Lion of the Blogosphere

The gays have won, what’s next?

Now that the gays have won and there doesn’t seem to be anything else to accomplish with gay rights, what’s next? Two articles in today’s NY Times perhaps give some hints.

In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas explains how free speech is being suppressed at college campuses under the theory that they need to protect sensitive students from severe mental and physical trauma of hearing ideas they disagree with. The logical next step for liberals is to move this concept out of campus to the greater world at large.

Regulating Sex explains the future of rape law: affirmative consent will be required and sexual assault will be expanded to include any touching whatsoever. Thus if a man who takes a woman’s hand, and the woman didn’t explicitly say it would be OK to do that, the man could be convicted of sexual assault and sent to prison.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 28, 2015 at 10:20 AM

Posted in Uncategorized

112 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Well I don’t think the SJW’s are done with marriage yet, They have set their sites on the next target:

    As a PS to that, yes, I think churches will be required to perform same sex marriages or lose their tax exemptions. After all, why should the government subsidize discrimination?

    But outside that, as the confederate flag shows, anything that a typical SJW finds offensive, will become the standard to rate everything as to whether it’s offensive or not and deserves a place in the public square. Culturally, it’s a pretty profound shift. The past couple of years have shown that the outrage pace has picked up. Each time it gets more ridiculous, I think to myself, “We’ve hit peak leftism.” But no, new targets are selected and on it goes. No ending in sight.

    Mike Street Station

    June 28, 2015 at 10:33 AM

    • SJWs don’t want polygamy.

      • I’m not sure in what sense you mean that.

        Do they want to actually be in a polygamous marriage? No. Any more than most gays want to be in a gay marriage. That doesn’t seem to be the point. Kicking the teeth in of Mr & Mrs Fly over Middle Class is the point.

        Mike Street Station

        June 28, 2015 at 11:14 AM

      • Muslims will get rights to it at knifepoint, Mormons will do another migration.


        June 28, 2015 at 1:14 PM

      • You are right, they don’t.

        But what they do want is to feel morally superior to everyone else.

        If they go for it, they will tie it into Muslims and say they are fighting for minority rights. If it wasn’t for the Mormans, they would be drawing up battle plans right now.

        Nathan Wartooth

        June 28, 2015 at 1:31 PM

      • Correct, but there is no need to speculate, because we’re already seeing it. The next step is to use anti-discrimination law to extend the ability of federal bureaucrats and lawyers to regulate every aspect the workplace and businesses large and small with respect to sexual orientation.

        Telling your coworker that you think a child should have a mother and a father will get you reported to HR for hate crimes and person or group, especially religious organizations, that believes in traditional marriage will destroyed.


        Mercy Vetsel

        June 29, 2015 at 9:22 AM

      • I don’t think it works that way, Lion. I don’t think it’s a matter of what they ‘want’. It’s more that their own liberal belief system, which they do very much want to hold and to flourish, inexorably leads them in that direction and leaves them morally and intellectually disarmed when groups they might not have sympathy with, such as those who would legalise incest, step forward to press their particular claims. They realise themselves that liberalism is in a constant state of flux with no defined end-point because it is only ever about one-upmanship over people with less progressive and fashionable opinions. For this reason they must always have an eye to the future and be careful not to condemn behaviour that in 10-20 years they may has now become the new, hot civil rights issue.

        How many of the progressive left in the sixties really went so far as to openly agitate in favour of gay marriage or sex changes? Was it really on the radar back then? How many of those in their thirties now really thought twice about gay marraige even when they were twenty?

        I suppose you could test this theory. Next time a liberal starts complaining about homophobia or whatever, try asking them–‘why don’t you cut to the chase? Instead of this endless trench warfare where you inch forward and pass endlessly ever-so-slightly more liberal laws, just tell me which laws you would pass right now if you could, which sexual practices would you give full equality and which not. In short, what and where is your end point?’

        My guess is that they would not answer and could not answer. They will not have thought about it and would be uncomfortable offering specifics that would leave them hostages to fortune either by picking causes that are currently disgusting and turned out to remain so, or leaving out causes that in a few years they suddenly find that they ‘passionately’ support. They would offer a bland statement about ‘just wanting full equality.’ But that is so empty an aspiration as to be meaningless.

        prolier than thou

        June 29, 2015 at 1:14 PM

    • Liberal Democrats will never fight for polygamy because of its historic association with religious groups, primarily the Mormons. Since they despise religion it goes without saying that they will oppose it. Multiple wives also goes against feminist orthodoxy.

      I expect to see a push for incest and pedophilia rights next. There are already far left groups like NAMBLA that have wanted child sex for years. The media’s treatment of Roman Polanski was very telling during the allegations of him having sex with a teenage girl. Many liberal Hollywood types supported Polanski during that ordeal even though he obviously took advantage of her. As animal rights gains a greater foothold you may also see some left wing loons advocate for beasteality rights as well. I personally am not opposed to gay marriage but I can see the tremendous slippery slope that the far left will inevitably slide down if left to their own devices.

      Keep in mind that just a generation ago gay marriage was largely unthinkable, even to the most ardent Marxists. These new sexual frontiers may seem farfetched now but they could easily enter the mainstream within another twenty years. Then we will really be in the caboose.


      June 28, 2015 at 11:11 AM

      • “Liberal Democrats will never fight for polygamy because of its historic association with religious groups, primarily the Mormons. Since they despise religion it goes without saying that they will oppose it. Multiple wives also goes against feminist orthodoxy.”



