion.

It seems to be of little concern to them that the number of abortion-related injuries would increase by making abortion less available.

Would it really? Even so, it would reduce the number of slaughtered babies. Murder is a lot worse than self-inflicted injury.

On the contrary, we ought to base law on good public policy and shame those who would use religious coercion to try to get legislators to do otherwise.

It is up to each and every individual legislator which religion, if any, to practice.

Frank Ferrone of El Cajon wrote:

Ah, the joys of the "let the marketplace take care of itself" school of government. About 22 million Americans are suffering with the H1N1 virus, and one-third of the nation's workers don't have paid sick days. In other words, the sick must come to work or lose pay and be disciplined.

Mr. Ferrone, why do you assume that the service these workers provide is so worthless that employers won't want to retain them by coming up with a solution to this problem?

Joyce Moran of San Clemente wrote:

A vomiting food and beverage concierge was docked and disciplined by the Disneyland Hotel for leaving her shift early. I will never, ever set foot in that place again. I hope thousands of other people feel the same after reading this.

Mike Villano of Lake Balboa wrote:

That the Disneyland Hotel would deny sick days to its employees is not just morally reprehensible, it should also be criminal.

I suppose it is mere coincidence that the Disneyland Hotel is currently involved in a labor dispute with people who act like Disney kidnaps employees and forces them to work at gunpoint… I'm sure this has nothing to do with that story being included in the article or these letters being written. Nah, not at all.

I happen to know that Disney is ridiculously generous with sick days and attendance. The people who show up to work sick do so because they take so many other days off as "sick days" when they really aren't sick, that they run the risk of losing their jobs. If they wouldn't do that, they could easily call in sick when they really are sick.

Listen up, people. You apply for your jobs in this country. Don’t like it? Go somewhere better. Or create your own job.

The Los Angeles Times got some responses to their recent editorial on marriage neutering, which I analyzed here.

They printed some letters to the editor.

D. Paul Thomas of Pasadena wrote:

And though there is little empirical evidence that "families and the institution of marriage" will be "strengthened" by same-sex marriage, those in the "strong grip" of tradition and religion are asked to believe that gay marriage is an inalienable right, benefiting both the institution of marriage and culture itself.

When will there be vigorous dialogue on the efficacy of same-sex marriage as a greater good for the body politic?

As I have said, it is up to those who want to neuter marriage to convince the rest of us that doing so would be of net benefit to society. Simply calling it a right doesn’t make it so.

The paper posted comments attached to the editorial itself.

"purplearies" wrote 11/04/2009, 4:56 PM:

Keep your "closely held beliefs" to yourself, and stop enshrining them into law.

So I guess this person does not vote according to his personal beliefs? Strange. Does he vote by closing his eyes and waving his finger over the ballot?

"flanoggin" wrote 11/04/2009, 6:21 PM:

Supreme Court stated marriage was a right in Virginia v Loving, over 40 years ago

Notice that the court did not order the neutering of marriage licensing in that case. But nice try.

"MikeJ123" wrote 11/04/2009, 8:26 PM:

I was NOT using my morals as the standard for everyone, but here YOU are using YOUR morals as the standard that SHOULD be held by everyone, as if I think something different than you I'm automatically a bigot. How dare you! I have the right to hold my opinion and the right to defend it. It is MY OPINION. You have the right to your opinion as well.

Precisely.

Anything the State licenses, it can regulate.

Yup.

"poodlegirl2009" wrote 11/05/2009, 7:36 AM:

Many young people start off their adult lives with very liberal notions (I was very liberal in my early 20's). Once they get a little older and start careers (paying taxes), start a committed relationship (slow the party mentality), get married, have kids, send those kids into school, etc., etc., the realities of this world set in and they move more towards a conservative position.

Thus, I wouldn't count on the "next generation" to be anymore helpful than the "counter-culture" generation of the 60's & 70's because they are the ones rejecting homosexual marriage at the ballot box.

