A Crisis In Sexual Orientation And Gender? Or Just Bashful Bladder?

This has been one lousy week for social conservatives.  First the California Supreme Court decided to legalize gay marriage in America's largest state.  (For non-lawyers, note that this decision will not be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court because it involves California state law - for which the state's Supreme Court is the final arbiter.)  Then the Ninth Circuit slammed the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, holding that the government must prove this policy "significantly furthers the government’s interest [in cohesion] and whether less intrusive means would achieve substantially the government’s interest. "

Paul Secunda, over at Workplace Prof, is "absolutely giddy" over the Ninth Circuit's ruling.  Bob Ellis, a Dakota blogger, says "apparently a full-court (literally) press against normal human sexuality is under way."  Art Leonard, commenting over at Secunda's place, provides a cautionary voice, noting that because the Ninth Circuit panel was a tad liberal, its decision may get crushed en banc.

Ever vigilant, Focus on the Family has bigger fish to fry: they worry that Colorado, in the name of transexual rights,  will soon adopt a new law prohibiting single sex restrooms.  (And well trained in the fear tactics so recently used before the Supreme Court, they argue that the demise of single sex restrooms would lead inexorably to the rise of sexual predators in these places.)  I actually think Team Dobson has a finger on the pulse of America.  If Americans had to rank these three horrors - gay marriages, gay soldiers, and co-ed potties - they'd definitely put co-ed potties number one.  It's difficult enough for many patriotic Americans to pee next to someone of their own sex.  (Note to Barack Obama: here is your small-ball strategy.  Standing tall for single sex restrooms could be your version of the Bill Clinton school uniform crusade.)

This leads me to wonder whether John McCain, who vacillates between being a straight shootin' moderate and a pander bear, will follow the traditional GOP "divide and conquer" strategy that has worked so well since Richard Nixon.  It's always nice - and so unexpected - to see consistency from anyone in politics. Bob Barr, the soon-to-be Libertarian presidential nominee, and ardent opponent of gay marriage, issued a  notable statement after the California Supreme Court's ruling.  It's after the jump:

“Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress).

The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.

“Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state.

The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states’ powers should work.”

Comments

[Vanceone]

I'm curious: does this blog show any evidence of respecting anything like conservative values?

Or is this all liberal, all the time, and no perversion is too wrong to celebrate and advance?

Do you honorable professors really think that conservative morality is a sign of "unevolved status" as your co-blogger stated?

And would you ever, ever even consider asking a Professor to share your faculty lounge who doesn't think that Obama is God on Earth, and the courts have the duty to ram liberalism and immorality down the throat of an unwilling nation?

I can only imagine the horror here if someone like a professor from BYU Law, or Regent University was allowed to post--who could let a knuckle-dragger in like that? Why, next you might make a claim that incest is wrong! And we all know morality is stupid.

Isn't that the message of your blog, monsieur's? Morality is wrong, so are Republicans, and damn anyone to the right of Stalin? I shudder to think of your students, who probably don't dare make an argument along the lines of "marriage between a man and a woman is actually preferred." They might not get a good grade, would they? After all, such a clearly erroneous position is a sign of an untrained mind, and we can't have someone so uneducated as a lawyer, now, can we?

[John C]

Congratulations, Faculty Lounge! You have attracted what I believe to be your first troll! How quickly they grow . . .

[Golly]

Has anyone reading this blog been to a restaurant that has a multiple-occupant co-ed restroom, or know anything about the prevalence of this trend? I have been to two different restaurants (each in a different city in California), each intimidatingly hip and extremely upscale, and each with a single large restroom for men and women to share, with individual stalls around the periphery and a communal sink in the middle. I found using these restrooms a very interesting experience (and I'm not saying that with a wink-wink nudge-nudge, I simply mean that it was a novel experience for me, and I found my reflexive reaction to it, primarily embarrassment, interesting but not that problematic or difficult to get over). Just wondering how many people out there have run into this phenomenon, and what you think of it.

[Anonymous Gentleman Law Student]

Ah, the classic ad hominem.

I've sat in Prof Filler's class, Vanceone. Neither I nor anyone else fear being marked down based on our political views, whatever they might be.

The Three Billy Goats Gruff are over at Above the Law - maybe you'll have more luck there.

[paruresis]

Interesting thoughts. Very amusing as well.