ALINSKY WEARS high heels. “However, to me, the most offensive part of this charade is that it’s a setback to women in the military. Courageous women have served our country in the military for decades, and this preposterous exercise reduced them to a stereotype of victimized girls in high heels.” Well, those are the women who vote Democratic.

FROM EUGENE VOLOKH, some generally sensible thoughts on sex and consent in the context of relationships. Excerpt:

It seems to me quite obvious that spouses are entitled to say “no.”

At the same time, it seems to me equally obvious that we must consider the parties’ past and unrevoked consent as relevant in some situations where there’s neither a “no” or a “yes.” If A starts caressing B’s genitals while B is sleeping, that’s generally a serious crime. But if A and B are sexually involved, it seems to me it shouldn’t be a crime at all — especially if this has happened before and both parties were quite happy about it — unless B wakes up and says no, or has indicated lack of consent to such behavior in the past. . . .

This is just a reflection of the fact that “consent,” like much in life, can be implied and long-lasting and not just express and short-term. If we’re good friends and you keep letting me borrow something, that may be evidence of consent to borrow it even when I’m not around to expressly say, “Yes, you can borrow it again.” That immediate consent is impossible, because you’re absent, doesn’t mean that there is no consent. Sex is not identical, of course, to borrowing gardening equipment, but in this respect it strikes me as similar: Even when someone isn’t able to immediately consent, it’s sometimes (though not always) reasonable to determine whether they would have consented by looking to past practice among the parties.

And this is especially so, I think, when the incapacity is permanent or at least long-lasting.

Read the whole thing. But however interesting and useful these thoughts are, I believe that the highly unusual Rayhons prosecution was based on the fact that he was a Republican state legislator who could be knocked out pre-election, and Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller is a Democrat.

SOUNDS LIKE A SEPARATION OF POWERS VIOLATION TO ME: Bill would create ethics code for Supreme Court justices.

As the Supreme Court is gearing up to hear arguments Tuesday in what could be the nation’s most influential case on gay marriage, Democratic lawmakers are calling on the high court to adopt a code of ethics for justices.

The Supreme Court Ethics Act, reintroduced Thursday, would require the Supreme Court to adopt a code of the ethics within 180 days. The nine justices are currently exempt from the code of conduct U.S. judges follow to ensure neutrality and transparency in the nation’s courts. . . .

“There is absolutely no reason why Supreme Court Justices shouldn’t be subject to the same code of conduct as all other federal judges,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in a news release. “The American people deserve to know that our highest court is held to the highest ethical standards, which is why we introduced the Supreme Court Ethics Act.”

And I’m not persuaded by this: “Because Congress determines how many justices sit on the Supreme Court and what they are paid, lawmakers say creating a code of conduct is part of their purview as well.”

Since what House Democrats talk about is about as likely to become law as what I blog about, this is just pre-election agitprop for Dems, in case the Supreme Court rules the “wrong” way. But when you have the likes of Chris Murphy and Louise Slaughter talking about ethics, well. .. .

TAXES ARE FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE: Civics Lessons From MSNBC. “Al Sharpton, Melissa Harris-Perry, Touré Neblett and Joy-Ann Reid have had plenty to say about taxes and ‘how we’re all in it together,’ in spite of their own histories of owing the IRS.”

OH, GOODY: Scientists find missing link in Yellowstone plumbing: This giant volcano is very much alive.

THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN THE AGE OF OBAMA: “When I first saw the story making the rounds about ROTC cadets being forced to march in women’s shoes I thought it was a hoax.”

ED DRISCOLL: Day After Earth Day, New York Times Tacitly Admits Environment Fine, No Need to Panic.

THE ROOTS OF EUROPE’S IMMIGRATION DILEMMA. One thing I notice is that all the news coverage is calling them “migrants” instead of “refugees.” Is that because nobody expects them to ever go home?

SEXUAL HARASSMENT: It was female officers who made male ROTC cadets march in high heels. Quick, tell the Defense Department’s gender equity officers.

Related: Army Morale Hits New Low Despite 287 Million Dollar ‘Optimism’ Program.

DISSOLVE THE PEOPLE AND ELECT ANOTHER: J. Christian Adams: Homeland Security Working Overtime to Add “New Americans” by 2016 Election. “Naturalization plus mobilization is the explicit aim of the DHS ‘Task Force on New Americans.’ Multiple sources at DHS confirm that political appointees are prioritizing naturalization ahead of the 2016 Presidential election.”

IN PAST YEARS, I WOULD HAVE DISMISSED THIS AS OBVIOUS CRACKPOTTERY. BUT NOWADAYS, WHO KNOWS? . . . Christians Are Being Systematically Purged From The U.S. Military.

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: Kleiner Perkins seeks almost $1 million in costs in Ellen Pao case.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Pros And Cons Of Going To Grad School.

AT AMAZON, deals galore in Training & Fitness.

And shop the Amazon Emergency Prep Store. Plus, Emergency & Long-Term Storage Food Deals. When bad things happen, it’s good to have food.

Plus, Generators and Portable Power for Storm Season. Just remember, when winter storms are over, spring and summer storms are on the way.

“YOUTHS” RUN WILD: SEE IT: Mob of teenagers beats two high school students in Philadelphia subway station.

FALSE. True Or False: We Need The Bar Exam To Ensure Lawyer Competence.

That said, I think that one reason why law schools haven’t become as politicized and irrelevant as most liberal arts departments is that our graduates ultimately have to pass an exam written and administered by outsiders. And I can’t help but think that the current wave of anti-bar-exam sentiment is mostly inspired by the fact that law schools are having to reach way down into their applicant pools, admitting people who won’t do as well on the bar.

21ST CENTURY RELATIONSHIPS: At Heart of Odd Custody Ruling: a Turkey Baster.

I CREDIT ALIENS: DNA of bacteria crucial to ecosystem defies explanation.

TESLA ISN’T AN AUTOMAKER. It’s a battery company. I hope so, because we need better batteries more than we need better cars.

AT AMAZON, Spring Deals in the Sports & Fitness Outlet Sale.

Plus, Mother’s Day Gifts in Home & Kitchen.

WELL, THIS IS THE 21ST CENTURY, YOU KNOW (CONT’D): The Unmanned X-47B Just Pulled Off a Mid-Air Refueling. “The Navy’s X-47B demonstrator aircraft flew over Chesapeake Bay on April 22 and connected with a refueling tanker during flight. This capability greatly extends the range of an unmanned aircraft and further increases its ability to hover over a target area. Air-to-air refueling, as Popular Mechanics found during a B-2 flight, takes a lot of hands to go right. The ability of a drone to adapt to the precision flying required for refueling aircraft, and to coordinate with the humans inside the refueling tanker, is impressive.”

By “hover” I think they really mean “loiter,” unless the X-47B has more capabilities than I know.

DOES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE INCREASE ABORTIONS?:  According to an unusual amicus brief filed by “100 Scholars of Marriage,” the answer is “yes.”  The brief is one of many “friend of the court” briefs submitted in the same-sex marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, slated for Supreme Court oral argument next Tuesday (Apr. 28).

One might understandably inquire, “How could recognizing same-sex marriage increase the number of abortions?” According to a summary penned  by the brief’s author, D.C. attorney Gene Schaerr (a former Scalia clerk):

The metamorphosis of marriage from a gendered to a genderless institution conveys to men (and women) that society no longer needs men to bond to women to form well-functioning families or to raise happy, well-adjusted children. And that message is especially likely to be influential among those on the margins: the poor, the relatively uneducated or others who are highly influenced by cultural messages promoting casual or uncommitted sex.

The weakening or destruction of these norms would result in fewer marriages, more procreation out of marriage, and a higher percentage of children raised in a home without both parents—usually without a father. The consequences would be stark and disastrous: more childhood poverty; increased psychological and emotional problems; more teenage pregnancy; poorer performance in school; higher amounts of substance abuse; more youth committing crimes; and more girls undergoing abortions.

Schaerr’s estimates of increased abortions are very specific:

Accordingly, with 1.275 million additional women never getting married, nearly 900,000 more children of the next generation would be aborted as a result of their mothers never marrying. This is equal to the entire population of the cities of Sacramento and Atlanta combined.

I’m frankly not sure what to make of this.  The problem, as Schaerr freely admits, is that there is no hard statistical evidence that recognizing same-sex marriage would actually cause these consequences. And the limited data that is available suggests that the availability of same-sex marriage does not cause a decline in opposite-sex marriage rates.

On the other hand, there is something instinctive about the notion that if the definition of marriage keeps expanding–even beyond same-sex unions of two adults–its meaning will be diluted and, over time, its value and prevalence.  But this is a slippery slope argument, and the slope isn’t always as slippery as one fears, though it may be somewhat slippery.

The dilution and devaluation may not happen with recognition of same-sex marriage alone, but what if a recognition of same-sex marriage leads to recognition of consensual adult bigamous, polygamous or incestuous unions?  Would “marriage,” defined this broadly, still be something as deeply valued as it is today?  Or is it akin to giving every kid on the team a trophy– i.e., everybody gets one, so it isn’t so special anymore?  Or if marriage continues to be perceived of as a union based on “love,” is there sufficient love to go around, such that a greater number and variety of love-based unions won’t dilute the specialness of marriage?

Given the seeming inevitability of a Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, how broad marriage becomes– and thus how “special” it is perceived–will be determined by our children, or grandchildren.

A DEAL WAS MADE, AND KEPT: Senate votes to confirm Loretta Lynch as Attorney General.

WELL, THIS IS THE 21ST CENTURY, YOU KNOW: Chinese Team Reports Gene Editing Human Embryos: A research team finds that gene editing isn’t yet reliable enough to engineer the human species.

READER BOOK PLUG: From Randy Beck, Time Bridge At Orion.