Ouch.

"esquireD" wrote 11/05/2009, 1:40 PM:

To timecronk (or should I say "time warp?"), I have to disagre with you about marriage being defined by god. Your imaginary friend has nothing to do with marriage.

Mind you, this is coming from someone who, in another comment, said he is collecting the comments to aid in the federal court consideration of a lawsuit against the California Marriage Amendment, to try to demonstrate that somehow, a few anonymous comments on an editorial are proof that everyone voted for the CMA due to animus. He's demonstrating animus against someone's Constitutionally enumerated right to their religion. Does that prove the lawsuit is motivated by animus?

It was, and always has been a LEGAL contract between TWO persons and their government.

And the state can, and does, have limits on that. Or are you also arguing to allow two siblings to legally marry?

Keep church and state separated, as the framers of our Constutition (many of whom were staunch anti-Christians, and believed in Deism) intended it...

Emphasis mine. This is a demonstrable lie. See here, here, and here. Of course, when they lose the argument about the Founding Fathers, they usually resort to dismissing them as sexist slaveholder witchburners.

"JonR." wrote: 11/05/2009, 1:59 PM:

By all means start to get real tired of this 'crap'. It'll make it that much easier for those of us who have any sense of justice to run the bigots and fundamentalists over like so much roadkill.

Somehow I doubt this last comment will be included in what "esquireD" submits to the court.

If you've ever seen the audition episodes of American Idol, you've probably seen someone trying to convince the judges that they could be pop music superstars via the show, even after the judges have decided to turn them down. They keep singing, often badly, trying to change the minds of the judges. Sometimes their behavior becomes downright scary in response for not being affirmed by the judges as something they're not.

We're seeing that kind of behavior now when it comes to marriage licensing laws.

The Los Angeles Times editorial board reminds us that they are advocates of marriage neutering, just in case we forgot. They bemoan the vote in Maine, and how long it is taking for marriage to be redefined - after thousands of years of worldwide history - to accommodate a few people within a minority who want to force everyone else to call their relationship marriage. But they do see signs of "progress".

Washington state voters appeared to approve giving gays and lesbians in domestic partnerships the same practical rights as married couples.

Interesting that the editorial board seems to think this is a good thing, but the legislature passing it in California wasn't enough. Here, having "only" domestic partnerships was presented as the end of the world - an insult.

Newly approved federal law recognizes that crimes committed because of the victim's sexual orientation are hate crimes

Crime is crime. Assault, unless for self defense or to protect the innocent, should be illegal - period. But I can't wait for this to be used when a straight person gets assaulted and called a "breeder".

next on the federal agenda is ending employment discrimination against gays and lesbians.

As long as the federal government is going to intrude into the employer-employee relationship to prevent the employer from discriminating on the basis of personal identity or behaviors engaged in by the employee away from work, then I don't see why it shouldn't be involved here. However, I believe in property rights, and as such, I think employers should be able to discriminate on any basis they want to, including firing me for being a Christian, as long as they don't take tax money. Meanwhile, I wonder if a gay bar would really be prosecuted for not hiring me? After all, if the law truly protects from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then it has to protect straight people, too, not just homosexual people, as the editorial implies.

Lifelong marriage traditions and deeply held religious beliefs have a strong grip on many voters.

Imagine that. It isn't just lifelong, either. It's since the dawn of human history. Yup. Observations about human nature, the valuing of both masculinity and femininity, the grasping of certain first things - that can have a string grip on many voters.

Gays and lesbians shouldn't have to wait for an entire generation to reach voting age in order to receive equal rights.

When it comes to marriage, they already have equal rights, and that is how it should be.

In related news, the paper's blog covered a Sore Losers march, choosing to use a picture that does nothing to dispel the notion that homosexual people are strange. Several comments from claimed eyewitnesses say that the picture is highly misleading in that virtually everyone else in the march was dressed normally. For what it is worth, I know homosexual people who find these people strange. Robert J. Lopez reports.

More than 200 people are marching north on Vermont Avenue from Santa Monica Boulevard to protest Proposition 8, the measure that banned same-sex marriages in California.

I think the paper is giving these things more attention than they deserve, given the size of the protest. I also find it odd that these people expect us all to reorient our society to cater to their feelings because they've run editorials or disrupted traffic. Saying that a marriage license is a "right" owed to brideless or groomless couples or that changing our laws to issue licenses to such couples is the right thing to do does not make it true. Even if some really fabulous people say it.

Time and again, the people have considered the pleas of those who want to redefine marriage, and we have said "No" each and every time.

If you haven't done so already, check out this entry over at The Opine Editorials.

Hey! Church leadership! The Los Angeles Times editorial board has some advice for you. And considering how newspapers are losing their subscribers, what better place to get your advice on how to run your church and what you should believe when it comes to God?

Last weekend, the paper ran this editorial regarding the outreach of the Roman Catholic Church to Anglicans who do not want to abandon the Bible or tradition when it comes to sexual behavior.

This week's announcement that the Roman Catholic Church will welcome disaffected Anglicans en masse is of primary interest to members of the two Christian communions.

But that won't stop the editorial board from butting in.

But this religious realignment is also a reminder to supporters of equality for women and gays and lesbians that they must literally preach to the converted if they are to win believers to their cause.

I'm not aware of any RCC teaching or policy that says women and those with homosexual feelings are somehow unequal to men or those without homosexual feelings.

But Benedict's action is part of a formidable religious backlash against gay rights that isn't confined to the pulpit; witness the lobbying by some religious leaders against same-sex civil marriages.

They think it is okay to actually believe and live out your convictions – as long as you stay within the walls of your church. Well, not really. They want to tell you how to do it inside your own church, too.

Marriage defense is about marriage, family, and society, not about denying any rights to anybody.

Under the 1st Amendment, churches in this country can't be forced to alter their doctrine or to stop preaching against the supposed immorality of homosexuality.

Too bad for you.

Even so, supporters of gay rights in particular -- many of them Christians -- should try to dispel the notion that belief in God is incompatible with full equality for gays and lesbians.

I believe in God, and I believe people who engage in homosexual behavior are doing something wrong. But that doesn’t make them inequal.

Now as before the pope's action, Christians can be reminded -- as they have been by both Anglican and Catholic theologians -- that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and that church leaders, including popes, have changed their thinking over the years about everything from usury to the culpability of Jews for the Crucifixion to the desirability of religious tolerance.

I see. If the church teaching or approach on anything ever changed, that means everything must be changed?

As far as "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality” – that is an argument that has been shown to be a bad one in many ways, many, many, many, many times. And check out this for good measure.

Quickly, 1) Jesus is God, and thus Jesus affirmed what God taught, and that included things about sexual behavior and marriage - this was reaffirmed with Jesus also being a Jew who affirmed the teachings of the Scriptures - and unlike other established practices and traditions of those days, Jesus is never recorded as changing or ending or countering or clarifying the existing teachings about homosexual behavior; 2) Jesus chose and raised up Apostles and disciples who also wrote about sexual behavior and marriage under the inspiration of God (the Holy Spirit); 3) Jesus spoke about the two sexes and the practice of them cleaving to each other.

This editorial features "sleight of words". Disapproval - and therefore refusal to endorse and celebrate – homosexual behavior is presented as identical to denying the equality of people who identify as homosexuals. Guess what? My church removed someone from a teaching position because he was engaged in adultery (= who he chose to engage in sex with). This man was attracted to this other woman. Does that mean the church denies the equality of men?

The Los Angeles Times should stop treating churches like they are mere social clubs that would benefit from their hip advice. That may be the way the editorial board sees churches, and they are free to express their opinions, but they’re just being silly. I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else how to make their gay pride parade better.

The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times is again calling for the rewriting of California's constitution.

People who call for this do so for one or both of the following reasons:

1) In November 2008, California voters adopted the California Marriage Amendment.
2) In May 2009, California voters overwhelmingly defeated a deceptive ballot measure that would have extended tax increases.

That's it. Because we believe we are taxed enough already, and because we believe it is our place to change marriage licensing and not a court's, the Leftists in the state want to scrap the rules of the game. It's not enough for them to control the legislature, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. They want to punish us for not voting their way on ballot measures.

It's not always easy to identify the tentacles that are strangling California and keeping it from fulfilling its promise for 38 million residents. Who wrecked our public school system, which was once the envy of the world? Who ruined the nation's premier network of highways, the most ambitious and reliable water delivery system, the best state parks? Who killed the spirit of opportunity and innovation that once made California the headquarters for banks and oil companies, for makers of surfboards and electric guitars, for computers and communications?

Environmentalist whackos, illegal aliens, and government employee unions – that would be a good place to start.

Well over two-thirds of registered voters said recently that they would vote yes on two key ballot measures to pave the way for a constitutional convention to wrest back control of the state for Californians.

I highly doubt that the poll indicated that such a convention would likely doom Prop 13. Include that, and what it would mean, and watch the number plummet. That two thirds of Californians don't think the state government is working well right now doesn't mean they all way to go in the same Leftward direction.

One tentacle belongs to public employee unions.

When even these people admit this, then you know it isn't some extremist right-wing strawman.

They have the influence to select Democratic Party primary candidates in urban areas, and the money and foot soldiers to ensure their election. Then, at contract time, those unions sit across the table from officials they put in office -- officials who realize they are bargaining with people who have the power to end their careers.

It isn’t just contract time. It is during much of the legislative process. If the California Teachers Association wants a Harvey Milk Day, to celebrate someone because he was attracted to men and was murdered in a personnel dispute, then by golly they will get one.

Another tentacle belongs to big business.

They couldn't take Big Labor to task without also going after business. But here's the difference. People choose whether or not to purchase from, invest in, or work for a business. Most people in a union in California had much less choice about joining that union, and whether or not their dues go to support Leftist campaigns.

We need to split the state. That will have more positives in outcomes than a new state constitution. As I've written before, I don't care if one or more new states are created, or if parts of California get annexed by other states – but it is ridiculous to subject the rest of us to the whims of the crazies in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Without the split, I smell a rat.

I can keep responding to them as long as they keep trying to tell us neutered marriage licenses against the consent of a governed are a "right". My analysis of their latest editorial is over at The Opine Editorials.

The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times has published their opinion on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asking for a judge to hear evidence on whether or not global warming is a health threat.

Yet the trouble with the chamber's petition, which it filed Tuesday with the EPA, is that it has little basis in precedent or law.

Neither did many court decisions this editorial board would consider to be great, even heroic, decisions.

Here's the meat of their argument:

It's true that the EPA sometimes holds hearings before administrative law judges when the legality of its regulations is challenged, but the chamber wants it to hold such a hearing before any regulation has been approved, and the judge to rule not on a law but on the scientific basis for making a law. This has a whiff of a political stunt designed to fail -- and when it does, to give the chamber a pretext for accusing the Obama administration of not giving a fair hearing to scientific arguments that challenge mainstream climate-change theory.

Or, maybe the conclusion would be that there is nothing the federal government can, or should, do.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Businesses and individuals are facing increasing encroachment into our choices and our finances by the government in the name of global warming, or "climate change" as you folks are calling it now, because of the cooling taking place.

Environmentalists can be dismayingly smug about climate change, sometimes claiming that the science is "settled" and there's nothing left to argue about.

Wow, thank you for admitting this.

The weight of scientific evidence suggests very strongly that the globe is getting warmer, that greenhouse gases emitted by humans are the cause and that the health and welfare of future generations are under serious threat.

We'll have to disagree. But even if we did agree, we have to ask if it is actually possible to make a difference.