        June 28, 2015 at 2:12 PM

      • They don’t want polygamy. They want polyandry. More specifically, they want the right of woman to unilaterally declare a marriage “open” and bring other men into the relationship and the household without such an act being grounds for a divorce with strict financial and visitation penalties.

        Basically, they want to give women the right to cheat on their husbands while the husband has no legal recourse at all.

        The larger reason for this is to destroy families, create more broken homes and funnel problem kids into the foster care system where they can be preyed upon by pedophiles like Dennis Hastert.


        June 28, 2015 at 2:46 PM

    • I’m pretty sure SJWs will go polygamy first, then pederasty, then bestiality (whatever the marriage form of that is).

      Lion of the Judah-sphere

      June 28, 2015 at 12:19 PM

      • You forgot prostution (legal many European countries) and incest.

        NAMBLA can get what it wants by reducing the age of consent to 13 or 14, which were common only a few years ago. 14 is also the age at which school nurses hand out birth control devices, and at which a girl can get an abortion without parental consent or even knowledge.

        It is more than a little interesting that what NAMBLA wants is what actually happened in the Catholic Church (and in all other religions and public schools), homosexual priests seduced teen aged altar boys.

        Remember also that for Muslims girls can be married as early as 9 (Mohammed’s practice), although I believe the marriages can’t be consummated until after puberty.

        I think bestiality and necrophilia are off the table.

        bob sykes

        June 28, 2015 at 1:31 PM

      • definitely
        that would be my order
        pederasty and bestiality is just a matter of time


        June 28, 2015 at 8:31 PM

    • The Millennials have no notion whatsoever of how AIDS was wiping out blacks and gays, until they were saved by stale pale male AIDS researchers and R&D money from generous taxpayers. (The rest of us were just taught to blame Reagan for the disease.)

      South Africa’s then-president Thabo Mbeki embargoed AIDS drugs and blamed the disease on “poverty” not a virus.

      Today, the MSM follows in his footsteps, blaming all NAM dysfunction on outside factors.

      You always hear stories on WWII anniversaries about superannuated French people thanking Allied soldiers for liberating them. But no such gratitude will ever be forthcoming from blacks and gays for the expensive drugs and the heroic scientific efforts that rescued them from an ugly fate.


      June 28, 2015 at 1:26 PM

    • I mentioned regulating sex in that comment thread. I pointed out that in Lawrence SJWs rejected the idea that the government could have a legitimate reason to regulate consensual sex between adults. But with affirmative consent SJWs are now arguing that the government should act as a referee for consensual sex between adults.


      June 28, 2015 at 2:25 PM

      • only consensual heterosexual sex.

        sam adams had sex with an underage boy. he stayed in office.

        if that’d been an underage girl he’d have been gone in a trice…unless he was a black guy of course.

        st bruno

        June 28, 2015 at 5:23 PM

    • Conservatives and liberals walked marriage over the cliff with no-fault divorce.

      Liberalism already won in America circa 1930. But for civil rights America would already resemble much of Western Europe. Conservatism in the paleo sense was dying until the GOP picked up a large portion of democrats who were and are so angry about the 1960’s that they were willing to vote against their own economic interests with the GOP.


      June 28, 2015 at 3:19 PM

      • for every marriage there’s a divorce.

        lion thinks this is just a prole problem. has he read the forbes 400 bios? has he read a harvard yearbook? has he read burke’s? it may be less common, but it’s till too high. the same goes for obesity.

        st bruno

        June 28, 2015 at 5:31 PM

      • should’ve been for evey two marriages there’s one divorce.

        i believe there’s only been one divorced president. st reagan.

        st bruno

        June 28, 2015 at 5:33 PM

      • “Conservatism in the paleo sense was dying until the GOP picked up a large portion of democrats who were and are so angry about the 1960’s that they were willing to vote against their own economic interests with the GOP.”

        According to the IMF, US per capital GDP is higher than any country in Europe except for Luxembourg, Norway and Switzerland. How is that true if people have been voting “against their own economic interests with the GOP”? Almost all of what is called “conservatism” in the US is what was known as “classical liberalism” in the era before socialism came into being. It isn’t “conserving” a damn thing.

        BS Inc.

        June 28, 2015 at 7:20 PM

      • Divorce peaked in the 70’s & 80’s but never reached the mythical 50%. Those were based on projections that never materialized. In fact, the divorce rate has been steadily declining for 30 years. The real number is 20 to 25% of first time marriages end in divorce. The divorce rate is more than 50% higher for working class vs people with degrees. It’s also much higher for liberal democrats than conservative republicans.


        June 28, 2015 at 7:46 PM

      • ow is that true if people have been voting “against their own economic interests with the GOP”?

        Per capita GDP is a poor index of inequality.

        How is that true if people have been voting “against their own economic interests with the GOP”?

        Wages have remained flat for 50 years.

        all of what is called “conservatism” in the US is what was known as “classical liberalism” in the era before socialism came into being.

        True, but the constituency keeping “conservatism” alive now is not composed of classical liberals.


        June 29, 2015 at 2:06 PM

      • this might’ve been your source.

        all divorce rates are projections. without knowing how these are done, they can’t be trusted.

        specifically they’re actuarial projections where the decrement/mortality is divorce rather than death or accident. it’s always bs because unlike mortality the divorce rate varies a lot from one generation to another and goes down with the age of the marriage.

        and again love and morality or IQ don’t seem to explain it as some rich men go through wives like pet hamsters. it seems that divorce is initiated by the woman when either: 1. the man has no money or 2. the man has lots of money/plenty for alimony.

        st bruno

        June 29, 2015 at 3:20 PM

    • Not trying to state a correlation-causation (or show bad Wikipedia maps) but it seems the countries that allow polygamy are the ones that hate gay people the most.


      June 28, 2015 at 3:54 PM

    • The government hasn’t forced the Roman Catholic Church or Orthodox Jewish congregations to give equal rights to women. There are still no women priests, for instance. I wouldn’t expect this latest Supreme Court ruling to be used to compel religious organizations to perform gay marriage ceremonies.

      Mark Caplan

      June 29, 2015 at 10:09 AM

    • Mike, I hate to reveal my ignorance, but could you let me know what SJW stands for? I’ve seen these initials before but didn’t know what they meant. I hoped someone would define them without my asking but I’m SJW (still just waiting!)


      June 29, 2015 at 11:45 PM

      • Sorry, I just assume that everyone is up to date with the latest right leaning lingo. It stands for Social Justice Warrior, and the definition is pretty self explanatory. I think it’s rather new since I only recall seeing it bandied around the right and alt right blogosphere in the past 2 years or so.

        Mike Street Station

        June 30, 2015 at 7:13 AM

  2. At least the author in the article seems to be against these movements as overreaching. I think these are different issues and popular support for these are not as high. With the weakening of religion there is no logical, secular, popular, argument against gay marriage, not one that I’ve heard openly from politicians. Free speech seems to be upheld in the courts consistently and is very popular. Nearly everyone is guilty of sexual assault under the definition proposed, so there will be a push back.


    June 28, 2015 at 10:54 AM

    • SJWs don’t care about men who get turned on by children. They should like older women.

    • You’re right. I predict that pedo rights is just around the corner. They will re-classify it from a disorder to a sexual orientation (just like homosexuality) and the advocacy will begin.


      June 28, 2015 at 12:50 PM

      • “They will re-classify it from a disorder to a sexual orientation “

        I think it’s both just like homosexuality is both.


        June 28, 2015 at 2:17 PM

    • I remember when the ABC (Australian Broadcast Channel) did an article talking about him and his husband’s son, the victim of the pedophile ring.

      Click to access GingerGorman_ABC_TwoDadsAreBetterThanOne.pdf

      With the thoughts you'd be thinkin

      June 29, 2015 at 7:04 AM

  3. Jews have won. Homos are their globalist proxies.

    andrea ostrov letania

    June 28, 2015 at 11:42 AM

    • Well, here’s one Jew who looks in his mailbox every day for his SJW prize. I’ve yet to receive anything.


      June 28, 2015 at 1:12 PM

    • ha! where do you guys get this stuff?


      June 28, 2015 at 2:11 PM

      • Kevin MacDonald is where W(K)N/Heartiste/Occidental Dissent and even some Roosh types get that from.


        June 29, 2015 at 9:53 AM

  4. the main goal is to destroy the concept of gender, and when i say destroy i mean blur all the lines so that gays, bisexual, transgender, little boys dressing as girls, children getting sex changes even — it will all be acceptable, even encouraged. what will be outlawed is the concept of traditional masculinity, and especially the idea of a “traditional father” — since that is the biggest threat to all this.


    June 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM

    • The book “The Art of Being Ruled”, written in the late 1920s, goes into great detail about how all orthodox politics are anti-male. Capitalists need women in the labor force, not tending to a single man’s whims and a few children in the home. With modern technology, a single woman can care for and feed dozens of people, not just a couple and some of them have even higher talents. The author, Wyndham Lewis, has been described as “a one-man Frankfurt School of the Right” and I think that’s a fairly accurate portrayal. He wrote another great book called “Time and Western Man” which contains a chapter called ‘The Revolutionary Simpleton’, which could be taken as the first iteration of the pejorative ‘SJW’. He worked it all out almost 90 years ago.

      He has been tainted because he said some positive things about Hitler early on and was anti-Communist. Ironically, the same good things he said about Hitler were echoed this week by Ezra Klein, saying that the early Nazi era was pretty progressive economically and, of course, he was right about the Communists all along.

      BS Inc.

      June 28, 2015 at 1:57 PM

  5. You haven’t mentioned the obvious one — trans-sexuals in the military and police. But I don’t think there will be much resistance to this on the part of the Right, so it will be a minor skirmish of a larger advance.

    There might be a push to replace “sex” with “gender” in marriage documents so that those genders that don’t map to one of the three sexes (male, female, hemophrodite) won’t feel left out.


    June 28, 2015 at 12:49 PM

    • I had a baby in November (NYS) and next to the “father” field on the birth certificate form, it asked me to select “the gender of the father.” What I can’t remember is if it had more than two options.

      slithy toves

      June 29, 2015 at 10:14 AM


    “World War G to be Merged Into World War T”

    Real solutions for real problems tend to run into diminishing marginal returns.

    In contrast, victory in fights for the fun of it just up the urge for more victories. Nobody in Boston is bored with winning the Super Bowl. Instead, they’re working themselves into a lather that anybody anywhere doubts that the Pats followed every jot and tittle of the rulebook.

    In political struggles for the sake of a boot stamping on a human face forever, middle-aged highly masculine autogynephilia fetishists are particularly prized victims of discrimination because the Evil Discriminators can’t see it coming ahead of time until Steve the Electrician suddenly announces he is, and has always been, Patricia the Female Impersonator on the Job and Don’t You Dare Use the Wrong Pronoun, Ever. The NYT reports on promising new fronts being opened up….

    Oswald Spengler

    June 28, 2015 at 1:29 PM

    • “Don’t You Dare Use the Wrong Pronoun, Ever.”

      I suggest using Heidegger’s terminology and call everyone “Dasein”, e.g. “That Dasein’s a f-ing a**hole.” Bonus points for the response being even further out than the demand for personalized pronouns. Extra bonus points for quoting a Nazi who’s obviously thought this stuff through even further and more radically than the lumpen-SJWs.

      BS Inc.

      June 28, 2015 at 3:31 PM

  7. Am I the only one who finds it ironic and a little bit amusing that the people who have been shouting about gay marriage are the same people, in many cases – or their offspring – who were telling us 40 or 45 years ago that marriage was an antiquated concept, and that it was nothing more than “a piece of paper?”

    Sgt. Joe Friday

    June 28, 2015 at 1:35 PM

    • The trouble with the “same people as” argument is you can rarely prove it was the same people.

      Mrs Stitch

      June 28, 2015 at 4:21 PM

      • There was a point where leftists celebrated single mother families as a shining archetype of matriarchy. Anyone who said differently (like Moynihan in 1965) were skewered as misogynist and behind the times. Generations later, as statistics illustrated a devastating portrait of children raised without fathers, they’ve changed their tune- but only somewhat. They now blame insufficient government benefits, not the absence of traditional family, for the plight.

        So it’s not without irony that this same group was the one foaming at the mouth about the importance of marriage for gays.

        slithy toves

        June 29, 2015 at 10:25 AM

  8. I think alot of these fights are becoming straight out fights between tribes, with only a thin veneer or no veneer of ideology. You can’t expect coherence.

    But the most I can make sense of things is the US at least is increasingly become both a more elitist and less liberal (in the old, old sense meaning personal freedom) society. More concentration of power in the 1%, less free speech, and less personal autonomy. Where gay marriage fits into this is that its a) “marriage”, a real pro-personal autonomy position would be for marriage to be less important, not to rope gays into it and b) lots of one-percenters are gay themselves and personally want to get married, so we have to let them. Plus I suspect there is a drive to promote alternatives to heterosexual sex for population control reasons. Where the transgender stuff fits into this I really have no idea.


    June 28, 2015 at 1:51 PM

    • Right. Note how the NYT suddenly doesn’t give a shit about bean-counting race and gender when the subject is hedge fund alpha bros (as opposed to beta engineers working for Yahoo).

      At times the swankiest hotel in town, the Hotel Grande Bretagne (or G.B. as it is commonly known) is so chock full of hedge fund executives (mostly in their 30s) that some have called it the G.G.B. — the acronym for Greek government bonds.


      June 28, 2015 at 4:36 PM

    • “I think alot of these fights are becoming straight out fights between tribes, with only a thin veneer or no veneer of ideology. You can’t expect coherence.”

      Couldn’t find it on Google, but I remember reading about a study showing that liberals favorite entertainment was anything that made fun of conservatives, while conservatives favorite entertainment was college football.

      That one fact seems to explain so much, at least to me. To spell it out, liberals are dominated by an inferiority complex and the best way they have to relieve that feeling is by lashing out at conservatives. Conservatives just want to be left alone by liberals to watch people smash into each other. If an alien came down from another planet, I’m pretty sure their judgment would be that conservatives are very healthy overall and liberals are very sick. Being fixated on making fun of other people is NOT a sign of a healthy psyche. It’s basically the very definition of the “slave mentality” Nietzsche described.

      BS Inc.

      June 28, 2015 at 5:40 PM

    • “Plus I suspect there is a drive to promote alternatives to heterosexual sex for population control reasons. Where the transgender stuff fits into this I really have no idea.

      Young, Male, and Single by Peter Frost
      “It sucks being young, male, and single. Don’t think so? Go to the Interactive Singles Map of the United States* [] and see how it looks for the 20 to 39 age group. Almost everywhere single men outnumber single women…

      …Then there’s gender reassignment, which means either entering the other side of the mate market or tapping into the lesbian market. It’s a viable strategy, all the more so because many white boys can be turned into hot trans women. I’m not saying that some young men actually think along those lines, but gender reassignment is functioning that way.”

      *Neighborhood level NYC only map


      June 29, 2015 at 10:17 AM

  9. Changing legal landscape does not change religion and tradition. It will just get more and more decoupled from what normal is, until at some point the elite will abandon it. It is not different this time. The danger is that once legal system gets compromised, the country cannot exist anymore.


    June 28, 2015 at 2:07 PM

    • I have been saying to anyone who brings up politics that the only solution is a two-state solution (three or four might be even more preferable). The United States as currently constituted is not a stable equilibrium over the long run. In fact, I don’t even think it’s a value-maximizing equilibrium in the short-run. The amount of energy wasted on politics is astounding to me. I know that the official ideology of the US is that there is nothing positive to learn from in European history, but we can see from it that the one thing that gets people out into the streets is the perception that there is a double standard in the legal system.

      Politics is like a company’s strategy. It says “Hey, this is the direction we are going in and you need to get on board.” That works fine when the strategy aligns to people’s preferences. It starts to become inefficient when it doesn’t. Right now, the US’ strategy is getting further and further out of alignment with the “average Joe”. That’s just asking for trouble. I don’t care how many law enforcement agents the government has to go after people who don’t want to follow the strategy, they are outnumbered by at least an order of magnitude by people who are getting increasingly pissed off. That has never worked anywhere and I don’t think modern technology is that much of a game-changer that it will work here. Add in the fact that when people are pissed off, they tend to be less productive, and hence generate less economic growth and tax revenue and it all starts to become a zero-sum game.

      If I were Obama, I would actually say “This really isn’t working out for anyone. Why don’t we split into multiple countries so we can start minimizing the amount of contact between groups who clearly don’t like each other, at best.” That would be one of the first policies he proposed that made any sense.

      BS Inc.

      June 28, 2015 at 3:48 PM

      • We won’t even let Iraq split up.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 28, 2015 at 4:47 PM

      • You ever read “The Nine Nations of North America” by Joel Garreau?

        It was written in 1981, but if anything has only become truer. Garreau doesn’t suggest that Canada, the US and Mexico actually break up politically along the lines suggested. Instead, Ottawa, Washington DC and Mexico City should let the different regions run things in ways that make sense for them rather than force one-size-fits-all solutions.

        The book is very funny at times, and in the chapter on “The Islands” I like how it’s broken down how cocaine goes from a field in Colombia to the nose of a NYC stockbroker.


        June 28, 2015 at 5:07 PM

      • The South already tried that and we know how it turned out. I do agree with you is inevitable that this country will balkanize into ethnic and cultural territories. There will be massive white flight in the coming years..out of the coasts and into the interior regions. The question is…how would middle America survive without a seaport?


        June 28, 2015 at 5:58 PM

      • B.T.D.T. – Middle America has the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. As James Kunstler writes in books like “The Long Emergency,” those waterways will become important again peak oil renders truck transit cost-prohibitive.


        June 28, 2015 at 7:15 PM

      • Alas, peak oil is coming slower than I thought it would ten years ago.

      • I don’t think The Nine Nations of North America explains what’s going on. In that book, geographic regions defined interests. That’s not what’s happening. Philosophies define interests. The faculty at Iowa University has more in common with the faculty at Boston University than it does with the folks that live right next door to them, for instance.

        Furthermore, white flight doesn’t do anything if the federal government is devoted to churning everyone together-white flight to the Midwest only results in more government subsidies to transfer immigrants and poor blacks to the same place. People don’t get to live where they want (or with whom they want) with the Federal Government around.

        So I think things are going to continue about as they are until the prevailing philosophy-equality, and specifically, equality between the races-fades away. As long as races are considered equal, there is no compelling argument against affirmative action, section 8, and third world immigration.

        Once (if) equality fades away, who the heck knows. That country will be as different to us as ours would appear to a Georgian from 1855.

        On the other hand, we really are living through an epoch-changing time right now. This isn’t politics as usual, this isn’t the same old Left-Right argument. Gay marriage is a genuinely historic event-a sociological atom bomb. Just as war will never be the same, society has been utterly changed (into what, for how long, and how much more change is coming is open to question).



        June 28, 2015 at 8:59 PM

      • “The question is…how would middle America survive without a seaport?”

        There’s a third coast you’re forgetting about. Of course the “balkanization” you speak of wouldn’t come without a fight; the east and west coasts would wither and die pretty fast without middle America’s agriculture and fossil fuel (and refining capacity).


        June 28, 2015 at 9:19 PM

      • Even if such a split did happen, the Liberal States of America along with much of the rest of the “international community” would view the Conservative White States of America the way they view Apartheid-era South Africa or Nazi Germany, and would never allow them to survive.


        June 28, 2015 at 10:04 PM

      • anonymousse, good point. Nine Nations was about how the different regions functioned, mainly discussing energy policy and how each nation had its own favorite. Today, the balkanization of North America is ideological, not economic. It’s not like there’s much economic activity to warrant debate anyway.


        June 28, 2015 at 11:56 PM

      • B.T.D.T. says:

        “how would middle America survive without a seaport?”

        We already have several: Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Cleveland. Not to mention if it came down to it I’m sure Canada would work with the Midwestern states it already associates with and build a highway from say Hudson Bay to C11. On top of that imports can originate through Vancouver and travel east, like they already do anyway. We already trade power with Manitoba and Ontario, why not highways?

        Contrary to popular east coast think, the Midwest doesn’t need the east. This is a self sufficient and well organized region, unlike the east. We actually grow our own food. The east? Good luck surviving a shock without DC artificially redirecting resources to you. Since when has the east done anything besides value transfer since WWII? Yet another reason we need Scott Walker as president. He’ll remind the east how useless they really are and how we can hold them hostage.


        June 29, 2015 at 2:12 PM

  10. I agree that they are going to come after the two things mentioned in Lion’s post, and in addition fraternities and college football.


    June 28, 2015 at 2:08 PM

    • And NASCAR.


      June 29, 2015 at 12:20 AM

  11. According to NYT, the next fight for queers is bias in housing. But, what bias? Does anyone actually refuse to rent to gays? Aren’t they seen as improving the neighborhood?


    June 28, 2015 at 2:09 PM

    • Well normal landlords won’t rent an apartment to transexual hookers who will turn the apartment into a whorehouse/crack den. This upsets the New York Times – without the apartment the trannies will be homeless – so these landlords must be sanctioned, fined and suppressed.


      June 28, 2015 at 4:43 PM

    • How could that be? Gays tend to define where gentrification will happen next. Gays would never move out of the cites. SWPLs like their gay neighbors.


