He Should've Made It A Year

Oh boy, I bet this will create a lot of jobs!

Scott Walker is bringing his full weight of office to bear by issuing a proclamation that he wants all to participate in the openly bigoted, anti-homosexual "National Marriage Week."

Word is he is going to ask his good pals Charlie Sykes, Newt Gingrich, John McCain and Rush Limbaugh to be honorary spokesman for the special occasion.

If you gave each of them a week per marriage, you'd have most of the year covered.

Pride In Prejudice

Sykes, Belling and others on the right have commented about the California Supreme Court's ruling finding the ban on same sex marriage to be unconstitutional. A good take on the meaning of the ruling is found here:

In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.

Sykes and the others take comfort in the fact that Wisconsin passed a constitutional amendment two years ago making this illegal. They rationalize their comfort with blatherings about "activist judges".

But considering this country's long struggle in trying to bring equal rights to African Americans and to women, and also considering the Declaration of Independence , which reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

it would seem to me that it is more shameful to embrace a position that is so prejudicial, that the only way to enforce it would be by tainting the Constitution, be it of a single state of the United States. But honest introspection from these people is probably asking too much.

For other good reads on the matter, I would refer the gentle reader to the Bubbly Barrister, who writes, in part:

And that's why Milwaukee medium-wave think tanker Charlie Sykes wants you to replace all judges committed to equal protection under the law with reliable GOP cronies and underachieving rubber stamps.

As if conservatives never go running to the courts to try and invalidate legislation they don't like. Mitch McConnell filed for an injunction against McCain-Feingold before the ink was even dry.

And the Blue Knight, Sir Zachary, presents us with his perspective, along with an interesting article that highlights the hypocrisy of those who hold to the strict religious reasonings for such prejudice.

Taking Pro-Life To The Extreme

McIlheran, apparently so enamored with his bizarre column, decided to blog on it as well.

Not only does he have a position of wanting to forbid women of the right to choose what happens to their bodies, he wants to tell them that they should have children, whether they want to or not:

It's one of those moments in which humans' interests are seemingly at odds with those of the environment. It doesn't have to be this way; humans, of course, have an interest in the environment in which we live, and we have every motive to use the resource well.

Still, it's a resource. Most people grasp that, but not always. Amy at Modern Commentaries helpfully noted a couple of Journal Sentinel letter writers who apparently didn't. A couple of chaps said -- and I'm quoting the money lines -- "All we have to do is make fewer babies," and "I rarely hear a discussion about how we have too many people!"

Actually, in much of the world, people are making fewer babies. Most of Europe, Japan, China, so on are already lining up for population plunges as fertility rates have fallen far below the replacement rate. Even the United Nations has been predicting a declining world population after 2050. This, by the by, isn't particularly good. Hard to have human societies without humans.

In other words, in McIlheran's mind, those among us who cannot or choose not to have children have doomed all of mankind. No wonder he considers those of us that love freedom as elitists. We're just so selfish to want to decide on how to live our lives.

I'm sure it won't be long before he proposes an auxiliary to the amendment banning gay marriage by demanding that people procreate or face prosecution.

He Was For It Before He Was Against It

McIlheran must be the Irish word for flip-flop...

McIlheran, September 30, 2006, on why it would be OK to ban gay marriage in Wisconsin:

And if we're still worried that companies will have to cut off benefits for unmarried partners, we can ask whether that's happened in any of the 19 states that already have such amendments.

It hasn't. Business groups, benefits experts, human resources consultants, even anti-amendment group Fair Wisconsin will tell you that no company has had to cut off benefits because of an amendment. And no one's tried to make a company do so.

Some government employers have run into lawsuits over benefits for same-sex couples. The straightforward answer, say lawyers who filed those suits, is for cities and schools not to premise taxpayer-funded benefits on a particular kind of unmarried relationship. Simply offer an employee-plus-one option open to lovers or disabled adult brothers equally, as some employers already do, and local governments won't be recognizing some unmarried relationships as particularly special.

McIlheran, November 20, 2007, on why we shouldn't allow same sex benefits at MPS:

Milwaukee School Board member Jennifer Morales wants the schools, for benefits purposes, to treat people who are shacking up as if they were married -- "domestic partner" benefits, it's called.

It's supposed to be the epitome of progress. Morales says it's a matter of fairness:
"Fairness for employees is fairness for employees," she told the Journal Sentinel. "It's not about me, it's not about Tina."

Tina would be the woman to whom Morales says she's married. If the schools approve this deal, Morales and Tina Owen, who works at an MPS charter school, would be considered spouses for benefits purposes.

For a more detailed account of McIlheran's self-contradictory and outrageous commentary, According to Nick lays it out.