Of course, bringing more nuclear power plants online would make us less dependent on energy that releases "greenhouse gases". Shouldn't we be more like France?

Sometimes I wonder.  Recent content in the Los Angeles Times has given me pause again.  The paper's website had two items on two pairings of penguins who have been held up as examples of homosexual relationships in nature, but have subsequently seen at least one of the penguins engage in heterosexual behavior.  Maria L. La Ganga had a mostly light-hearted article.

Our friend Karin Klien also covered the matter in the paper's opinion blog, and couldn't help throwing in this:

So this makes what of the whole argument about same-sex marriage for humans? Perhaps only a reminder that penguins do not seem as inclined to judge their peers' preferences as humans are.

Huh?  The penguins aren't stopping their peers from pairing up in same-sex coupling, and neither are humans.  The difference is, the paired penguins were not forcing the other penguins to do anything for their relationship, while some same-sex human couples are demanding that the rest of us neuter our marriage licensing against our will and against the framework that has served society throughout history.

In general, I do not think citing animal behaviors is a strong argument for either side, other than pointing out that same-sex pairings do not produce offspring in nature, either.  Whether or not two birds or two canines of the same sex nest together or mimic mating behavior or not should not lead to policy for human behavior or licensing voluntary personal relationships.

Alexandra Zavis has this piece about the struggles of same-sex couples dealing with the military's "Don’t ask, don’t tell" policy and a documentary about it.

Kudos to anyone who seeks to serve in our armed forces.  But I'd like to point out that - fair or not - this policy has been around for 15 years now, and before that the military was even more strongly discouraging of homosexual behavior.  So someone who volunteers to enter the military knows the boundaries they are going to have.  Someone who chooses to be with them is no doubt also aware.

If you don't like the price of membership in an organization, don't join it.  Many union members wish they had a more realistic ability to opt out.

There's also this piece by Dennis Lim going over the "The Human Rights Watch DVD Collection".  Surprisingly, there is only one homosexuality-focused documentary mentioned.  And theres no doubt, there are places in the world where homosexual behavior is met with appalling brutality.  Iran is so hostile that there aren't any homosexual people there, according to Ahmadinnerjacket, and he always tells the truth.

Far higher percentages of population identify as Christian, or divorced, or African-American, or Latino, or any other number of identifications than identify as part of the LGBTQQUA community.  Yet mainstream media gives the latter so much attention.

I told you Obama's election would not reduce this nonsense.  A recent Los Angeles Times editorial insists that we will need racist policies that treat people differently solely based on their skin color.

To some Americans, it means that today, 145 years after the abolition of slavery, we can finally check race relations off the list and move our focus to the other pressing problems that face the country. Others say that's ridiculous and that, Obama or no Obama, the work of creating a truly egalitarian, nondiscriminatory society remains far from finished.

A lack of racism does not necessarily mean there will be equal outcomes.  Discrimination of some sort is necessary in every aspect of life, though I do agree it is stupid and counterproductive to discriminate against people as employees or consumers or citizens based on circumstances of their birth that have no relation to how well they fulfill their role.  Or rather, I agree with the editorial board that it is stupid and counterproductive when it comes to doing that against traditional minority groups, but where I split from the board is that it is also stupid and counterproductive to discriminate against white people.

Oh, and it is clear in reading this editorial that the board must think that the systems discussed do not discriminate against Asian Americans such as those of Chinese or Japanese ancestry.  Yeah, whitey hates the brown and black man, but not the yellow man.

Or is it that white racism isn't really a widespread, pervasive problem anymore – except when it comes from pandering Leftist who seem to think that some people just can't get along in life without assistance from them?

As many conservatives see it, we're living in a chastened, post-racial America in which discrimination has been largely dismantled, Jim Crow is dead and gaps are being narrowed.

Actually, Larry Elder points out that there is plenty of racism - by some African Americans.

More specifically, we should do away with morally troublesome policies such as affirmative action, minority set-asides and "pre-clearance" that aid minority groups at the expense of the majority, and revert, instead, to the sounder principle of colorblind justice for all.

Of course.

This page agrees that race-conscious policies such as affirmative action should be temporary -- existing only until they are no longer necessary because society's inequities have been addressed.

Outcomes will never, ever be equal.  Never.  Never.  Never.  Even in Soviet-style forced-equality, there were the connected few who had advantages over the masses.  So when is enough enough?  Notice that the race-obsessed Left, which looks at everyone as part of  balkanized groups, can never give a time frame or some hard goal that can be verified.  It is always going to be "needed" because the Left likes to have that control.

But it is naive to think we have arrived at that moment.

Oh, of course it is naïve.  Yes, only the wise editorial board and other Leftists can see what is really going on in society.

Although more blacks go to college today, and although they have more opportunity to compete for middle-class jobs, the black poverty rate in 2007 was still triple that of whites, and the black male unemployment rate today is still almost double the white male rate.

And what can government do about that?  We’ve had government program upon government program for scores of years already.  More government involvement actually seems to make it worse, or stifle true progress.

Blatant, de jure racism has given way to a murkier variant. For instance, although the intentional segregation of public schools was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, UCLA's Civil Rights Project reports that blacks and Latinos attend schools today that are more segregated than they've been in 40 years.

That’s because school attendance is almost mandated according to where people live.  What should we do?  Force people to relocate so that they will be living next to someone of a different skin color?

The disproportionate number of young black men in prison -- one in nine African American men between the ages of 20 and 34 is incarcerated -- has devastated black communities.

And there are far more men in prison than women.  So where is your editorial about that?

They are afraid  that the SCOTUS will strike down racist programs:

But it's not clear how long this conservative court will hold off. In the Austin case, the court noted ominously that "we are now a very different Nation" and hinted that a new look at the constitutional issues surrounding race might be coming.

Give me a break - ominously?  The best way to end racism is to... not be racist!

The Los Angeles Times had a few different items relating to the push to neuter marriage.

First up is this article by Molly Hennessy-Fiske about how the Southern Christian Leadership Conference may actually hold a local leader, Reverend Eric P. Lee, accountable.

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a civil rights group partly founded by Martin Luther King Jr., has threatened to fire the president of its Los Angeles chapter because he supports same-sex marriage.

Actually, he has supported court-imposed-against-the-vote-of-the-people neutered marriage licensing.

The SCLC national board notified Lee on May 27 that he would have to attend a hearing at its Atlanta headquarters on June 4 to explain his stance on same-sex marriage. If he did not show up, they said, they would suspend and fire him.

Good for the SCLC, but why is this news?  Really?  Aren't there cases every day of employees and members of organizations that are disciplined for going against the policy of the leadership?  What would happen to a local ACLU leader who was so outspoken that students should actually be able to organize prayer in a public school?

But Lee said he was driven to support same-sex marriage by the teachings of King, who helped found the SCLC to champion civil rights 50 years ago.

"Any time one group of people are denied the same rights as other people, it is unequivocally a denial of civil rights," Lee said.

Everyone, heterosexual or homosexual, has the same rights.  This argument is a red herring.  I don't seem to remember King calling for the neutering of marriage.  What, was he a bigot?

Duke Helfand covered some of a convention of Episcopalians, who are having to waste precious time dealing with homosexuality advocates who are trying to reorder the entire Anglican communion for the sake of their sexual desires.

Despite warnings about the consequences, liberal Episcopalians at the meeting are championing a flurry of resolutions to expand participation of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in church life, with votes expected in coming days.

I can’t imagine some dude  reading from the Scriptures that say God made them male and female while standing there after hes had their genitalia removed by a surgeon so as to appear to be female.

Among resolutions attracting attention is one from the bishop of Maine that would give priests in states where gay marriage has been legalized "generous discretion," under the direction of bishops, to adapt marriage blessings for same-sex couples.

Yes, let's follow Caesar over the Jesus.  That's a good thing for a church to do.

Other proposals call for the church to develop and authorize blessing rites for such couples, and to amend church canons so that they use gender-neutral language in reference to marriage.

Based on what?  The only condoned same-sex relationships in the Bible are strictly friendships.

Finally, the paper's editorial board chimes in on the 2010 census.

The paper is essentially saying that same-sex couples should be recognized as married and thus counted that way, and, as a result, DOMA should be discarded... because the couples were counted... and therefore recognized as married!  Circular much?

Up to now, the census has simply asked an adult member of the household about the other members and their relationships. If a male said the other adult was his wife, the census would count them as a married couple. If a male said the other adult was his husband, the computer was directed to categorize them as "unmarried partners."

Under the new rules, the computer will stop doing that, though the census probably won't classify these couples as married but as something legally safe, such as "spousal-designated same-sex couple."

I thought the census was there to count the population for the purpose of allocating Representatives?  What does it matter to the federal government what relationships exist?  Just because two people are legally married does not mean that one of them ceases to exist.  I got one of the long census forms in 2000.  The only question I answered was how many people were in my household, and their ages.

The 13-year-old Defense of Marriage Act has always been discriminatory,

All laws are discriminatory.

and now it is out of sync with the realities of a changing society.

Changing society?  Are there suddenly more homosexual people?  More homosexual couples?

With same-sex marriage legalized in six states, the District of Columbia recognizing such marriages performed elsewhere and an estimated 18,000 married gay couples living in California, what's needed aren't convoluted interpretations of the federal law but a push from President Obama for Congress to repeal it.

A handful of states recognize neutered "marriage" licensing.  However, the rest of the states and territories recognize only bride+groom unions as marriage – most of them reinforced in their stance by constitutional amendment – amendments that have passed since the 2000 census.  This claim of momentum by the marriage neutering crowd is wishful thinking.

I have long followed how the Los Angeles Times covers issues related to the marriage neutering push.  Today I keep doing that.  Carrie Prejean is still Miss California USA, and the folks at the paper have a lot to say about that, mostly because she supports traditional marriage.  My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.

The rapidly declining Los Angeles Times demonstrates today one of the reasons why it is in so much trouble.  At least online, their main coverage of the TEA Parties, an article by Michael Finnegan and Janet Hook, is headlined this way:

Republicans Stage 'Tea Party' Protests Against Obama
Thousands of demonstrators in Southern California and elsewhere in the nation demand lower taxes and less government spending. But some GOP pollsters warn that the tactic could backfire.

And this is how the story begins:

Republicans sought to ignite a popular revolt against President Obama on Wednesday by staging "tea party" protests across the nation to demand lower taxes and less government spending -- but the tactic carried risk for the party.

Especially in California, the parties were mostly about more government spending, more debt, and higher taxes, either already implemented or that will be implemented as a result of the boost in spending.  Sure, there were some Republicans involved and same of the people were focusing on Obama, but these events were NONPARTISAN and NOT Obama protests.  The people who organized and participated are TAXPAYERS, some of them Democrats, some of them independents, some of them members of other parties other than the GOP, and they are upset with government in general, not just Obama.

The whole piece is a mess, especially with that lead-in.

You can read reactions here to an anti-TEA Party commentary that ran in the paper.  There were about a thousand.

Why is it so hard to believe that "ordinary" people are actually and legitimately upset and taking action?  Some people do understand that even if taxes are not raised directly on their income, they can still be hurt.  Some people do understand that too much debt is not good for future generations.  Some people do understand that they might someday be designated as “rich” and the target of direct taxes.

Anti-military-action and pro-shamnesty demonstrations, no matter how small or how much organizing was conducted by large, established groups, are taken seriously and with respect by the MSM.  Why not TEA Parties?

The ever-thinning Los Angeles Times, which has been taken to the woodshed by radio talk show hosts John & Ken for their lack of coverage or biased coverage of important political matters at the state and local level, as well as the paper's portrayal of their show, has run an article by Michael Finnegan that claims "Conservative Talk Radio on the Wane in California", largely about the John & Ken Show.  Gee, do you think they'll talk about it on their show?  Maybe that's the idea, as it will probably get more readers to check out the article.

The thing is, the "John & Ken Show" is not a conservative show.  It is much more a taxpayer/parent/driver show.  (They air in the 3pm-7pm slot.)  Yes, the hosts rail against illegal immigration, celebrity defense attorneys, murderers, child molesters, corrupt government officials, political correctness, and government employee unions' hold on state and local government, and new and higher taxes.  But plenty of nonconservatives do the same.  They are certainly not GOP loyalists.

Here's the fist line:

Tune in to conservative talk radio in California, and the insults quickly fly.

So, you know where this is going.

But for all the anti-tax swagger and the occasional stunts by personalities like KFI's John and Ken, the reality is that conservative talk radio in California is on the wane.

Really?  That’s strange.  I know that here in Los Angeles, we have:

KFI AM 640, which features Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, and Kennedy & Suits, in addition to the others mentioned in this article.

KABC AM 790, which features Curtis Sliwa, Don Imus, Joe Scarborough, Mike Huckabee, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Al Rantel, and Tammy Bruce (Saturday).

KRLA AM 870, which features Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Miller, Kevin James, and Bill Bennett.

KGIL AM 540/1260, which has definitely tilted more to the Right lately, features The Wall Street Journal This Morning, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Monica Crowley, Michael Savage, Lars Larson, and Larry King.

KKLA FM 99.5, which features religious programming including Focus on the Family and Frank Pastore.

While not all of those are conservative shows, very few of them are liberal.  Meanwhile, public radio and the local Air America station continue to hobble along.  The FM Talk station, definitely not conservative radio, flipped formats to music.

The economy's downturn has depressed ad revenue at stations across the state, thinning the ranks of conservative broadcasters.

Uh, this is the same for ALL BROADCAST RADIO, not just conservative shows.  Heck, all media that relies on ad revenue has been thinning, especially this newpaper.

For that and other reasons, stations have dropped the shows of at least half a dozen radio personalities and scaled back others, in some cases replacing them with cheaper nationally syndicated programs.

Most of which are still conservative.

Casualties include Mark Larson in San Diego, Larry Elder and John Ziegler in Los Angeles, Melanie Morgan in San Francisco, and Phil Cowen and Mark Williams in Sacramento.

Ziegler was replaced by two local hosts who usually take the conservative side.

Two of the biggest in the business, Roger Hedgecock in San Diego and Tom Sullivan in Sacramento, have switched to national shows, elevating President Obama above Schwarzenegger on their target lists.

So if they go national, they are on the wane?

The immediate question facing the state's conservative radio hosts is whether they can wield enough clout to block Schwarzenegger's ballot measures in May.

I sure hope so, because the newspapers are doing very little to make sure that the voters are thoroughly informed.

The older white Republicans who tend to listen to conservative radio are a shrinking portion of the state's voters.

They can be replenished.  But yes, California is losing producers of all skin colors and political affiliations to other states (and death), and replacing them with government-dependent union-party-line robots and dependent illegal aliens.

And apart from KFI, whose morning show with Bill Handel draws 652,000 listeners a week, the California shows are far less popular. The only hosts of conservative programs with a weekly audience of more than 100,000 are Doug McIntyre of KABC (790) in Los Angeles, Lee Rodgers of KSFO (560) in San Francisco and Rick Roberts of KFMB (760) in San Diego.

I can't speak about the others, but neither Bill Handel nor Doug McIntyre have conservative shows or are in-the-tank for the GOP.  You don't have to listen much to figure that out.

Recognizing that the state government and the City of LA are being run by corrupt union lackeys who are hostile to taxpayers does not make someone conservative.  Many self-identified liberals see this, too.