      June 29, 2015 at 2:18 PM

  12. As the NYT noted today, they’re going after discrimination against gays in employment and housing.


    June 28, 2015 at 2:51 PM

  13. This is what happens when you invent a bullshit game to keep people in check and they become better at it than you are.


    June 28, 2015 at 3:05 PM

    • can you elaborate?


      June 28, 2015 at 3:59 PM

    • karma? chickens coming home to root? Why, swanky, if I didn’t know better I’d think you were promoting a “just world” justification.


      June 28, 2015 at 4:20 PM

    • do you mean like karma? and chickens coming home to roost? Why, swanky, if I didn’t know better I’d think you were promoting a “just world” justification.


      June 28, 2015 at 4:21 PM

    • That all assumes that a) the bullshit game wasn’t an improvement on what came before and b) that I believe that the recent result is tragic and meaningfully victimizes some interest.

      The common law, as originally conceived, wasn’t particularly fair. It was essentially “community custom.” But over time and with the addition of many rules and guidelines, such as “following precedent,” it became more “objective.”

      Modern civil rights litigation and jurisprudence was practically invented by Louis Brandeis — a jewish lawyer and jurist. He invented the Brandeis brief, wherein scientific and expert opinion substituted for common cultural norms (themselves disguised as ‘abstract principles of the law,’ which were just old social customs that had been put in to the law) in defining what was and was not fact. No Brandeis style argumentation, no Brown v. Board.

      Brandeis also outlined the theoretical framework for the “living constitution,” by treating the constitution as subject to common law reasoning, which relies on custom, which means that as customs and facts change, so can constitutional meaning.

      tl;dr, it’s a bullshit game and it has also been a success; the white gentiles who implemented it should be proud.


      June 29, 2015 at 2:41 PM

  14. This sounds paranoid. The Republicans will, smartly, use this.


    June 28, 2015 at 3:45 PM

    • The Republicans will not smartly use anything. They are the stupid party.


      June 28, 2015 at 5:38 PM

  15. 1. Polygamy will become an issue when Muslims start demanding it. SJWs would never support Mormon polygamy, and while they could be persuaded (after reading enough clickbait articles and from enough social pressure) to endorse “open marriages” that Bertrand Russell would have found alluring, the movement will most likely take off when mosques start marrying off multiple women to individual men. The narrative will then shift to how IT’S NOT OK to discriminate against Muslims and how their polygamous weddings are creating legal problems, which of course oppressive America will need to accommodate itself to.

    2. Churches refusing to marry gay couples has already become an issue, and it will soon become a much greater issue. Gay men tend to have so many lovers that monogamous, romantic love isn’t what motivates them. It’s being socially accepted, so churches which bar them from marrying inside their buildings will become the next target.

    3. World War T has already taken off with Caitlyn Kardashian, after having been readied for over the last few years. Forcing normal people to see people with penises as being women, or 2 + 2 = 5, will be the next big thing.

    So in the short term, expect to see churches under assault for not hosting gay weddings. In the medium term, transsexualism will become more forced down people’s throats. The door has been opened for polygamy to become an important wedge issue, and Muslims have the greatest ability to exploit it.


    June 28, 2015 at 3:50 PM

  16. Big business on winning side in U.S. top court’s major rulings.


    “That did not stop business interests from weighing in.

    “A total of 379 businesses and groups representing employers across various sectors signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief backing gay marriage. In the healthcare case, trade groups representing hospitals and health insurance companies filed court papers backing the Obama administration over the healthcare law.

    “In the marriage case, some of the nation’s biggest companies, including Procter & Gamble Co , American Airlines Group Inc and Johnson & Johnson , joined the brief urging the court to rule in favor of gay marriage. Wall Street’s biggest names, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc and Morgan Stanley , also signed on.


    “The brief stressed the business case for gay marriage, saying inconsistent state laws imposed burdens on companies and that marriage bans can conflict with corporate anti-discrimination and diversity policies. Thomson Reuters Corp , which owns Reuters news, also signed on to the brief.

    “In his majority opinion in the marriage case, Justice Anthony Kennedy, while not citing the employer brief, echoed some of the concerns raised by employers about how same-sex marriage bans meant that gay employees in committed relationships are treated differently from opposite-sex couples on issues such as workers’ compensation benefits and health insurance.”


    That’s why an insignificant slice of the population (p. 11, “Results”) managed to get such a bizarre ruling.


    June 28, 2015 at 5:12 PM

    • The Rs should flip on issues such as unions and free trade just to show the business community they can’t be taken for granted.


      June 29, 2015 at 12:18 AM

  17. you’ll often find catharsis after something like this. A “victory” tends to take the wind out of the sails for an issue. I’m sure there will be those howling for “more! More! MORE!” But the gay rights movement just shot its wad. In 3 months the whole issue will draw yawns. I’m sure some will continue just like feminists have. But feminists are a minority even among women. With homos only 2-3% of the population they’ll be largely irrelevant.. again. And a lot of them will probably become deradicalized now. How many will tie the knot now that it’s no longer a thing? Not very damn many. There will be a surge over the next year. After that, the numbers will plummet to a fraction. Marriage has always been about children. A few homos want children and a family just like everyone else. But those who opposed gay “marriage” were never standing in their way. Biology was.

    Gays may have won the social issue but Dems just lost a campaign issue. I’ll bet you’ll even see some defection of homosexuals from the Dems to the GOP now that SCOTUS has guaranteed it. From now on they’ll have to replace the gaybaiting with more racebaiting and genderbaiting. Maybe some class warfare. The thing is, the fewer tunes one has to play the quicker people get tired of hearing them. And the dems just lost one of their biggest hits.


    June 28, 2015 at 5:47 PM

    • Are you writing this from a parallel universe or a mental institution? There have been a hell of a lot of left-wing causes since the middle of the twentieth century (the point at which the left because more about identity politics), and all of them appear to be going strong.


      June 28, 2015 at 6:31 PM

      • and all of them appear to be going strong.

        It would have been nice if you had actually made an argument instead of insults. You’re probably unaware that conservatives outnumber liberals by almost 2 to 1. There are very few issues in which liberals actually have the advantage.


        June 28, 2015 at 7:13 PM

      • In 2008, Barack Obama was elected president and a lot of people thought, “Well, he probably won’t be a very good president, the way that Truman and Eisenhower were, but it’s good that race relations will improve. We’re clearly not a racist country, blacks will understand that institutional racism doesn’t exist in a significant way, and now we can put a troubled part of our history behind us.”

        In 2015, people are screaming about how institutional racism exists everywhere because of Charleston, black criminality is on the rise, and SJWs scream and cry about criminals like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown getting shot.

        Just as all the dysfunction associated with black people is claimed to be a result of slavery and Jim Crow, gay people will be able to claim that all their social and personal problems are a legacy of America’s homophobic past.


        June 28, 2015 at 7:27 PM

      • Homosexuals aren’t particularly criminal or economically disadvantaged.

      • I was only joking.


        June 28, 2015 at 10:03 PM

      • I have a stiff case of gout in my hand, otherwise my reply would have been more detailed……. And stop smoking those rocks 😉


        June 28, 2015 at 11:24 PM

      • “Homosexuals aren’t particularly criminal or economically disadvantaged.”

        I never said that. What gay people do suffer from, at the present time, are higher rates of STDs and higher rates of mental illness; and the children they adopt report worse life outcomes than those adopted by heterosexual couples.

        These social problems could well change in the future, but if they don’t, gay people can blame America’s homophobic past, just the way that blacks can blame their problems on the “legacy” of slavery and Jim Crow.


        June 28, 2015 at 11:42 PM

      • The bigger social problem is all those unwed mothers.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 29, 2015 at 5:50 AM

    • “the gay rights movement just shot its wad.”



      June 29, 2015 at 12:15 AM

  18. It seems fairly clear to me we need to have a conversation about rape, everybody. Hillary might be a suitable moderator once we get the election out of the way.


    June 28, 2015 at 5:50 PM

    • you said it. but why wait until after the election? I say we start this very, very serious conversation in time for the debates.


      June 28, 2015 at 8:02 PM

  19. “I’m not gay, but I do keep track of the all the tiny guys I come across. It’ll come in handy when they make it mandatory.” Norm MacDonald, Norm MacDonald Live.


    June 28, 2015 at 6:54 PM

  20. Lion, your second scenario is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 120.

    Jason Roberts

    June 28, 2015 at 10:34 PM

  21. I get the feeling the SJWs can pretty much do anything they want at this point. They have the media (including social media) academia, government, Hollywood, religion, the presidency, SCOTUS, public schools and anything else that matters. The GOP and conservatives are inept and cowardly or they are on the side of the SJWs. Plus, demographics and low morale are hurting them more and more each election cycle.


    June 28, 2015 at 10:43 PM

  22. One thing that’s next is making sure couples don’t have to get married to get employee benefits that cover their partner.

    June 29, 2015 at 12:04 AM

  23. The Atlantic is already calling for lowering the age of consent to 13. “For the children.” So kids screwing around with each other won’t be sex criminals. [Already at the discretion of the prosecutor.] The real reason is to allow gays and lesbians to screw 13 year olds. If we’re going to be honest. Also Muslim men. Who like em very, very young.

    And yes, there are already calls in the NYT, Atlantic, Slate, Salon to legalize polygamy. To “be fair to Muslims” and such. Most women would endorse it, they’d love to be married to Brad Pitt, or the closest thing to him, sharing him with other women, than have all of the beta male they are forced to settle for after a long time on the carousel. The reality is of course few men with the resources to support multiple wives would choose an aging hag, but the fantasy of sharing some hot guy with other women rather than icky beta males around her being her exclusive husband is too strong.

    This is pretty much the Puritan culture of the North East pursuing the Rednecks into the woods. It might be a slaughter, or it might be a counter slaughter. Historically, the biggest danger for victorious forces has been following a defeated enemy too deeply, becoming disorganized and without support, and finding the fleeing forces suddenly turning and annihilating the separated pursuers.

    But the answers are already there:

    A. Polygamy, already called for.
    B. Lowering age of consent, already called for.

    Polygamy legalized as a result of gay marriage would make every loveless beta male priced out of the market and forced to support Habib and his four wives and Dontavious with his eleven and Brad Super Alpha with his six into a dedicated gay hater. Willing to deal out revenge when convenient and not likely to elicit punishment.

    A free-for-all sexual marketplace with nearly everything legal and beta males footing the bill while watching the party outside (a feminist paradise in other words) is a recipe for beta males to start living Fight Club meets Less than Zero.


    June 29, 2015 at 2:18 AM

    • Lowering the age of consent where the older participant is an adult will never happen because women are opposed to that, by-and-large. I think mothers would like to see the age for marriage and consent set to 18 for every state. However, there might be a successful push for lowering the age of consent when both parties are under 17 or 18.


      June 29, 2015 at 7:00 AM

  24. I wonder how the Left sees trans in the armed forces working? I think they have a vision of a male soldier in drag marching along with other men. They’d love to see that, I’m sure. But women already drill with the men so that wouldn’t provide the shock they want.

    Also, do they see soldiers being separated at night by original sex or by gender?


    June 29, 2015 at 7:04 AM

    • Didn’t you see MASH?

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 29, 2015 at 8:13 PM

      • There’s not a whole lot of options on the gender dress code. They might be able to wear a skirt for an office job. but they don’t trot around in evening gowns like Klinger. They can’t even wear jewelry or nail polish.

        The thing that gets me is that plenty of women wear jeans and no makeup. But trannies just have to wear evening gowns. Now, I can recognize sexual orientation as a mental condition. But trannies are just full of it. Most women don’t even wear what they do.


        June 29, 2015 at 8:56 PM

      • These days, to get a Section 8, a soldier would have to wear an American flag T-shirt.


        June 29, 2015 at 9:30 PM

      • The point is, aren’t they going to segregate by gender, which is considered more fundamental than sex? In that case all the male-to-female trannys will be serving with the women, and the female-to-males will be serving with the males.


        June 30, 2015 at 10:09 AM

  25. I’m not so sure legalized gay marriage is permanent. When it came up for a vote in California, blacks and Hispanics voted against it and it failed to pass. Due to high birth rates and immigration, both those groups are increasing as a percentage of the population. Socially conservative religious whites who are against gay marriage are having lots of children and also increasing as a percentage of the population. The numbers of socially liberal whites who would be pro-gay marriage are shrinking. Demographic changes may doom social liberalism in the long run and this current period may just be a last hurrah for that.


    June 29, 2015 at 8:44 AM

    • Doesn’t matter what the people think. We are ruled by nine supreme court judges.


      June 30, 2015 at 10:10 AM

  26. Do any of you remember what happened in the 1970s with MADD? (mothers against drunk driving). After they won thir victory (drunk driving laws), they still had all of their money lying around & they still had all of their energy.

    A complete victory wasn’t going to stop them. So they kept pushing for lower and lower DUI ranges, pushed for alcohol elimination everywhere & Cheerleaded the rest of the war on drugs. Not to mention they got involved with all sorts of liberal politics that had nothing to do with drunk driving. Even today, MADD exists as a giant pot of money available to contribute to the latest SJW cause.

    Gay marriage is the same thing. Victory isn’t going to stop the fighting. They are going to keep fighting the bad people.

    & this gy marriage ruling is the new Roe v Wade, allowing the courts to impose whatever religious value on the population that they want.


    June 29, 2015 at 10:47 AM

  27. Scrolling through the radio dial I listened to a few minutes of Brian Lehrer this morning. According to his very enthusiastic guests, what’s next is:1) targeting businesses that refuse to serve gay couples in any way, and 2) removing tax exempt status from religious institutions, especially schools. This would effectively shutter the majority of city churches who could never keep up with property taxes.

    slithy toves

    June 29, 2015 at 1:06 PM

    • “This would effectively shutter the majority of city churches who could never keep up with property taxes.”

      BFD. My student loans hold me back from a lot of things but no one is gonna get rid of them for that sake.


      June 29, 2015 at 5:03 PM

    • A significant percentage, if not a majority of “city churches” are predominately black. And black churchgoers are arguably the most socially conservative demographic in the US (maybe Muslims are more so, but there aren’t that many of them). Next you have Catholics, and Southern Baptists and Mormons after that. Going after churches would be ugly, maybe ugly enough for a constitutional amendment. I can already see the possibility of a RFRA type amendment if this goes too far. Either way, I don’t see it happening any way other than judicially. The damage that would do to respect for the judiciary is hard to imagine, but it would be major.

      Has anybody seen any polling on support for gay marriage since the SC ruling came out?


      June 30, 2015 at 1:06 PM

  28. Bill Clinton knew the value of being “tough on crime” but now the Democrats seem a little complacent about the issue. Perhaps what’s next is reduced sentences for many crimes (isn’t California already doing this?) and the abolition of the death penalty. I could imagine a campaign to ban “three strikes, you’re out” laws. Looking at what might pass this year….maybe decriminalization of marijuana and of course amnesty.

    Dave in Seattle

    June 29, 2015 at 1:40 PM

  29. You kidding? The left is just getting started … Next targets include antidiscrimination laws for homosexuals and transsexuals, as well as removing tax exempt status from churches that don’t fall in line. I’m guessing the church issue will be judicially pushed, as at this point I can’t imagine even a democrat legislature supporting a crackdown on churches just yet. But it’s coming, and conservatives better be ready.

    The homofascist left wants the destruction of all institutions AND people that oppose its agenda. And this may not end peacefully.


    June 30, 2015 at 9:49 AM

    • “I’m guessing the church issue will be judicially pushed, ” I think so, also. The benefit of it being judicially pushed is that they will be free to persecute white trash churches and ignore Black churches and mosques.

      “The homofascist left wants the destruction of all institutions AND people that oppose its agenda. And this may not end peacefully.” I think this is true, also. From what I’ve read, Wiemar Germany was the only society that approached the decadence of current American society. And I think most of us (on this blog, anyway) remember what followed Wiemar Germany.

      John Galt

      July 1, 2015 at 7:09 PM

  30. The gays have won, what’s next?


    June 30, 2015 at 11:04 PM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: