Consider the paradoxes in the following sequence of events:

• Presidential candidate and Republican governor of Texas, Rick Perry, releases a TV ad attacking the honor of lesbian and gay service members, saying, ““I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school,” which means Perry supports and would re-institute DADT, a program for outing lesbian and gay service members and destroying their careers …
• But when GOProud’s leaders, Jimmy LaSalvia and Chris Barron, publicly object to the fact that Perry’s chief campaign strategist, Tony Fabrizio, is gay and did not resign to protest Perry’s decision to release this ad, they are subjected to a maelstrom of criticism for outing him …
• Even though Jimmy and Chris have known Fabrizio to be openly gay for so many years it never occurred to them anyone considered him to be in the closet …
• But while Fabrizio neither resigns the Perry campaign to protest the anti-gay TV ad nor is fired for having his already considerable outness outed up several notches …
• Andrew Breitbart does resign from GOProud’s advisory board to protest the outing of someone who is out because outing can destroy families and careers — thereby damaging the careers of two men who did not out anyone and the organization they founded — yes, this is the same Andrew Breitbart who outed Congressman Anthony Weiner as a tweeter of lewd self-portraits and destroyed his career …
• Then remember this started with Rick Perry denouncing the end of a policy that outed lesbian and gay service members and destroyed their careers …

Now click thee to Cracked.com and scroll down to #1 to rejoice in this “tiny karmic miracle.”

Over at Ace of Spades HQ, from time-to-time recently Ace has been pondering issues of gay equality, such as gay marriage and DADT (“don’t ask, don’t tell”). While he doesn’t see gay and lesbian people as truly human — with unalienable rights and all and the freedom from being forced by government to follow religious beliefs that are not their own — he usually wrestles with the issues in a reasonable way that is rare in Right Blogosphere.

To summarize DADT news this week, on Thursday the Washington Post published a story that its reporters had interviewed two sources who had read the Pentagon report on whether repealing DADT would impair the military’s ability to fulfill its mission that was due to be released on Dec. 1. Short version: no, it won’t. WaPo also published reactions from the usual suspects, including this one from Alexander Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United:

“These results confirm what those of us who actually know the modern military, especially the rank and file troops, have said all along. The men and women of America’s armed forces are professionals who are capable of handling this policy change. In light of these findings, as well as the Secretary of Defense’s recent call for Senate action on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ during the lame duck session, there is no longer any excuse for failing to bring the defense authorization bill back up during the first week of the post-election legislative session.”

For perspective, bear in mind that convicted rapists, felons, illegal aliens and Muslims, who are commanded to kill or subjugate all non-Muslims, all are allowed to serve in the U.S. military.

On Friday the Supreme Court rejected a request by the Log Cabin Republicans, the right-wing gay group that is challenging DADT in court, to halt enforcement of DADT while appeals of a district court decision in favor of the Log Cabin Republicans (and against DADT) proceed. As Ed Morrissey notes at Hot Air, this is not so bad because it will prevent the destruction of the careers of service members who “told” under the protection of the district court decision if it is reversed by the Supreme Court.

So after reading Ed’s post at Hot Air, Ace wrote a DADT post that concludes as follows:

And I don’t think critics of the policy are giving sufficient thought to what may happen in many of the people inclined to military service decide it no longer represents their values.

Critics may say “But that puts the government behind a policy of discrimination!” Possibly, yeah; there is a strong argument that that’s the case. And maybe the end of DADT will turn out to be a big nothingburger (as the desegregation of the military was, mostly, despite similar concerns being voiced at the time).

Still. The guys who make up the club should have most of the say about the rules of the club. I really doubt that many of the policy’s critics are willing to sign up to make up for drops in recruitment, should that come to pass.

Ace then published in a separate post selected comments by current and former servicemembers opposed to the repeal of DADT. I’m writing this post mostly because of the degree of disconnect between what gays seek by the repeal of DADT and the right to serve openly and what Ace’s commenters think gays are seeking.

But first let me tell Ace how the repeal of DADT really will turn out to be a big “nothingburger”: when gay and lesbian service members can serve openly, and get to know their colleagues as whole people just the way straight people do while following all the same rules of conduct, then everyone else will learn their fears were baseless. It’s not going to take very long.

In fact, I suspect the real reasons that anti-gay groups have worked so hard to demonize gays and create great horrors in straight people’s minds about repealing DADT is that serving in the military is noble and bolsters the claim of gays to equality. Also, it will greatly increase the number of straight people who get to know and respect someone who is openly gay or lesbian, which will make us that much harder to demonize in the future.

For Ace’s commenters, let me say that the reason that lesbians and gays want to serve openly in the military is a simple one: they just want to be honest about their lives in the same way that straight people are allowed to be and they are willing to obey the same rules of conduct. The right to be honest about your life means that you can connect to others and create rapport by talking about going on a date, or being able to introduce your friends to your life partner. If you don’t think that having to hide every word and detail of your life that could reveal your sexual orientation — that being forced to disguise, suppress, hide and lie about who you are — is not a heavy and damaging burden, then you try it for a month.

Ace also fretted that if gays can serve openly, then enlistments might fall because enlistees don’t mind being told to pound sand if they object to serving with rapists, felons, illegal immigrants and Muslims required to kill/subjugate ALL unbelievers, but the mere knowledge they could be required to serve in the presence of a gay person would utterly unhinge them and cause them to flee from the recruiter’s office.

Well, my observation is that gays and lesbians are an unusually altruistic lot and I believe that the percentage of gays and lesbians who enlist is going to be significantly higher than our supposed proportion of the U.S. population. Another factor is the number of gay and lesbian teens who face homelessness if their parents discover they are gay — repeal of DADT would give them the option to enlist: military service is one of the few jobs now open to 18-year-olds that offers them enough money to live on, great benefits and career training. In fact, come to think of it, since gays and lesbians still face a great deal of workplace discrimination in the civilian marketplace, when the military services stop discriminating they are going to become one of the most attractive employers in the marketplace for gays and lesbians young enough to serve.

As for whether gays and lesbians are patriotic enough to want to serve in the military — yes, yes, we are. One of the most poignant aspects I witnessed at last year’s march on Washington for gay equality was that almost every speaker spoke with great love of America mixed with hurt and bewilderment at “unalienable rights” and “liberty and justice for all” somehow not applying to us. Arabic translator Lt. Dan Choi, who spoke at the march, was recently discharged due to “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and explains here why he enlisted and why he told (I don’t remember if he mentions it in this interview, but one reason he told is he’s a preacher’s kid and was raised to be honest):

P.S.

I also learned at the Oct. 2009 march for gay equality that Katharine Lee Bates, who wrote “America the Beautiful,” was a lesbian.

see more Historic LOL

I’m phoning this one in — here’s the press release dated Nov. 1 from the Log Cabin Republicans:

(Washington, DC) – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the Obama administration’s request to resurrect the failed ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy while they continue defending the law in court. The policy was suspended after a federal District Court judge granted a world-wide injunction halting discharges and requiring the military not to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

“Log Cabin Republicans is disappointed that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will continue to burden our armed forces, undermine national security and limit the freedom of our men and women in uniform,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director of Log Cabin Republicans. “Despite this temporary setback, Log Cabin remains confident that we will ultimately prevail on behalf of servicemembers’ constitutional rights. In the meantime, we urge President Obama to use his statutory stop-loss power to halt discharges under this discriminatory and wasteful policy. The president claims to want to see ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ ended. It is time that he stop talking and start working to make a real difference for gay and lesbian Americans by pushing for repeal when Congress returns.”

“The court’s ruling is a disappointment not only to us, but also to all gay and lesbian servicemembers who bravely put themselves in harm’s way so that we can all enjoy the constitutional rights and freedoms that they themselves are being denied,” said Dan Woods, White & Case partner who is representing Log Cabin Republicans. “The decision only slows the day when military service will be available to all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, who want nothing more than to serve their country honorably and patriotically. We will continue to fight on for the constitutional rights of these Americans and look forward to a favorable decision on the merits of the appeal. Meanwhile, we will discuss the court’s order with our client to determine whether we will ask for a review of the order by the US Supreme Court.”

Log Cabin Republicans filed suit in federal district court against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 2004. The case went to trial in Riverside, California in July of 2010, and Judge Virginia Phillips ruled on September 9, 2010, that the policy violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution.

Frankly, I was browsing my newsfeed for something easy and funny to post when I came across Instapundit’s post on Obama’s Oct. 27 meeting in the White House with five progressive bloggers in which he links Ann Althouse and JustOneMinute. The five progressive bloggers were Joe Sudbay of Americablog (this post includes a transcript of Joe’s Q and A with Obama on the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and has a number of comments that are worth reading), Barbara Morrill from DailyKos, Duncan Black (Atrios), and Oliver Willis and John Amato from Crooks and Liars.

Click on the link above to Althouse because I can’t improve on her bravura critique of Obama’s shuck-and-jive replies to Sudbay’s questions.

Last October I linked a post by John Aravosis of Americablog in which he noted that the Democratic leadership told gays on 9/3/09 that now was not a good time for the overwhelming Democratic majority to take any action to repeal DADT and DOMA or do even the tiniest thing for gays — and later wasn’t looking very good, either. I pointed out that gays should interpret this to mean that Obama will NEVER support gay equality and gave the reasons why conservatives DO and WILL.

Updated Sat., 10/30/10: Thank you, Moe Lane, for the link! You are correct — I did NOT vote for that man, Obama. Frankly, I voted for THAT WOMAN, Sarah Palin, and considered the prospect that she would only be a heartbeat away from the presidency to be a feature, not a bug, what with her being the only one of the four candidates with executive branch experience and therefore the only one actually qualified for the office.

Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member gay and lesbian organization, won an important victory for lesbian and gay equality yesterday when a California judge ruled the military’s ban on gays serving in the military known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” is unconstitutional.

The Associated Press reports:

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A federal judge in Southern California has declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips on Thursday granted a request for an injunction halting the government’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays in the military.

Phillips says the policy doesn’t help military readiness and instead has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services.

Allahpundit carps a bit that this as judicial overreach, despite the fact that defending minorities from the majority is EXACTLY what judges are supposed to do, and deftly summarizes the issues:

There are two claims: First, that DADT violates gay service members’ due process right of “intimate conduct” — a direct result of Kennedy’s opinion striking down sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas — and second, that it infringes on their right to free speech by forbidding them from talking about all sorts of subjects in the interest of keeping them closeted. The military can, of course, force its members to keep silent about various things and it can also restrict their “intimate conduct” — but it needs a compelling reason to do so, and according to the court, based on the evidence there’s simply no compelling reason to do that vis-a-vis orientation. (Military personnel from various U.S. allies who already allow gays in their armies say the same thing.) There’s no equal protection ruling here as there was in the Prop 8 case, but otherwise the reasoning is very much the same. Since the government is either unwilling or unable to provide a convincing argument for discriminating based on sexuality, they can’t discriminate based on sexuality. Simple as that.

Yes.

By the way, if you think it’s easy to keep silent about your sexual orientation and that it’s not a free speech issue, then YOU try hiding EVERY aspect of your sexual orientation in ALL of your conversations 24/7 for at least a week. Try this helpful — and very realistic — visualization: imagine that if you slip, you will lose your career, your retirement, your friends,  your home and everything you ever worked for.

I was browsing at Ace of Spades HQ and a story there by Maetenloch about law enforcement officers harassing photographers caught my eye because it mentions a case about a Maryland man — who lives near me — who is on trial for videotaping his own arrest for speeding on his motorcycle. This is an issue that Instapundit, aka law professor Glenn Reynolds, follows and Maetenloch linked a piece by Prof. Reynolds published at Popular Mechanics a week ago. Here’s what caught my eye (boldfacing mine):

Not surprisingly, police tend to be particularly sensitive about being photographed themselves. And many of the cases cited by Manning involve officers discouraging citizens from filming them while they go about their duties. Though one can understand their skittishness, the fact is, our ability to document the actions of public officials is an important freedom, one that can serve as a check against abuses.

Police and prosecutors in Maryland have been taking a particularly hard line. In one case, motorcycle rider Anthony Graber left his helmet cam on while he was pulled over by a state trooper. A grand jury indicted him on several violations of the state’s wiretapping laws. If convicted on all charges, Graber could face up to 16 years in prison. In alleging that the GoPro video camera on Graber’s helmet constituted a “surreptitious” wiretapping device, prosecutors are making the claim that a person recording his own arrest is violating the police officer’s right to privacy.

This is the sort of thing you might be tempted simply to toss in the crazy file. But, in fact, this is one of the comparatively few issues that could merit a new federal civil rights law. Under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Congress is empowered to pass laws protecting civil rights against infringement by state and local officials, and that seems to be what’s happening here. A clear federal law would limit cases, like Maryland’s, in which local officials use their power to harass those who might keep an eye on them. Passing such a law would make us all safer.

So lesbians and gays are supposed to fight state-by-state for equality — which conservatives advocate because they know it will be an exercise in futility — but PHOTOGRAPHERS merit a federal civil rights law? GET IN LINE, PHOTOGRAPHERS!

In the same spirit, I invite GOProud Chair Christopher R. Barron to resign from GOProud for his stupefying failure of vision and leadership in his exhortation this week in The Advocate for gays to abandon the fight for same-sex marriage equality and instead become fiscal conservatives:

While the debate over marriage continues, we as a community should support pragmatic reforms that will reduce discrimination against gay and lesbian couples while at the same time strengthening these systems for all Americans.

It is time for the self-appointed leadership of Gay, Inc. to recognize that with leadership comes responsibility. If you claim to speak for the gay community, if you claim to set the agenda for our community, then you have a requirement to make sure you support legislation and policy initiatives that would improve the lives of gay and lesbian Americans today. It is time to abandon marriage or bust.

No, Mr. Barron, it is NOT time to abandon the quest for same-sex marriage equality. However, it IS time for people of real vision and leadership and courage to point out that EQUALITY for lesbians and gays is indeed a matter of the liberty that conservatives purport to hold sacred and that equality is only real when it is federally guaranteed. Criminy, if the liberty of photographers deserves a federal civil rights law, then the noble aspirations of lesbians and gays to marry, serve in the military, adopt children and to be free of discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations DESERVES A FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW FIRST.

Lesbians and gays are a natural constituency of fiscal conservatism because discrimination forces so many of us to become self-employed as individuals or as small business owners. In addition, we know we cannot look to the government for handouts. There are two reasons that there are not more lesbians and gays who are fiscal conservatives — first, social conservatives use the government to force us into second-class citizenship in a deliberate effort to destroy as many gay and lesbian people as they can, and second, social conservatives drive lesbians and gays out of the conservative movement.

So, rather than calling on gays and lesbians to be second-class citizens in perpetuity and fight for the causes of a movement that intentionally destroys our lives, why not call out the conservative movement and explain how many of our conservative goals of improving the morality of individuals and society will be met by the socializing benefits available only to first-class citizens AND how much easier it will be to get the programs advocated by fiscal conservatives enacted into law AFTER gays and lesbians get a federal civil rights law ensuring our equality. This would gut the Left because it would take from them a constituency whose priorities they have vowed to stall forever and yet who performs prodigious amounts of labor and donates even more prodigious amounts of cash — all in quest of the birthright every other American takes for granted: EQUALITY. Nothing would expose the Left as a fraud faster or more effectively.

Well, that’s MY take on Obama’s motives. June is Gay Pride month, which Obama observed last year by tossing an even smaller crumb to gay and lesbian employees. He’s not trying the same gambit this year that he used successfully last year, though — he trumpeted a list of benefits gay and lesbian federal employees would get — and here is the weasel escape clause — as long as they did not violate federal law. Since the 1994 Defense of Marriage Act passed with the support of Democratic President Bill Clinton is federal law and was written to prevent both same-sex marriage AND the incremental enactment of legal rights for lesbians and gays, pretty much everything on the menu Obama and his proxies waved around was never going to be served at the separate and non-equal lunch counter for lesbians and gays. They must have caught onto this trick, or Obama would be using it again.

The San Francisco Gate has Obama’s full statement — the following excerpt is the closing paragraph. I think it reveals that Obama’s true goal is to appease lesbians and gays enough so they stop being so uppity and and quit demanding the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of a law that ensures our full equality under the law:

“While this Memorandum is an important step on the path to equality, my Administration continues to be prevented by existing Federal law from providing same-sex domestic partners with the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. That is why, today, I renew my call for swift passage of an important piece of legislation pending in both Houses of Congress — the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. This legislation, championed by Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, would extend to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees the full range of benefits currently enjoyed by Federal employees’ opposite-sex spouses. I look forward to signing it into law.”

Why isn’t Obama calling for the swift REPEAL of the Defense of Marriage Act? “Domestic Partnership” is NOT marriage. It is NOT equality. Yo! Obama! Pelosi! Reid! ONLY equality will do!

Update, 6/3/2010, Thurs.: It would not take the military nearly so long to figure out how to implement the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) if Congress also repealed the Defense of Marriage Act and enacted legislation ensuring equality for lesbians and gays. Without equality for lesbians and gays, the military services are creating their own separate-and-gallingly-unequal patchwork of who gets what and when.

I spotted this in my headline feed for Ace of Spades HQ — the post is by-lined by Gabriel Malor, who is gay. It’s also in a post by Ben Smith at Politico. I don’t know if it first appeared at the milblog, Blackfive, but I link it below and if you follow the link, Uncle Jimbo there links all the milbloggers who signed the statement.

I am wary that the Pentagon is trying to slow-walk the repeal of DADT so it will appear to have died a natural death and no one has to take heat for killing it. So the part I like best about this statement is that the milbloggers note that the Pentagon will deliver the results of its study on how to allow gay and lesbian service members to serve openly on December 1 and that they call on Congress to act promptly to repeal. I have been criticizing the gay and lesbian Left for never setting a deadline for Obama to keep his promises to them. The milbloggers are smarter — they did. Here’s their statement:

JOINT STATEMENT FROM MILITARY BLOGGERS 12 MAY 2010

We consider the US military the greatest institution for good that has ever existed. No other organization has freed more people from oppression, done more humanitarian work or rescued more from natural disasters. We want that to continue.

Today, it appears inevitable to us that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and law restricting those displaying open homosexual behavior from serving will be changed. And yet, very little will actually change. Homosexuals have always served in the US Military, and there have been no real problems caused by that.

The service chiefs are currently studying the impact and consequences of changing the DADT policy, and how to implement it without compromising the morale, order and discipline necessary for the military to function. The study is due to be completed on Dec. 1st. We ask Congress to withhold action until this is finished, but no longer. We urge Congress to listen to the service chiefs and act in accordance with the recommendations of that study.

The US Military is professional and ready to adapt to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell without compromising its mission. Echoing Sec. Def. Gates and ADM Mullen, we welcome open and honorable service, regardless of sexual orientation.

Matt Burden- Warrior Legacy Foundation & BLACKFIVE

Jim Hanson- Warrior Legacy Foundation & BLACKFIVE

Blake Powers- BLACKFIVE

Fred Schoenman- BLACKFIVE

David Bellavia- House to House

Bruce McQuain- Q&O

JD Johannes- Outside the Wire

Diane Frances McInnis Miller- Boston Maggie

Mark Seavey- This Ain’t Hell

Michael St. Jacques- The Sniper

Mary Ripley- US Naval Institute Blog

John Donovan- Castle Argghhh!

Andrew J. Lubin- The Military Observer

Marc Danziger- Winds of Change

Greta Perry- Hooah Wife

I don’t think the December repeal will come in time to save the career of Arabic translator and West Point graduate, Lt. Dan Choi — I posted a video of him here speaking in October 2009 at the Equality March. Lately he’s been chaining himself to the White House fence. Since both the Right and the Left support the repeal of DADT, I hope the milbloggers and others on the Right also call for an immediate moratorium on all DADT investigations and stopping all discharges on the grounds of being gay or lesbian. There’s no sense in throwing away our nation’s investment in training these service members, to say nothing of the wanton destruction to the careers of those being discharged.

Former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, in an interview at The College of New Jersey, in Ewing, New Jersey, on Friday slandered same-sex marriage in terms that usually get him congratulations from his supporters and indignation from lesbians and gays, which results in more congratulations from his supporters, all of which Huckabee seems to feed on and revel in. However, he is in hot water about it today — calling same-sex marriage comparable to polygamy, incest and bestiality doesn’t seem to be working out as well this time as it has in the past, so Huckabee is trying the time-honored tactic of attacking the student journalist and claiming he was misquoted.

Oops! The student who interviewed him has posted a video of the transcript with the audio of the interview — guess who is the bald-faced liar?:

Original Video – More videos at TinyPic

H/T Good As You, which also has the full quote of Huckabee’s disingenuous attack on the student journalist’s integrity.

Newsmax has a summary of Huckabee’s attacks on same-sex marriage from his interview at The College of New Jersey.

To put in perspective Huckabee’s personal moral sense and his attacks on the integrity of gay people for the BEING crime of homosexuality, it is worth recalling his easy attitude toward the DOING crime of murder that led him — over and over and over again — to grant clemency to Arkansas’s murderers against the advice of pretty much every expert in the Arkansas criminal justice system and the families of the victims. This includes the murderer he released who took the lives four police officers in Washington state in Nov. 2009 — for background, see the Washington Independent and Michelle Malkin.

New gentle readers: for more on my views on same-sex marriage and equality for lesbians and gays, please click those topics in my “Category” list in the sidebar:

• Gay marriage
• Homosexual marriage equality
• Homosexual equality
• Totalitarian social conservatism
• Gay adoption
• Gays in the military, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced this morning that he will retire from the Supreme Court at the end of its current term in June or June. Justice Stevens began his service on the Supreme Court on Dec. 17, 1975. He will turn 90 on April 20.

Gay rights activists have been passive about the treacheries to their legislative objectives for equality by Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress. They should have been screaming their heads off, pointing out that blacks and women got equality during the Viet Nam war and assorted economic crises so there’s no time like the present for gay equality, and then stopping all work for and donations to any Democrat until they spent the half hour it would take to pass the required legislation and sign it into law.

Well, while I understand Mark Steyn’s objections to the stamp collection paradigm of diversity, IT IS TIME FOR AN OPENLY LESBIAN OR GAY SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

So, Democratic gay rights activists — get on that, please. Tell Obama and the Democrats it is put up or shut up time.

Bonus:

Here’s the transcript of Mark Steyn on “The Hugh Hewitt Show” on Thursday, April 8, 2010, making the “stamp collection” remark (boldfacing mine):

HH: Now I also have to bring up the delicious irony that came across my desk today. Asian-American Democrats are criticizing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for favoring a white former Congressman from Hawaii over the Asian-American state senate president in a hotly contested special election to represent a majority of a minority Hawaiian district. I had the Republican challenger, Charles Djou on yesterday, www.djou.com, but what do you make of this, Mark Steyn? The Democrats divided, and they’re going with the old, white guy.

MS: Yeah, I know. It’s rather heartening in a way.

HH: Yes, it is.

MS: Frank Rich wrote a ridiculous column, even by his own impressive standards, a couple of weeks ago…

HH: (laughing)

MS: …saying that the only reason guys like me and you oppose Obamacare is because we’re uncomfortable with a black president and a female Speaker, and a wise Latina on the Supreme Court, and gay Barney Frank as a powerful Congressional committee chairman. So it’s good to know that the Democrats are now finding one old, heterosexual, white guy that we can be opposed to as well.

HH: (laughing)

MS: I love it when identity politics starts devouring itself. And I say bring it on.

HH: It is…

MS: I’m tired of identity politics, and I’d rather, you know, I’m interested in individual liberty and rights for individuals. And I can’t stand this kind of stamp collector’s view of diversity, that a modern political movement only counts if it’s got one of everything.

Be sure to read the entire transcript at Radio Blogger.

By the way, I’m not kidding here: IT IS TIME FOR AN OPENLY GAY OR LESBIAN JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT. On account of our stamp being the only one in the collection that does NOT have all those rights for individuals and the liberty that straight people have.