There has been a lot of hoop-de-do over President Bush’s remarks on Intelligent Design. I don’t like discussing “Intelligent Design” because people can’t seem to agree as to what it really means. So let’s just stick to evolution and God.

(more…)

[Posted by Dafydd ab Hugh]

A.K.A. “Why I No Longer Support Domestic Partnerships” #23.

This just in: the California Supreme Court has affirmed that private businesses must treat domestic partnerships exactly like legal marriages. Any benefits accorded to married couples must likewise be accorded to domestic partners.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California businesses must grant registered domestic partners the same benefits they give married heterosexuals, the state’s top court ruled on Monday after a lesbian couple sued a country club for discrimination.

The California Supreme Court’s decision expanding a state civil rights law stems from a lawsuit charging the San Diego club with denying the couple privileges enjoyed by married members.

For a long time, I supported the idea of domestic partnerships; I thought it a way for two men or two women to affirm their commitment to each other in a way that was fairly harmless to society. (I always opposed same-sex marriage.)

But now, no matter how much Americans oppose same-sex marriage — and despite California voters overwhelmingly approving Proposition 22, a state law restricting marriage to one man and one woman — the pro-same-sex marriage mob insists on ramming it down our throats. And if they can’t slip it in the front door, they’re perfectly happy to use the back.

When I realized this a few years ago, I changed my mind on domestic partnerships: I still think it’s a nice way for gay couples to commit to each other… but I no longer think it harmless, or even “mostly harmless.” I think it’s inevitably going to lead to full-blown same-sex marriage, unless Californians get up and re-pass Prop. 22, but this time as a constitutional amendment.

Even that might not keep us safe from the rampaging 9th Circus Court; but it’s the best we can do. And this is another reason why I will not vote for any Democrat for president until the crisis of Move-Onanism passes.

A pity, though. It would have been nice for there to be a way for gays to register their commitment to a monogamous or monandrous relationship. Too bad the activists had to go to the mattresses, forcing the rest of us to do the same.

Our old friend David Savage of the L.A. Times says John Roberts

took issue with media reports that he was affiliated with the Federalist Society, a somewhat secretive group of conservative lawyers who hold debates and other events designed to promote conservative legal views.

How is the Federalist Society even “somewhat” secretive? Can someone fill me in on this? I’m a member — or at least I thought I was — and I don’t know a single secret. What’s the secret?

Google “secretive Federalist Society” and you’ll get hits to a bunch of leftist blog sites, but no good explanation of what’s so damn secretive. So they won’t release their membership lists to the general public? Neither will the ACLU. When’s the last time you heard the phrase “the secretive ACLU”?

But then, am I supposed to be surprised that a David Savage article sounds like a leftist blog site?