United Liberty

Reading over the CPAC straw poll results (H/T to Hot Air), which included more than just the presidential straw poll, I am encourage to see that the conservative movement, at least those in attendence at the conference, are focusing more on fiscal issues than social issues.

I still don’t believe that conservatives are serious about reaching out to libertarians, but this is encouraging.

Robert Levy, who was behind the case that led to the landmark ruling for Second Amendnent in 2008, writes explains the moral and constitutional case for gay marriage:

For most of Western history, marriage was a matter of private contract between the betrothed parties and perhaps their families. Following that tradition, marriage today should be a private arrangement, requiring minimal or no state intervention. Some religious or secular institutions would recognize gay marriages; others would not; still others would call them domestic partnerships or assign another label. Join whichever group you wish. The rights and responsibilities of partners would be governed by personally tailored contracts — consensual bargains like those that control most other interactions in a free society.

Yeah, Houston:

Houston, Texas (CNN) — Annise Parker made history Saturday as Houston’s first openly gay mayor.

Parker, who served five years as city controller, beat former city attorney Gene Locke with 53.6 percent of the vote in a runoff election.

Both are Democrats who faced off for the second time because neither emerged with more than 50 percent of the vote in the November 3 election.

In addition to being Houston’s first openly gay mayor, she’s the first lesbian to be elected mayor of an American city.

Some good news from the District of Columbia:

The D.C. Council voted Tuesday to legalize same-sex marriage in the District, as the city moves quickly to join five states in allowing gay couples to marry.

After months of debate, the council passed the bill 11 to 2. It still must take a second vote in two weeks before the measure can go to Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D), who has said he will sign it.

If the bill survives a required congressional review period, the District will join New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Massachusetts in allowing same-sex marriage.

Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), one of two openly gay members of the council, said before the vote he thought it was a day that “would never come.”

“It really speaks to the long and rich tradition of tolerance and acceptance that does make up the sense of place in the District of Columbia,” said Catania, the chief sponsor of the bill.

Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), another key sponsor, said the vote is a culmination of a decades-long struggle by gay rights leaders in the District.

“I don’t think it’s a giant step; it’s a final step,” Mendelson said.

Council members Marion Barry (D-Ward Eight) and Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 7) were the only two members to vote against the bill.

This is one advance that doesn’t look like it will be rolled back anytime soon.

Good.

There’s something really bad about politics: it gets people emotional, almost drunk with emotion. Then they do what all drunk people do: they say things that don’t make sense. That’s the case with Nancy Pelosi this week:

In a rare display of public emotion, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) choked up Thursday morning recalling the anti-gay rhetoric in the late 1970s in San Francisco, which culminated in the assassinations of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay S.F. Board of Supervisors member, and Mayor George Moscone.

Pelosi, responding to a question about whether anti-government rhetoric posed a threat of domestic violence, said that protesters on all sides had the right to voice their opposition to legislative proposals in a heated fashion. But then Pelosi — whose weekly press conferences are legendary for their highly scripted nature and her rote recitation of Democratic message points — paused and took a deep breath as she recounted the tone of some protests in her hometown.

“I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” she said, a reference to the antigay laws and protests as that city became the flashpoint of the civil rights movement for gays and lesbians. “It created an environment in which violence took place.”

This analogy doesn’t work. I don’t see the connection between anti-government rhetoric and gays and lesbians. If she wanted to illustrate when anti-government politics can get really bad, she could have brought up Timothy McVeigh. That would have at least made some sense. We don’t even know that Harvey Milk would have been on Pelosi’s side in the health care debate. He was a Barry Goldwater supporter, after all.

The Democratic Party takes black voters and gay voters for granted, just as the Republican Party takes pro-lifers, religious voters and gun owners for granted. We’ve already seen this with Democratic silencing of the D.C. voucher program, which benefitted low income black students (many of whom were big supporters of Obama during the election). Now, with D.C. voting to accept gay marriages, it’s time to see if the Democrats are willing to crap on another loyal voting bloc:

Yes, you read that right:

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed today that President Barack Obama will respond in writing to four questions submitted by HIGH TIMES magazine “in order to clarify the official marijuana policy” of the federal government.

“The President does not, at this time, support the legalization of marijuana,” Gibbs asserted, in accepting HIGH TIMES’ request for an email interview. “But he does recognize that many Americans are interested in the issue, based on change.gov and other online forums, and he wishes to engage all sides on this debate.”

Over at Slate, Susannah Breslin is in a bit of a flame war with former Dan Quayle speechwriter Lisa Schiffren about gay marriage and the speculative political affiliations of Barack Obama’s parents (which we must assume he genetically inherited).

Breslin quoted an article written by Schiffren on gay marriage which she found very disagreeable:

[O]ne may feel the same affection for one’s homosexual friends and relatives as for any other, and be genuinely pleased for the happiness they derive from relationships, while opposing gay marriage for principled reasons.