Karen Alloy, Polls, Religion, and Gay Marriage

Okay, here's a placeholder, since I'll be away for a few hours.

And, well, it's a good chance to check out Karen Alloy, who's been scarce around here, which is lame. Anyway, she's right about Islam. And more on religion, from Gallup, "More Than 9 in 10 Americans Continue to Believe in God."

And strangely, folks still believe in God, but, hmm, maybe not so much the Bible, which frowns on homosexuality. See LAT, "Support in polls for same-sex marriage could influence Proposition 8 legal battle, experts say." Gallup's cited, for example.

But wait! Compare to Maggie Gallagher, "The Left's Endless Culture War."

Anyway, you're probably not gay if you like Karen Alloy, potty mouth and all.

Okay, check back with me tonight!

Proposed Santa Monica Ballot Measure Could Ban Circumcision

My wife hadn't heard of the San Francisco ballot measure to ban the practice, so when we were watching the news last night she had to laugh: "So next we'll be having back-alley circumcisions?" Well, yeah. And she continued: "No grown man remembers being circumcised as a baby, but an 18 year-old will never forget." Ouch.

At KABC-TV Los Angeles, "Santa Monica Ballot Measure Wants to Ban Circumcision."

Debra Saunders: 'Intolerant Left Strikes Again'

At Rasmussen (via Memeorandum):

On April 25, gay-rights advocates -- led by the Human Rights Campaign -- scored a victory after the HRC applied pressure on a law firm hired to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and woman and denies federal benefits to same-sex partners. The firm fired its client. There are two reasons you should be outraged, no matter what your position is on DOMA.

Go read it all. One of the more outraged commentaries I've read on the case. Earlier I meant to juxtapose William Jacobson's commentary on this, "Is There Now A Hostile Environment For Pro-Traditional Marriage Views At King & Spalding?", to that of Dale Carpenter's. William writes, for example:

For whatever their reasons, the supporters of gay marriage have chosen the path of intimidation rather than persuasion. I think this is a mistake, but time will tell.

The comment assumes that this kind of intimidation is new, unprecedented. But is it? Dale Carpenter had an interesting piece at the New York Times the other day, "How the Law Accepted Gays:

THE prestigious law firm King & Spalding has not fully explained its decision this week to stop assisting Congress in defending the law that forbids federal recognition of same-sex marriage. But its reversal suggests the extent to which gay men and lesbians have persuaded much of the legal profession to accept the basic proposition that sexual orientation is irrelevant to a person’s worth and that the law should reflect this judgment. The decision cannot be dismissed simply as a matter of political correctness or bullying by gays.

Well, folks should finish the essay, and they might be a little more convinced, although I'm not. There's something fundamentally different about the struggle for civil rights for gay Americans, and since 2008 that difference has been a level of demonization and intimidation of the opposition that's unprecedented in my political lifetime. But go back and read Debra Saunders once more. Even the leadership of HRC admits they're again ready to pounce and destroy at the next instance of politically incorrect non-compliance to the gay narrative.