But I’ve got a few things in the works. Meantime, here’s the video that got me to stop procrastinating and go work out (moderately safe for work — no nudity, at least).

This, ironically, is the Pope trying to make a point about homosexuality:

People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given to them by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. When freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God.

But I was an adolescent growing up in a conservative Catholic home, and that’s when I was disputing the idea that I have a nature, hoping instead that my sexuality was a fundamental choice I could make. Finally in the 80s I accepted I was gay and stopped stripping myself of dignity by trying to live a lie in discord with my nature.

The Pope thinks he’s arguing against homosexuality, when in fact he’s explaining why ex-gay therapy is a moral shame.

It’s been a bad year for the National Organization for Marriage. And yet they do need money do need to convince their supporters the battle is not lost. Allow me to share with you their year-end message, and also to insert my own little commentary.

NOM says:

Marriage is winning . . .

. . . with a marriage amendment passed in North Carolina and another on its way in Indiana;

This is the year NOM could no longer say same-sex marriage is rejected every time it’s put before the voters. This is the year that leaves us with a 4-state winning streak.

. . . with outspoken support from each of the leading GOP Presidential candidates, and with a strong statement in the Republican Party platform;

This is the year a presidential candidate endorsed same-sex marriage. Wait — it’s the year the winning presidential candidate endorsed same-sex marriage

. . . with five state Senators in New York who lost their jobs after betraying their constituents by legalizing gay marriage, despite massive financial support from Governor Andrew Cuomo, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the gay marriage lobby;

This is the year NOM failed to repeal marriage equality in New York and failed to gain the seats needed to do it next year.

. . . with corporations put on notice by the massive support behind NOM’s Dump Starbucks campaign and the outpouring of encouragement on August 1st, Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day;

This is the year NOM got supporters to fast for a just cause, like Gandhi. Wait, sorry, it’s the year NOM persuaded them to pig out on saturated fat. It’s also the year Starbuck’s stock price was higher at the beginning of the year than at the end — good work, NOM! And it’s the year a vast number of corporations endorsed same-sex marriage (despite being “put on notice”).

. . . with new, powerful, and compelling research by scholars like Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas, whose ground-breaking “New Family Structures Study” showed the major differences between young adults raised by same-sex parents and those raised by a married mom and dad;

This is the year NOM exposed their own intellectual and scientific vacuity by telling the world its very best bestest evidence against same-sex parenting is a study that, as it turns out, did not report on same-sex parenting.

. . . and with the United States Supreme Court deciding to hear appeals of cases on both the Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

This is the year a 16-year-old law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage creaked so loudly in the political and judicial windstorm that the Supreme Court realized it must decide whether to leave the law standing at all.

Each of NOM’s wins is actually a sad little loss. Aw. But they’re right about one thing, even if they don’t realize it: As of December, 2012, marriage is winning.

John Eastman is all of the following:

• Chairman of the Board for the National Organization for Marriage

• Current professor and former Dean at Chapman University School of Law

• A specialist in constitutional law and legal history

And…wait, there was one more. Oh, yeah:

• Another conservative happy to chuck his principles so he can be anti-gay

Eastman has a commentary about Prop 8 in USA Today: “Federal government can define marriage too.” I found it pointless and disjointed, but one paragraph leapt out at me, apparently in defense of DOMA:

And if states have the right to define marriage, doesn’t the federal government have that same right? It’s the constitutional duty of our elected officials to decide what burden taxpayers bear in dealing with same-sex couples. Federal laws encourage men and women to marry and have children because society has a profound interest in ensuring that children are born (to continue society) and then raised by their parents to become responsible adults.

That surprised me. Conservative legal scholars are usually federalists who believe in limiting the federal government’s power to what’s enumerated in the Constitution, leaving everything else to the people or to the states. It would be hypocritical, even bizarre, for a federalist to throw all that out the window with a simple, “And if states have the right to define marriage, doesn’t the federal government have that same right?” Because a federalist would answer that with a firm, “No.” Perhaps even a lifting of the chest, an intake of the breath, a scowl on the brow, and a stern, “Absolutely not!”

So I figured, John Eastman must not be a federalist.

I figured wrong. Eastman isn’t just a federalist — he’s an officer of the Federalist Society. And he’s written passionately about limiting the power of the federal government:

[I]t became and remains one of the most fundamental tenets of our constitutional system of government that the sovereign people delegated to the national government only certain, enumerated powers, leaving the residuum of power to be exercised by the state governments or by the people themselves.

This division of sovereign powers between the two great levels of government was not simply a constitutional add-on, by way of the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it is inherent in the doctrine of enumerated powers embodied in the main body of the  Constitution itself. Article I of the Constitution provides, for example, that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” And the specific enumeration of powers, found principally in Article I, section 8, was likewise limited.

Of course, when he wrote that he was trying to place limits on federal business regulation. But if that’s his principle, then surely he would apply it consistently. He wouldn’t abandon it just so the federal government could actively limit the rights of gay people. He’d never casually argue a non sequitur like, “And if states have the right to define marriage, doesn’t the federal government have that same right?”

But — ha! — I’m just kidding. John Eastman isn’t a principled conservative. He’s just a professional anti-gay at NOM.

The vast majority of people opposed to same-sex marriage are religious.

But…

It does not logically follow that the vast majority of the religious are opposed to same-sex marriage.

Both sides need to be reminded of this now and then.

Will marriage equality wreck people’s conception of marriage and destroy society? Our opponents think so. They put the idea in their legal arguments, and I recently mocked Nevada Judge Robert Jones for allowing the possibility in his ruling against us. For the sake of reasoned discourse, though, we ought to take this seriously for a moment and see if it makes any sense.

Judge Jones argued:

Should that institution be expanded to include same-sex couples with the state’s imprimatur, it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently, opting for purely private ceremonies, if any, whether religious or secular, but in any case without civil sanction, because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined, leading to an increased percentage of out-of-wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes after the dissolution of what amount to common law marriages in a state where such marriages are not recognized, or other unforeseen consequences.

Sounds ridiculous to me, but Jones seems to think plausibility is irrelevant. He also wrote:

The question is whether the State has any conceivable basis, even speculatively, to believe that spouses or prospective spouses might feel this way, for whatever reason…

But that’s not quite right. He references the court case Jackson v Abercrombie to support this notion that any conceivable speculative harm is sufficient for his ruling, but here’s what Jackson says:

 Under rational basis review, the state is not required to show that allowing same-sex couples to marry will discourage, through changing societal norms, opposite-sex couples from marrying. Rather, the standard is whether the legislature could rationally speculate that it might.

I added the emphasis. The speculation needs to be rational. In other words, while I could conceivably speculate that marriage equality will rip a hole in the space-time continuum, allowing armed bunnies from another universe to cross over and prevent straights from marrying, that wouldn’t be rational speculation.

So let’s see how rational Judge Jone’ is being. Let’s profile these hypothetical  people for whom marriage equality would so devalue the civil institution that they would opt out of it.

First, obviously,  they can’t be supporters of same-sex marriage. By definition, these folks won’t have a harsh, life-changing reaction against the passage of marriage equality. The same goes for people who don’t much care about same-sex marriage, pro or con.

That leaves us with the opponents of marriage equality. But do they all fall into Judge Jones’ speculative group? Certainly not.

Think about the larger, more popular, more influential anti-gay churches. They have little incentive to offer “purely private” religious ceremonies “without civil sanction” — if only becaue doing so reduce their secular authority and power, something churches are often loathe to do.

Less cynically, the more thoughtful of these churches would recognize the dangers (helpfully listed by Judge Jones) of “out-of-wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes after the dissolution of what amount to common law marriages” and thus they’d follow their moral obligation to guide congregants away from those dangers and into civil marriage.

Actually, this is also is true for those who put forth non-religious reasons for opposing marriage equality. This same litany of dangers would lead the Maggie Gallaghers and Jennifer Roeback Morses of the world, along with their followers, to marry and to counsel marriage for others.

Who do we have left? Just a virulently anti-gay fringe  too irrational to recognize the benefits of civil marriage. But wait — we needn’t even worry about them. After all, we’ve altered marriage laws before:  It’s now easy to divorce and just as easy to remarry. So we can split our irrational, anti-gay fringe into two groups:

1. Those who have previously devalued civil marriage and withdrawn from the institution because it no longer matches their religious criteria. But we’ve already lost those folks, so marriage equality will have little impact on them.
2. Those who have shown no inclination to abandon civil marriage just because it doesn’t pass their religious smell test. Marriage equality will have little impact on them, either.

And that’s it. We’ve eliminated pretty much the entire population from concern. We don’t have to worry about any of the following and their reaction to the passage of same-sex marriage:

• Supporters of marriage equality

• Those who don’t care either way about marriage equality

• Those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds

• Those who oppose same-sex marriage on non-religious grounds but rationally understand the benefits of civil marriage

• Irrational opponents of same-sex marriage who have already abandoned civil marriage

• Irrational opponents of same-sex marriage who haven’t already abandoned civil marriage

I suppose, even after all this, you can find a tiny, tiny segment of the population who will ditch civil marriage if two guys or two gals can get hitched. But will they be a “meaningful percentage” of the population? Rational thinking says no.

That was a nice thought experiment. However, if someone claimed that marriage equality will lead people to stop getting married, I wouldn’t haul out this argument right away. I’d merely take a rational tone with a rational smile and ask the rational question:

“Can you describe these people for me?”

Sometimes two sentences is all it takes to make you cry.

The couple who received the very first marriage license, though, was Jane Abbott Lighty, 77, and Pete-e Peterson, 85, who have been together over 35 years. They met on a blind date in 1977 and believed they would die before they could legally wed.

The National Organization for Marriage is thrilled with a Nevada judge who ruled that banning same-sex marriage does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. NOM’s chairman writes:

In stark contrast to the findings of a rogue judge in California who himself was engaged in a long-term homosexual relationship, the federal court in Nevada has quite properly found that true marriage serves an important public purpose and is entitled to protection.

I’ll pass over the hilarious notion that a judge who wasn’t overturned by the Ninth Circuit Apellate Court is somehow “rogue.” I’m more interested in that side comment:

…who himself was engaged in a long-term homosexual relationship…

You know what he’s implying. Judge Walker had a personal stake in Prop 8, which compromises his ruling. You can certainly dispute that, but for the sake of argument, let’s accept NOM’s principle and apply it to Robert Clive Jones, the Nevada judge whom NOM so deeply admires. What do we find?

• Robert Clive Jones is Mormon who is active in the church.

• Robert Clive Jones is married to a woman.

Personally, I have no problem with that. But NOM? Oh my gosh. If NOM is true to its principles then it ought to be in full repudiation mode against the man.

NOM, you see, holds that marriage equality is a threat to religious freedom. It’s probably their central argument these days. And Mormon religious leaders have said the same, and have done so more than once.

This means that as an active Mormon, Jones has a personal stake in the ruling — according to both NOM’s standards and those of his church. Obviously, then, NOM should issue an ad hominem fatwa against him, just as they did against Judge Walker.

No? Not enough?

Then how about this: NOM holds that same-sex marriage is a threat to “traditional” marriage, and Jones is “traditionally” married. In fact, you can find some of this sentiment in Jones’ own ruling:

Should [marriage] be expanded to include same-sex couples with the state’s imprimatur, it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently…

“Conceivable”? I suppose it is, at least in the sense that anything you can describe in words is “conceivable,” in the sense that it’s conceivable North Korea actually has discovered a medieval unicorn lair, but still, we’re not basing our judicial rulings on the possibility.

This conceivable notion is so implausible I have to wonder why Jones considers it “meaningful.” Could it be that Jones is worried he’d value his own marriage less if marriage equality were made law? Once again, there’s a personal interest, a reason for NOM to reject his ruling.

This is all ludicrous, of course. And that’s the point. We let black judges rule on civil rights cases. We let women judges rule on birth control and abortion cases. We let devout judges rule on religious freedom cases. And we let gay judges rule on same-sex marriage cases.

But NOM screams STOP at that last example. Not that NOM has anything against gays. There’s no anti-gay double standard at work. Surely not — NOM is just standing by its principles. Principles they only want to enforce against, well, gays.

If you listen to enough religious programming on your commute (and I do) you’ll come across the Anthropic Principle, a sort of proof of God’s existence based on the idea that the conditions necessary for the emergence of human life in the universe are so unlikely that the universe must have been designed just for us (and the designer’s name is God). For example:

The anthropic principle says that the universe appears “designed” for the sake of human life. More than a century of astronomy and physics research yields this unexpected observation: the emergence of humans and human civilization requires physical constants, laws, and properties that fall within certain narrow ranges—and this truth applies not only to the cosmos as a whole but also to the galaxy, planetary system, and planet humans occupy. To state the principle more dramatically, a preponderance of physical evidence points to humanity as the central theme of the cosmos.

There’s so, so, so very much wrong with this kind of thinking, but rather than get into the details, let me offer this counterpoint from physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson:

If you’re one of the hundred billion bacteria living and working in a single centimeter of the lower intestine, you might instead say that the purpose of human life is to provide you with a dark but idyllic anaerobic habitat of fecal matter.

Sometimes it’s all about perspective.

Rick Warren is at it again. The megachurch pastor is explaining why homosexuals don’t have to act all homosexual, and he does it with some cute little equivalencies:

Here’s what we know about life. I have all kinds of natural feelings in my life and it doesn’t necessarily mean that I should act on every feeling. Sometimes I get angry and I feel like punching a guy in the nose. It doesn’t mean I act on it. Sometimes I feel attracted to women who are not my wife. I don’t act on it. Just because I have a feeling doesn’t make it right. Not everything natural is good for me. Arsenic is natural.

Don’t be surprised if he ducks any criticism with a hurt, victimized video message. He did it four years ago, which inspired my very first political youtube: