What Cruz has said is that Gay Marriage is not a top three issue for him, but you might be surprised considering all I’ve written on the topic & the culture wars is that it’s not a top 3 issue for me either.
Now I can’t speak for Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee but here is my top 3 list.
Right now for me Issue #1 is the war on terror specifically the threat of ISIS.
You can’t fight a culture war if you’re dead and ISIS threatens not only the US but all of western civilization and in fact the world.
Then comes issue #2 for me, The Border and Illegal Immigration.
You can’t fight a culture war in your country unless you have a country and you don’t have a country if you don’t have borders.
and that’s not even talking about how important the border is to the war on ISIS or the threat from the various drug cartels that are walking across it.
Does Mike Huckabee think that the border is not a top three issue?
Now there are plenty of issues that are worthy of #3. There is the black lives matter, race relations and the war on cops, there is Gay Marriage and the broader religious freedom issue, there is Russia and NATO, China in the pacific and of course the Economy, but for me there is only one Issue that can go to #3
Abortion trumps all of those remaining issues including the cultural ones because once a country is safe (issue #1) and it’s borders secure (#2) you need to have a country that supports and values life.
Without valuing life, black lives can’t matter (only Abortion is more dangerous to black Americans than the gangs that are slaughtering them in the cities), without the lives thrown away in abortion you don’t have the manpower to for a military to confront Russia or China and unless you respect the lives of your own people you won’t find value in the lives of those oppressed by such totalitarians. Without the respect for life you throw away the people who drive the economy and you don’t respect the people who work within it and while Gay Marriage is a foolish narcissistic choice it can’t trump the right for a person to be born and make that foolish choice.
And anyways if it turn out that the current liberal meme concerning being “born gay” is right, the right and value of every unborn child becomes more critical because the moment homosexuality can be determined in vitro you will see a gay genocide. Every human life has value. Some people object to the murder of Gay people by ISIS, I object to their murder in the womb as well.
Now again I don’t know what is the priority for Mike Huckabee but if he is hitting Ted Cruz for not having Gay Marriage as a top 3 issue but for it to crack top 3 then one of the ones on my list can’t be on his list.
So tell me Governor, which issue ISIS, Immigration or abortion is not important enough to make the Huckabee top 3?
I suspect if the previous governor did this to defuse the whole Kim Davis business a Democrat might still govern the state today.
Kentucky’s new governor on Tuesday ordered county clerks’ names removed from state marriage license forms at the center of a controversy involving Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, who was jailed after refusing to issue licenses to gay couples.
Governor Matt Bevin had said shortly after his election in November, as only the second Republican governor of Kentucky since 1971, that he would change the forms that had drawn objections from Davis and some other clerks.
“To ensure that the sincerely held religious beliefs of all Kentuckians are honored, I took action to revise the clerk marriage license form,” Bevin said in a statement.
“This is a wonderful Christmas gift for Kim Davis,” the group said. “Kim can celebrate Christmas with her family knowing she does not have to choose between her public office and her deeply-held religious convictions.”
I think driving Kim Davis from the Democrat party will cost them for decades to come.
Note: I don’t recall the ACLU getting their knickers in an uproar over Obama’s exec orders.
11th Doctor:You know, since we’re talking with mouths, not really an opportunity that comes along very often, I just want to say, you know, you have never been very reliable. Idris (the TARDIS):And you have? 11th Doctor:You didn’t always take me where I wanted to go. Idris (the TARDIS):No, but I always took you where you needed to go.
Doctor Who: The Doctor’s Wife 2011
Amy Pond: So, what’s wrong with me? River Song:Nothing. You’re fine. 11th Doctor:Everything. You’re dying. River: Doctor! 11th Doctor:Yes, you’re right. If we lie to her, she’ll get all better.
Doctor Who: Flesh and Stone 2010
One of the things about Christianity that is constantly mentioned is “Love”. There is love of God and there is love of neighbor.
The reality of love is wanting the good for your neighbor as if your neighbor was yourself and acting accordingly , even if it causes you inconvenience, pain or death. As Christ put it himself:
This is my commandment: love one another as I love you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
And that’s the thing about love, when you love someone you are willing to accept grief, take for an example a listen to this speech from the Opiate awareness event held earlier this year in Fitchburg:
This lady is willing to take a lot of grief for the sake of loving someone.
And that brings us to Gay Marriage and the whole #lovewins bullshit.
One of the things you’ll find about a Christian is that while we are often accused of hate, the things we generally hate are not actually real individuals Sarah Hoyt put it well
It’s funny, as much as we get accused of “hating” the only things and people I’ve hated are historical people and regimes that have killed millions of their citizens. Yeah, yeah, I hate red and black fascism, aka Nazism and Communism like I hate hell, all Capulets and … well. Not thee. The other things I hate are more things I strongly dislike: Licorice, bad, preachy books, teachers who don’t do their job, cold days. I don’t spend my time sitting around and going “I hate you snow, I do.” I just mumble disconsolately about not being able to walk and my fingers hurting with cold even while inside.
But what happens when a Christian encounters an individual an actual soul the entire equation changes. A person is not a theoretical construct, it’s a fellow soul, created in God’s image. For example, one might oppose illegal immigration but if encountering a person who is an illegal immigrant one would not hesitate to help such a person in need. That’s what Christianity done right does.
It’s similar to what C.S. Lewis Described in Screwtape 6
As regards his more general attitude to the war, you must not rely too much on those feelings of hatred which the humans are so fond of discussing in Christian, or anti-Christian, periodicals. In his anguish, the patient can, of course, be encouraged to revenge himself by some vindictive feelings directed towards the German leaders, and that is good so far as it goes. But it is usually a sort of melodramatic or mythical hatred directed against imaginary scapegoats. He has never met these people in real life-they are lay figures modelled on what he gets from newspapers. The results of such fanciful hatred are often most disappointing, and of all humans the English are in this respect the most deplorable milksops. They are creatures of that miserable sort who loudly proclaim that torture is too good for their enemies and then give tea and cigarettes to the first wounded German pilot who turns up at the back door.
Do what you will, there is going to be some benevolence, as well as some malice, in your patient’s soul. The great thing is to direct the malice to his immediate neighbours whom he meets every day and to thrust his benevolence out to the remote circumference, to people he does not know. The malice thus becomes wholly real and the benevolence largely imaginary.
Christians, those who actually believe rather than those who use the religion for fun or profit or power, will always direct their love toward people who actually exist while disliking things they may do or believe.
But love isn’t just giving people what they want and that’s the weapon the forces of Gay Marriage have used against some Christians, it’s what Hoyt called Weaponized Empathy:
This is why they constantly bleat out accusations of racism, sexism, etc… because the Left knows that Conservatives, Libertarians and other non-Progressives are generally pretty decent people and don’t want to feel as if they hurting people or doing a moral wrong. In simple terms, they propose to use our better natures against us.
In the recent Planned Parenthood scandal, Rebecca Watson released a video practically pleading her viewers to believe the entire thing was a lie. Take a look at this screencap.
You can see her pleading expression, the raised eyebrows, her almost innocent look, the locket, etc… Everything is designed to make you believe this woman is in earnest, and how could you possibly disagree with her? Why, you must be some kind of monster if you don’t believe her! This is a classic example of Weaponized Empathy. White Knights, eager to defend the downtrodden woman, eat this sort of thing up. Of course, where the empathy was on her side when babies (one still living) were cut up for parts, nobody seems to know.
Now of course with abortion the game is much easier to see through, there is a body, a baby once that exists that can’t be denied because it’s something you can see.
But unless you’ve had some sort of private revelation (which I suspect are more common that people think)it’s harder with gay marriage, one doesn’t see the cost directly in front of you, but if you take the Catholic Faith seriously the cost is there.
As I’ve said over and over again no amount of belief makes the Catholic faith true, but likewise no amount of disbelief makes it false and if you know it’s true. If heaven and hell are not concepts but actual facts you also know the cost of unrepented mortal sin is everlasting death.
If you claim Christianity and you excuse mortal sin, or explain away mortal sin or justify it to a person who asks you to do so, then you are loving yourself, not someone else. If one doesn’t have the moral courage or the love, or one wants fame (read Anne Hathaway) one will give into the culture and be cheered for it, rejecting the faith because it will not accept the sins of a loved one.
And because we know this, we’re willing to take the barbs, we’re willing to take the insults, we’re willing to be called haters, willing to be harassed by the culture, by the media, by those on twitter and even in our communities. We’re willing to be fined and even jailed in order to give the warning, mortal sin will destroy you.
We will endure all of those things in the hope of saving somebody anybody from the fire, a friend, an enemy or a stranger that might hear our argument and think.
That is what love is, being willing to endure these things for the good of another, and when even one person changes their path, or decides to appeal to God for help and you help them save themselves from eternal death, that’s when Love wins.
The Kim Davis story has not been kind to our friends on the left.
First she definitely but respectfully refuses to violate her Christian faith by putting granting marriage certificates to gay couples on the grounds that with her name on them it suggests her cooperation in sin.
Then when the court orders her to do so she refuses again and rather than fine her the judge rightly concludes that someone would just pay the fine so her jails her, making them fear she will be perceived as a martyr.
Just as they fear Davis goes to jail, and even worse doesn’t mimic leftist activists attacking police or authorities, she accepts the sentence maintaining her determination not to violate her conscience.
And as she’s in jail people protest for her and unlike the black lives matter protests or the occupy wall street protests there is no destruction or violence.
Then the judge, a member of the GOP, with his prospects for higher position permanently dashed as the PR gets worse and worse for the left and as two presidential candidates show up to lead protests, releases her on the grounds that her deputies (well most of them) agree to issue licences.
Davis when released not only speaks only of God and promises not to violate her conscience, but declines the offer of an armed group to protect her from further arrest.
Now the last thing the left could hope for was that she would fire her deputies, allowing them to attack her for demanding a conscience exception while not allowing her subordinates to do the same.
Before starting her workday, Davis appeared defiant, saying she will not issue any marriage licenses that go against her religious beliefs. But she left the door open for her deputies to continue giving out marriage licenses to same-sex couples as long as those documents do not have Davis’ name or title on them.
The marriage license that the couple received said “pursuant to federal court order” on it, and instead of listing Davis’ name and Rowan County, it says city of Morehead, the county seat.
David said Monday that any such licenses “will not issued or authorized by me.” Her work-around is not to sign them but not interfere with her deputies who do give them out.
“(U.S. District Judge David Bunning) indicated last week that he was willing to accept altered marriage licenses even though he was not certain of their validity,” Davis said. “I, too, have great doubts whether the license issued under these conditions are even valid.”
Actually according to Kentucky law they would not be valid but that would wait upon yet another lawsuit if anyone cared to launch one, but what matters is this.
Kim Davis retains both her elected position and her freedom of conscience. She has been able to force the very compromise that the left was unwilling to consider less than two weeks ago and the precedent is now set for Christians to refuse to participate in mortal sin that risks their soul without costing them any elected office they hold.
That’s the worst possible result for the left unless she is re-elected in 2016, then Thatwill be the worst possible result for the left.
Over the next few years you are going to be branded as bigots, hated and derided. You will be portrayed in every form of culture, plays, TV series and movies as people to be shunned and no member of the media will fail to come after you for your offenses against the twin sacraments of Abortion & Gay Marriage…The days of easy Christianity are over Now is the time to decide.
DaTechGuy March 29th 2013
One of the arguments I repeatedly hear from our friends on the left is that Kim Davis is the next George Wallace on Twitter an example:
I really find such tweets a lot of fun because the depth of historical ignorance they show is astounding
For all his: “segregation today, segregation tomorrow segregation forever” bluster and his showboat blocking of a schoolhouse door, George Wallace proved to be a pol whose primary concerning was getting power and obtaining more. Wallace used his showboat stance for political gain, using it, when term limited in office, to elect his wife as governor, using it to repeal his state’s term limit rule allowing him to run against his wife’s former Lt gov (she died of cancer in office) serving several more terms.
Furthermore he used it highlight himself nationally to peruse four presidential campaigns, the first abruptly pre-empted by JFK’s assassination, the 2nd on a third party ticket where he became one of the few 3rd party candidates ever to win states multiple states, the third for the Democrat nomination in 1972, a race he was doing well in until an attempted assassination attempt ended his campaign and left him in a wheelchair for life, and a fourth in 1976 which didn’t gain much traction.
Wallace didn’t go to jail or risk penalties for his beliefs because he didn’t have any other than “George Wallace deserves to be elected” , when segregation was popular he trumped segregation, when it became unpopular suddenly decided he spoke against it. In fact it seems to me that when it came to pols following in Wallace’s footstep the people are not Democrats like Kim Davis but Democrats like Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who, as you might have forgotten, abruptly changed their position when it appeared large gay donors were closing their purses.
And once they did by an astounding coincidence the entire democrat party from Bill Clinton who signed the Defence of Marriage act to every single Democrat pol who said things like this:
suddenly decided that anyone who didn’t beleve in gay marriage was a bigot. As Dave Weigel put it.
The new Democratic advocates for SSM fall into two camps. The first consists of people who always liked the idea of this but worried about losing national elections. In his memoir, Democratic consultant Bob Shrum remembers John Kerry fretting that the Massachusetts Supreme Court had forced Democrats to talk about gay marriage before they were ready to. “Why couldn’t they just wait a year?” he asked Shrum, mournfully. The second camp consists of people who really do oppose the idea of gay people getting married. Republicans argued that this second camp was tiny, and that liberals were hiding behind it. They were right!
There are two words to describe this: Political opportunism. That sounds very George Wallace to me.
Contrast all of this with Kim Davis. Davis didn’t seek publicity, those who choose to force her hand did, as marriage licences were available just a few miles away. Even as the country’s media and elites demonized her and pundit after pundit attacked her she went to court to defend her position citing her religious beliefs seeking a compromise that would allow her to function without her name being one marriage certificates.
When ordered to jail, she didn’t put on a show, she went to jail and when released during the middle of a rally in her support (a rally used by at least one presidential candidate to showboat a bit) rather than talking politics or anything of that nature she praised God while her lawyers, speaking to media stated that she would not be doing anything different to violate her conscience:
Doesn’t sound very Wallace. In fact, instead of political opportunism that’s a classic example of civil disobedience. Violate law, take penalty. That’s how it works.
Furthermore we’ve had several tweets talking about her disobeying the “law” and noting that some of her defenders have been upset other locations violating federal laws (such as sanctuary cities). There is an excellent answer to these statments that I can’t take credit for writingemphasis mine
Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.
That is an excellent summation of what Kim Davis has done, she has stood up against an unjust “law” rejecting the fear of nonconformity and vividly illustrated the attempt to to create a de facto religious test for office, to wit, if you are christian you may not hold public office in the United States unless you are what we call a “cafeteria catholic” or protestant, willing to ignore or even violate you beliefs for the sake of political office.
Now some have argued that Davis wasn’t in jail to protest a religious test for office she was in jail for contempt of court for violating a judge’s order based on her religion and they would be right.
However they forget that the person who wrote that excellent summation of what Kim Davis did, some fellow by the name of Martin Luther King, did so while in jail, not for protesting segregation, but for parading without a permit and as for legalities King had a few things to say about that too: emphasis mine again
of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.
You know this is the type of language that Democrat pols and our friends on the left have labeled “christofacist” or a “homophobe” or a “bigoted” comparing it to the words of the mullas in Iran, Saudi Arabia & ISIS.
Who knew they hated Martin Luther King so much?
Closing thought: Given the choice between loyalty to a political party willing to join you when the political wind is with you and likely willing drop you twice as fast if the wind changes and loyalty to a God who love yous and sent his son to die for the redemption of our sins, I, along with Kim Davis, Martin Luther King and Pope Francis suggest the latter.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
Martin Luther King Letter from a Birmingham Jail 1963
I John Brown, am now quite certain that the sins of this nation can only be purged with blood.
John Brown in a note handed to his jailer as he was being led to his hanging 1859
A few days ago, just after her release from jail Kim Davis was given an offer that was…interesting.
In this video, Stewart Rhodes and some of the Oath Keepers national and local leadership discuss the real issues behind what is happening in Rowan County, Kentucky. We have had boots on the ground there since last week and will continue to have a presence. Stewart Rhodes reached out personally to Davis’s legal counsel to offer protection to Kim, to ensure that she will not be illegally detained again. We would like to stress in the strongest terms possible that we are doing this not because of her views on gay marriage, but because she is an elected public servant who has been illegally arrested and held without due process.
Even assuming the absolute best of intention on behalf of the Oath keepers accepting their offer would have been the absolutely worst decision that Kim Davis could have made.
Kim Davis’ actions, liberal protestations to the contrary not withstanding, are not only a classic example of civil disobedience but in the best traditions of the early saints who were willing to suffer for the sake of the word.
Consider her words upon unexpectedly being released from jail:
Regardless of the event (planned before anyone knew she was going to be released) with its political overtones (including using some good old-fashioned muscle employed by the Huckabee team to keep Ted Cruz off that stage with Davis) Kim’s Davis’ entire speech was about God and serving him and thanks and love for her supporters.
No critique of the judge, no anger over her imprisonment, no fancy words about the political irony of a bunch of Republicans defending an elected democrat. No talk about the likelihood of her being re-imprisoned. Everything completely consistent with the dignity of the stand she took for the sake of her soul and others.
Given her situation the offer of armed protection must have been attractive, she has been vilified and hated not only by the left for her principled stand but by some on the right objecting to her civil disobedience on law and order grounds. How easy would it have been for her to accept this offer of protection. How comforting might it have been to know people considered her so important they were willing to fight for her. How tempting.
I’m pleased to say she did not give into this temptation:
Oath Keepers has been contacted by Kim Davis’ legal team at Liberty Counsel, and they have, on her behalf, declined our offer of assistance in protecting her from a possible repeat incarceration by Federal District Court judge David Bunning. We will, of course, respect her wishes, and are hereby issuing a stand-down for our security volunteers who were planning on deploying to Morehead, Kentucky on Monday.
The taking of this officer would have been transformative. Suddenly instead of her being a Christian martyr for her soul and others she would have set up a possible armed confrontation between the Oath Keepers and federal marshals, a confrontation that would have ended badly and could have ended in bloodshed, and given the state of division in the country at this time, who knows what might happen next?
So given the choice to be John Brown or Martin Luther King she has chosen King. I think it was the right choice.
Rowan County clerk Kim Davis and her deputy clerks were summoned to appear before U.S. District Judge David Bunning after she repeatedly denied them marriage licenses, cited her religious beliefs and “God’s authority.”
The judge said his only alternative was to jail her because he did not believe she would comply with his order even if she were fined. She was escorted out of his courtroom by a deputy, although not in handcuffs, to be turned over to the custody of federal marshals.
An interesting detail from BuzzFeed: Lawyers for the gay couples who want her to issue the licenses asked the court to fine her, not send her to jail. Since when do gay-rights supporters ask for leniency for a Christian who’s defying them on gay marriage? Since, I think, this case started picking up national media attention. They don’t want to make a martyr out of Davis. Locking her up does that in a visible way that hitting her in the wallet doesn’t.
They should be, from the very first Christians from St. Peter to St Paul and public officials like St. Thomas More all willingly went to jail and worse for Christ and rather than destroy Christianity it has made it stronger.
Before all this happens, however, they will seize and persecute you, they will hand you over to the synagogues and to prisons, and they will have you led before kings and governors because of my name. It will lead to your giving testimony. Remember, you are not to prepare your defense beforehand, for I myself shall give you a wisdom in speaking that all your adversaries will be powerless to resist or refute. You will even be handed over by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends, and they will put some of you to death. You will be hated by all because of my name, but not a hair on your head will be destroyed. By your perseverance you will secure your lives.
Now I’m a law and order guy and personally I would have resigned which is consistent with the actions of some Roman officials who converted but Ms. Davis stance is not inconsistent with others.
Her position takes a lot of courage and it’s likely why so many are so enraged at her.
I don’t know how long she will be in jail but I’ll tell you this in 100 years I suspect many of those who hate Ms. Davis today will hate her even more.
Update: At Instapundit Ed Driscoll has some has fun:
Saint Thomas More’s last words before being beheaded
Yesterday at the Washington Post Jonathan H. Adler quoted a speech from Justice Scalia from 2002 to make the case that Kim Davis, the elected Democrat County Clerk in Kentucky should resign:
[W]hile my views on the morality of the death penalty have nothing to do with how I vote as a judge, they have a lot to do with whether I can or should be a judge at all. To put the point in the blunt terms employed by Justice Harold Blackmun towards the end of his career on the bench, when he announced that he would henceforth vote (as Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall had previously done) to overturn all death sentences, when I sit on a Court that reviews and affirms capital convictions, I am part of “the machinery of death.” My vote, when joined with at least four others, is, in most cases, the last step that permits an execution to proceed. I could not take part in that process if I believed what was being done to be immoral. . . .
[I]n my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty” and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do.
Looking at this quote it occurs to me, rather than an argument for Kim Davis to resign it’s actually an argument for her not only to stand her ground but to seek re-election for continuing to do so.
In the example cited three Different supreme Court justices Harold Blackmun, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall all despite the having taken an oath to apply the laws and having no power to change them made a conscious decision based on their personal morality that they would, regardless of evidence, undermine legal proceedings all made according to laws passed by the people and upheld by the courts because they “believed what was done to be immoral”.
However despite this, the media made no attempt to pillory them, the legal community did not censure them, the democrat congress did not demand their impeachment and today all of them are well remembered and honored. Nor did anyone object to said principles being based on a religious moral code.
And our friends on the left have routinely cheered civil disobedience in defiance to law, nobody on the left or in the mainstream media was calling for the resignation of Gavin Newsom when he was issuing marriage licences contrary to law.
Furthermore if you go back in history it’s not those who enforced the fugitive slave laws, those who upheld the Dred Scott Decision or those who acted under Plessy v Ferguson that are remembered or lionized in history, it’s those who opposed them and took risk to their reputation, their livelihood and their lives to oppose it.
And of course as an elected official she can’t just be fired, it means a long legal process in a state where judges are elected.
Based on all the evidence the surprise isn’t that she is ignoring the calls for her to cave, the surprise is that anyone expects her to do so.
Like it or not, same-sex marriage is the law of the land. As a conservative with libertarian leanings, I favored civil unions for gays for years, in essence, marriage in all but name. What is now called traditional marriage reaches back into pre-history–social norms should not be thrown overboard so quickly.
As for the other side of the gay marriage debate, the media focus has been on what Friday’s US Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in favor of what some call marriage equality means for observant Christians who oppose it.
But what about Muslims? The Daily Beast managed to find a few Muslims who favor gay marriage, but it’s safe to say that followers of Islam overwhelmingly oppose it.
And I believe that Muslims considering emigrating to the United States–and for that matter, other Western nations–might want to consider staying home instead.
Other than our high standard of living, there is much in America for Muslims not to like. Arranged marriages are not only rare but are frowned upon. Dogs, beloved members of many American families, are viewed as only slightly better than pigs in Islamic society only because of their hunting and protection skills. As for those pigs, most Americans eat pork. Women in the United States wear whatever they want–or in some cases, how little they want. And the great majority of Americans drink alcohol–and advertisements for intoxicating beverages can be found almost everywhere. We can change our religion if we like–or, as has been happening more frequently, choose no faith at all. While somewhat controversial, religious satire is common in the USA. For the sake of brevity I’m stopping here.
And since Friday–two men, or two women, can marry each other in a government-sanctioned marriage from Portland, Maine to Honolulu, Hawaii.
Screwtape: Keep everything hazy in his mind now, and you will have all eternity wherein to amuse yourself by producing in him the peculiar kind of clarity which Hell affords.
C. S. Lewis The Screwtape Letters
The Rosary is the Weapon for these times
St. Padre Pio
Friday was rather odd. While I fully expected the result in the Supreme Court concerning Gay marriage like a lot of Christians I found myself in despair for my country and for the seemingly inevitable persecution that will be coming our way.
When I turned on the TV and saw that everywhere those in the left and media (but I repeat myself) were in full celebration mode it was simply too much to watch it was like watching the people on the Titanic celebrating as the ship headed to sea.
On twitter it was not much better as people where doing their best to rub noses into it finally I saw a tweet lighting up Disney in Gay colors and tweeted thus in reply
While the Devil will use politics like anything else as a tool he is not about politics he is about individual result. This exchange from the movie: The Devil and Daniel Webster puts it well:
Daniel Webster:Mr. Stone is an American citizen… and an American citizen cannot be forced into the service of a foreign prince. Mr. Scratch:Foreign? Who calls me a foreigner? Daniel Webster:Well, I never heard of the de… I never heard of you claiming American citizenship. Mr. Scratch:And who has a better right? When the first wrong was done to the first Indian, I was there. When the first slaver put out for the Congo, I stood on the deck. Am I not still spoken of in every church in New England? It’s true the North claims me for a Southerner and the South for a Northerner, but I’m neither. Tell the truth, Mr. Webster – though I don’t like to boast of it – my name is older in the country than yours.
The Devil & Daniel Webster 1941
What the Devil wants from us is >spiritual pride. He wants us to revel in the fact that WE as believing Christians would never have made this decision so destructive of the sacraments of heaven and the will of God. As if the very fact of our opposition to this measure takes the place of our baptism or the absolution of the priests after we say our act of contrition. Forget our own faults, forget our own envy, lusts, sloth, gluttony, greed or wrath. We have saved ourselves by the mere public twitter pronouncement of our opposition to such people rather than humbling ourselves before Christ in contrition for our own sins. As Al Pacino once put it in a famous move ending:
We (like those who are attacking us) forget the passage from Luke:
When the days for his being taken up were fulfilled, he resolutely determined to journey to Jerusalem and he sent messengers ahead of him. On the way they entered a Samaritan village to prepare for his reception there, but they would not welcome him because the destination of his journey was Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven to consume them?” Jesus turned and rebuked them,
Luke 9 51-55
Note what Christ did here, he didn’t rebuke the Samaritans who rejected him , he rebuked his disciples for their lack of mercy.
Now does this mean we should stop speaking out against Gay Marriage? Not in the least. Does this mean that we should stop making the rational arguments inherent in our cause? Absolutely not! Does that mean we should not make pols who choose to abandon this fight for the sake of convenience pay? definitely not!
What then does it mean we should do.
Pray as St. Paul writes, without ceasing. Pray for our country, pray for ourselves, pray for those on the other side, not for political conversion per se, that’s another version of “I’m holier than thou” but for God’s grace to touch them and help them in their lives. I suggest the Perpetual twitter Novena but whatever prayer you choose to use, pray.
Prayer, not pride That is the key as Fr. Allen MacDonald rightly put it at Southern Orders (bold italics his)
What about the damnation of souls! The Church’s primary mission is the salvation of souls and of the world to the ends of the world. In saving souls we build a just society, yes, this is true, but the just society building doesn’t come first for the Church the saving of souls does and the other things follow!
We are tempted to say that such souls- or such residual puddles of what once was soul- are
hardly worth damning. Yes, but the Enemy-for whatever inscrutable and Perverse reason-thought them worth trying
to save. Believe me, He did.
And the next time you feel tempted to play parry and reposte with someone onlnie remember that screwtape’s words and Fr. MacDonald’s words are both directed at us. Never forget the very first soul we are called upon to bring to salvation is our own.
#prayernotpride that is the hastag we should answer with.
It is highly unlikely that Justice Scalia dissent in Obergefell et al vs Hodges is going to get the attention that his dissent in King vs Burwell did, but there is a paragraph in this dissent that should be recited and memorized by every conservative in America:
But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.
This is the fundamental belief of the Baby Boomer generation, that they are in fact the greatest generation and all those who came before were dopes at best and bigots at worst. The people dancing in front of the Supreme Court today share this belief and that ignorance & hubris is why ISIS, China, radical Islam and Putin are also celebrating today.
They know that the path we have chosen leads to their victory and they are convinced we are too lazy & stupid to get off of it.
If one can change the definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years by a popular vote then there is no rational basis to deny a form of marriage that has been continually recognized by nations of the world and at least one of the worlds major religions for over a millennium.
I’m old enough to remember when activists insisted that Gay Marriage was completely different than polygamy and they certainly wouldn’t support it:
Recently, I went undercover posing as a same-sex marriage activist and asked prominent sodomite activists and Democrats the following question:
“If the purpose of marriage is to confer dignity upon individuals who love each other, then what about polygamous couples who love each other? They should be able to marry too, don’t you think?”
Shockingly, the homosexual activists and Democrats all answered, “Yes!”
Frankly it didn’t shock me at all, nor does it shock me that with a national election coming up that such items can only be seen on hidden camera.
Go here to see the video for yourself and remember that our friends who are now closing business who don’t service gay marriage once told us that civil unions had nothing to do with gay marriage and furthermore that Gay Marriage would not affect anyone who didn’t believe in it.
Those who said it were liars, those who believed them were suckers, it only remains to discover if they still are.
What’s the use of being elected or re-elected if you don’t stand for something
President Grover Cleveland
On Tuesday Rick Santorum gave a speech at the Cornerstones NH event and if the only think you were listening for was: “Is the Former Senator and Runner up to Mitt Romney in 2012 running again?” then the only thing you really need to see is yesterday’s post.
But if you really want to know what yesterday was about you need to know Cornerstones. I interviewed Brian McCormick the emcee of the event concerning it:
Cornerstones my be a political group but it involves so many people who are making a difference for the elderly, the poor and the young along with the unborn, and more than that it’s about showing courage in a world that wants to silence people of faith
Cornerstones is all about faith and service and having the courage to stand up for both and there are plenty of young people willing to make that fight.
And think about Senator Santorum, there are plenty of groups that he could have appeared with if he wanted to create buzz for a campaign but the take a closer look at his speech, it’s about courage,
The courage to speak uncomfortable truths aloud
The courage to confront issues instead of ceding the culture
The courage to ignore the MSM and the consultant demand to ignore family and life in the hopes of appeasing them.
In short the courage to stand for more than being elected.
The giveaway was in the 2nd part of his speech. He told a story of visiting a group of donors in NY. Every other GOP candidate had been called to see them and they began asking questions of him.
the first was on abortion, the 2nd question was on abortion, the third was on abortion and he finally had enough, and confronted them on it
When Rick Santorum opposes abortion he means it, when he says the breakdown of the family is the single biggest issues in America he means it, when he says he’ll stand up and fight on those issues he means it. And when he says if he runs, he will bring up those issues and fight on them. He means it.
When it comes to Social issues Rick Santorum is going to fight for the cause because he knows you can win a debate if you let the other side speak unopposed.
Listening to Morning Joe today as person after person agreed that of course Pam Geller has a perfect right to do what she did but questioned the wisdom of doing so suggesting perhaps for the general safety for all concerned maybe it shouldn’t be done.
This message was and continues to b mimicked by practically every MSM segment that has discussed the events in Garland.
Hearing this over and over it struck me that this has cut the Gordon Knot for the Gay Marriage Christian Bakers issue.
Imagine a Gay couple comes into a Christian Bakery asking nay DEMANDING that on pain of the penalty of law they MUST bake a cake for their wedding as is their constitutional right. I can picture the baker smiling sweetly and giving, with profound regret, this answer:
” You know I understand that while I disagree with what you are doing and it violates my faith you certainly have a right to demand a wedding cake from me and I deeply sympathize. But there are Christians, some of them violent and radical like those who have attacked abortion clinics, who would be quite offended if I did so. I can’t take the risk of provoking such people into violence against either you or me.”
I can see the couple protesting that Christians would not do that and the baker smiles and nods but says:
“While it’s true that the vast majority of Catholics an Protestants, while they would be insulted by the my baking your cake would not dream of committing an act of violence in the name of Christ, there is that small violent minority of Christians that the media reminds of us of that we have to consider, after all there is a reason why abortion providers INSIST buffer zones around abortion clinics are necessary. So while I’d certainly like to help you It would be irresponsible of me to knowingly put myself and you in danger from these extremists.”
The MSM the SPLC are constantly telling us how dangerous Christians are, I guess we should take them at their word.
There is a mosque in Garland, Texas. It was there yesterday, it’s there today, and it will be there tomorrow. After two radical Muslims attempted to massacre some infidels down the road a bit, there was no angry mob of Texans storming the place with F-350s and rifles.
They’ll be there, never fear, the MSM knows how violents those Crusading Christians are.
Lt. Kaminsky:You wanted confirmation, Captain? Take a look! There’s your confirmation!
Tora Tora Tora 1970
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Yesterday while most of the country was watching Baltimore the Supreme Court heard arguments to decide if the definition of marriage that had endured throughout human history was to be tossed out and redefined in a way that not only the founding fathers but most americans of a mere generation ago, would not have imagined.
Given that gay marriage only became legal in American in 2004 by a 4-3 vote in the most liberal state Supreme Court in the land (Massachusetts) and the unwillingness of Governor Mitt Romney to push back in the slightest against this idiocy, the fact that the Supreme Court is expected to uphold the narcissistic idea that marrying within one’s own sex is a basic constitutional right is nothing short of remarkable (constant cheerleading by the entertainment/media complex not withstanding).
What’s even more remarkable in my eyes however is that events in Baltimore that have caused many eyes that would normally be on the court to be elsewhere have given the justices who will be ruling on gay marriage a look at the future they are preparing to create.
The riots give the answer to the question: What do you get when you have a culture when the presence of both a father and mother is considered unimportant in the rearing of children? The experience of the Black family over the last five decades answers this question.
Consider: At the same time that civil rights laws were freeing black Americans from centuries of legal restraints by narcissists redefining marriage (sound familiar) and humanity itself to suit their cultural desires, an event that should have been the prelude for black America to jump into a golden age, two other forces from liberal America, one cultural & one political, arose that would have a catastrophic effect on the black family which had so nobly fought for the rights that were finally being acknowledged.
First came the sexual revolution that not only shattered the concept of sex within marriage as the proper moral norm but brought with it the contraceptive culture giving the illusion of divorcing sex from children (with abortion as the final card to play in an emergency).
Nearly simultaneously came the Great Society which among other things gave the poor, in the form of government cash assistance, an incentive to abandon the family unit for single motherhood without a husband and father in the house.
This combination of incentives coming at this time of transition for the black family was the key ingredient in its destruction. Single parent households, abortion and absent fathers increased while marriage decreased.
The result, two generations later the norm within the black community is now the absence of an intact family with a father & mother present in the home and the further absence of a grandfather to reinforce fatherly values if accident or circumstance causes the fathers loss.
Normally the disastrous results of this, while apparent daily in the black community is invisible to society as a whole (with the exception of judges, police and social workers) but the crisis in Baltimore is giving the general population and the world a vivid view of this new cultural paradigm. And the best illustration of this view came from an angry mother of a rioting son.
Why was there only one mother of a rioter taking action? Where were the rest of the mothers & fathers?
Every single one of those rioters had a mother, yet we only saw one taking actions. Every single one of those rioters had a father, yet we didn’t see a single image of a father pulling a rioter of the street.
I submit and suggest that if black America had that same ratio of intact families with fathers and mothers in the home today as it did in the mid 50’s the number of teens rioting would have been tiny as their concern over the reaction of an angry father would have overridden the peer pressure to raid a mall, set fires or destroy & loot stores.
I further suggest that events in Baltimore vividly illustrate what happens to a culture when you have generations of people who do not have the traditional nuclear family to reinforce values, when the value of a male and female role models is discounted and when society or a subset of it rejects it as the desired norm.
Now in the end the final responsibility for the actions of the rioters, the inaction of their parents, and their failure to said parents to imbue either the values or the fear that would preclude violent acts by their progeny, lies with them.
But while theirs is the responsibility for succumb to the perverse liberal social & financial incentives society as a whole are paying the price allow with them for that choice.
It’s ironic the Supreme Court is deciding whether to allow states the choice of redefining marriage and absorbing the cultural costs that it will entail to children who will not have a father or mother or COMPEL the entire nation to follow the social paradigm of single sex parenting at the same time when while the entire nation and world are seeing the results of this cultural meme.
The justices and the people have a front role seat to the vivid warning provided by Baltimore of the results of such a decision
It’s a lesson I hope the Supreme Court pays heed to.
Let me close with this thought:
While cultures, technology, tastes as to what is socially acceptable might change (for example a century ago the elites of our land were big into the idea of eugenics until a fellow with a Charlie Chaplin mustache took the idea to its logical conclusion with horrifying results) they don’t trump the realities of human nature and the reality is this:
When you create a culture that disregards the vital and unique role of the intact father & mother to raising of children and instead provide incentives, both legally and culturally, to promote alternatives as equal and as healthy for the sake of a groups self-esteem you are sowing the seeds of disaster that will bear fruit within the lifetimes of those foolishly promoting the exercise in narcissism that is gay marriage.
Over the next few years you are going to be branded as bigots, hated and derided. You will be portrayed in every form of culture, plays, TV series and movies as people to be shunned and no member of the media fill fail to come after you for your offenses against the twin sacraments of Abortion & Gay Marriage.
As I watched the left go into full propaganda mode this Easter weekend on the Sunday Shows concerning Gay Marriage I think the next step must be to make sure that Christians can’t clandestinely defy the state, maybe something like this:
The new law would create a force of federal commissioners empowered to cite Christians in any state and compel their cooperation with Gay Marriage. No statute of limitations would apply, so that even those who had opposed gay marriage at the time it was not law could be cited.
We can give such commissioners broad powers, perhaps the right to compel citizens to assist in the pursuit and identification of such businesses owners with fines and imprisonment awaited those who refuse to cooperate. United States marshals can be required to be diligent in the enforcement of the act and could be fined for being lax. An incentive can be offered perhaps giving the commissioners a fee from the fines applied to business if found to defy standards of service.
Such a law would likely force Christian business’ underground, perhaps even with clandestine networks of people and clergy using the net to direct the faithful to business that the law is targeting. But even so I’m sure the feds aided by their allies on the left will do all their can to discover and shut down those defying such a law.
You might be saying: “DaTechGuy, you are an alarmist, we would never see such a law like this in the US.”, however anyone who actually has knowledge of US history would realize there is already a precedent for this as evidenced by the unedited version of the two paragraphs above:
The new law created a force of federal commissioners empowered to pursue fugitive slaves in any state and return them to their owners. No statute of limitations applied, so that even those slaves who had been free for many years could be (and were) returned.
The commissioners enjoyed broad powers, including the right to compel citizens to assist in the pursuit and apprehension of runaways; fines and imprisonment awaited those who refused to cooperate. United States marshals were required to be diligent in the enforcement of the act and could be fined for being lax. A captured runaway could not testify on his own behalf and was not entitled to a court trial. The commissioners received a fee of 10 dollars for every slave returned; the fee was reduced to five dollars if the accused slave were released.
By an odd coincidence it was devout Christians, who defied these laws the most and as it was during the civil rights age and as it is now during the Fight against abortion it will be devout Christians who will keep up the fight against the civic “leaders” attempting us to defy our consequences and our God.
Exit thought: Is it a coincidence that Slavery, Jim Crow, Abortion & now the Totalitarian pushing of Gay Marriage all were strongly supported by Democrats?
On twitter there is a big move to start a “boycott Indiana” movement for its decision to be the 20th state to pass a Religious Freedom Law to protect Christians from persecution for refusing to support Gay Marriage.
By an odd coincidence the same media types who have been attacking the Gov of Indiana have been cheering the opening of the (Ted) Kennedy Center
Instead, Vice President Joe Biden will preside over a full-size replica Senate chamber at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate in Boston, with current and former senators at their desks, high school students on the floor and Kennedy family members in the gallery.
The institute opens Monday with a dedication speech by President Obama.and a who’s who of Massachusetts politicians, United States senators and Kennedy kin.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Senator Hatch and I, and 23 other Senators have introduced, would restore the compelling interest test for evaluating free exercise claims. It would do so by establishing a statutory right that adopts the standards previously, used by the Supreme Court. In essence, the act codifies the requirement for the Government to demonstrate that any law burdening the free exercise of religion is essential to furthering a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
It was this law championed by Kennedy that is the basis for the laws in the various states that the left is calling “bigotry” and “hate”
Yet I haven’t heard a single one of the people who spent the weekend comparing supporters of this law to KKK members or Jim Crow fans calling for a boycott of the Kennedy event today or urging the President and Vice President to give it a miss.
I’m shocked at the prospect that the outrage of the left might only be based on political advantage.
The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote.
The law reestablished a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases (a standard had been used by the Supreme Court for decades). RFRA allows a person’s free exercise of religion to be “substantially burdened” by a law only if the law furthers a “compelling governmental interest” in the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
So the law doesn’t say that a person making a religious claim will always win. In the years since RFRA has been on the books, sometimes the courts have ruled in favor of religious exemptions, but many othertimesthey haven’t.
This law protects a bakery owned by devout Christians from, let’s say, not baking a wedding cake for a gay union because it violates their religious belief that marriage should be reserved only for one man and one woman, but this law does not permit to exclude gays as customers in all cases. What that business receives is protection from a discrimination lawsuit.
As for that gay couple, they can always find another bakery–that won’t be very hard to do–and the newlyweds can write a nasty Yelp review about the first one while on their honeymoon. Interestingly Yelp is one of those businesses considering a boycott of Indiana because of the its new Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But just three weeks ago with great fanfare, Yelp opened an office in Chicago. Illinois, yep, you guessed right, has an RFRA law on the books.
[It] is unconscionable to imagine that Yelp would create, maintain, or expand a significant business presence in any state that encouraged discrimination by businesses against our employees, or consumers at large.
I guess Stoppelman needs to write a snarky review about himself.
As for Gov. Pence, he’s not helping his case. This morning on ABC’s This Week, Pence was askedsix times if the new law will allow businesses to completely refuse services to gays. He couldn’t answer.
Captain Darling:So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshal Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies. General Melchett:Filthy Hun weasels fighting|their dirty underhand war Captain Darling:!And, fortunately, one of our spies General Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes,|risking life and limb for Blighty.
Black Adder Goes Fourth General Hospital 1989
As I recall it was a mere week ago that the left was beside itself at Judge Roy Moore daring to defy federal courts claiming:
So the chief justice, never shy about taking on a fight, even a losing one, acted. He fired off a missive to state probate judges to refuse the marriage licenses to gay couples, saying they weren’t bound to adhere to the ruling of the federal judge who declared Alabama’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional.
this has led to an ethics complaint by the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center and sites on the left have been full of accusation and outrage
The Bottom line is the left is absolutely beside itself that Moore a state judge would defy a federal ruling and have made it clear that such a stance is not to be tolerated in a law-abiding America.
But perhaps more unsettling to supporters of constitutional checks and balances is the finding that 43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of voters in President Obama’s party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party.
Once you tell the president it’s cool to ignore court rulings if it’s “important,” you might as well pass an enabling act and hand him supreme power. Forty-three percent of Democrats, an actual plurality, didn’t flinch, though. And the irony is, Obama’s own defenses of his power grabs aren’t much more sophisticated than that. His rationale for executive amnesty is that Congress is hopelessly gridlocked, the legal limbo that illegals find themselves in is intolerable, and we’ve now reached a point of crisis (a political crisis for the White House, not a policy crisis) that simply demands executive action. It’s crucially important that he act unilaterally and that he act now, even though he can’t quite explain — again, on policy terms — why that is. Just trust him. It’s important. And Democrats do, including and especially the core Democratic constituencies of women, young adults, and minorities.
This might seem a contradiction to most of us but as this is one of the advantages of a philosophy whose primary driver is ends justifying means.
Eric Holder insists that calling ISIS islamic extremists doesn’t serve any useful purpose except for rating for FOX News:
“We spend more time, more time talking about what you call it, as opposed to what do you do about it, you know? I mean really,” Holder said with some exasperation at a National Press Club luncheon today in Washington, D.C. “If Fox didn’t talk about this, they would have nothing else to talk about, it seems to me.”
Ok I have a thought experiment for Eric Holder.
What if we don’t call “gay marriage” Marriage?
This is not as far-fetched as it might sound at the very start of the gay marriage debates quite a few of us who are opposed and still are opposed to “gay marriage” suggested that if the state & the voters wanted to recognize these unions with all the rights of marriage without actually calling it marriage, we were OK with it.
This would still be an elegant solution to the debate as far as I’m concerned. After all why worry about what you call it as opposed to what is done about it, after as if the left didn’t talk about gay marriage they’d have nothing else to talk about right?
Over to you Mr. Attorney General & my friends on the left.
We have decided today to suspend Brian Williams as Managing Editor and Anchor of NBC Nightly News for six months. The suspension will be without pay and is effective immediately. We let Brian know of our decision earlier today. Lester Holt will continue to substitute Anchor the NBC Nightly News.
Our review, which is being led by Richard Esposito working closely with NBCUniversal General Counsel Kim Harris, is ongoing, but I think it is important to take you through our thought process in coming to this decision.
While on Nightly News on Friday, January 30, 2015, Brian misrepresented events which occurred while he was covering the Iraq War in 2003. It then became clear that on other occasions Brian had done the same while telling that story in other venues. This was wrong and completely inappropriate for someone in Brian’s position.
The president said David Axelrod, his former senior adviser, was “mixing up my personal feelings with my position on the issue” when he said Obama publicly backed civil unions rather than gay marriage because it was more politically palatable.
“I always felt that same-sex couples should be able to enjoy the same rights, legally, as anybody else and so it was frustrating to me not to, I think, be able to square that with what were a whole bunch of religious sensitivities out there,” Obama said in an interview with BuzzFeed.
I’ve touched on this subject myself but there is one overriding factor that is ignored and is a paradox.
His “opposition” to gay Marriage only helps him among blacks because they think he is telling the truth.
His “opposition” to gay marriage doesn’t hurt him among liberals because they don’t believe he is telling the truth.
These are two mutually exclusive statements, As long as liberals are convinced he is selling a bill of good to the black community (as I do) and the black community continues to buy this bill of goods he is fine.
Given this president’s record on being forthright I presume that our liberal friends fully endorse Barack Obama’s lies, after all, liberalism has to misrepresent itself in order to get elected.
What kind of respect does this show to the American voter?
if NBCUniversal cared to examine the televised claims Sharpton has made about his work as an informant, the company’s newly formed internal affairs division could review hundreds of pages of FBI documents chronicling Sharpton’s work as “CI-7,” short for confidential informant #7, and they could track down members of the FBI-NYPD organized crime task force for which Sharpton surreptitiously recorded his meetings with gangsters.
And company brass would certainly want to review the first story to expose Sharpton as a snitch, a January 1998 Newsday piece authored by a Murderers Row of reporters: Bob Drury, Robert Kessler, Mike McAlary, and Richard Esposito. If that last guy’s name rings a bell, well, it is probably because Esposito–now senior executive producer of NBC’s investigative unit–is heading the network’s review of Williams’s Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina claims.
Perhaps NBC was informed by the Reverend Al that in his protestant denomination there is an affirmative action exemption from the “Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness” commandment? Of course given media ignorance of scripture he could actually tell MSNBC this and they just might buy it.
IN the midst of the campaign to paint Pope Francis as a liberal icon no words have been used as a weapon than the phrase: “Who am I to judge?” when referring to gay people.
Of course our friends on the left take the phrase is taken out of context because if you include the whole thing he said:
“A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will — well, who am I to judge him?” the pope said. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn’t this (homosexual) orientation — we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby.”
then it becomes impossible to spin this as support for gay culture, gay marriage or as a trick to pull some conservatives away from the church.
Well this week the Slovakians went to the poll to affirm an already existing ban on Gay marriage & adoption in their constitution and our liberal friends are in full spin mode:
Votes counted from 87.23% of the central European country’s voting districts showed turnout of just 21.07%, the statistics office said, far from the legal limit and well below expectations.
It makes sense of course that the left is crowing about people not turning out enmasse on a single issue referendum meant to affirm a law already on the books, after all if you have no prayer of actually wining a vote you can take pretend that those who didn’t vote are with you. Brut while the media plays the low turnout on a single issue referendum they don’t speak much about the results:
Around 90% of those who took part in the vote said yes to the referendum’s three questions: whether marriage can only be a union of a man and a woman, whether same-sex couples should be banned from adoptions, and whether children can skip classes involving education on sex and euthanasia.
Yes you read that right 90% of the population voted against, but that’s not news and apparently neither is this:
Pope Francis offered his support this week to pro-family Slovaks who have championed a referendum this Saturday to outlaw “gay marriage” and adoption of children by same-sex partners.
In his weekly general audience on Wednesday, during the section where the pope normally greets different nationalities, Francis said, “I greet the pilgrims from Slovakia and, through them, I wish to express my appreciation to the entire Slovak church, encouraging everyone to continue their efforts in defense of the family, the vital cell of society.”
In his address, the pope continued his weekly catechesis on the family by speaking about the figure of the father. Naming as the ideal St. Joseph, the spouse of the Virgin Mary, Francis said, “Every family needs a father.”
It is the father’s role to teach children “to feel and act, speak and judge with wisdom and righteousness.” The “wise” and “mature” father corrects mistakes and gives “a testimony of rigor and firmness.”
Odd in the midst of all the Alabama gay marriage news I didn’t see the US media go long on the Pope’s support of the winning side here only a post at the Huffington post gay voices section.
Why is this not news? Because no matter how much the left spins the popularity of Gay Marriage it can’t be spun to be more popular than the Pope who opposes it openly and the left is still openly fearful of attacking the first Latin American Pope who is extremely popular with almost every native Spanish Speaker in the western hemisphere.
So with the Holy Father getting ready to visit the US and to address congress it’s going to be interesting to see how the left manages especially those Democrats in congress so vocal in their support for the subject.
We’ve argued for a long time that abandoning Orthodox Christianity is a losing proposition if you want your denomination to be relevant but if you won’t believe me will you believe the numbers:
a number of Christian denominations have already taken significant steps towards liberalizing their stances on homosexuality and marriage, and the evidence so far seems to indicate that affirming homosexuality is hardly a cure for membership woes. On the contrary, every major American church that has taken steps towards liberalization of sexual issues has seen a steep decline in membership.
The numbers produced are astounding in that it shows that the numbers in these various denominations, already dropping are crashing and burning. Meanwhile on the other side of the coin:
The familiar answer from liberal mainline Christians is to protest that church attendance and religiosity is on the decline across-the-board, not just in denominations that embrace homosexuality. But this excuse fails to account for conservative denominations like the Assemblies of God, which has been consistently and rapidly growing for more than 40 years. Despite much of the hand-wringing over the Catholic Church’s highly visible public advocacy against gay marriage, it has beenconsistently growing in the United States. Lord knows the Mormons haven’t had any trouble growing. Even theologically conservative denominations that are declining, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, began declining much later and much less drastically than other denominations. The Southern Baptist Convention has only declined by 3 percent since its peak in 2007—an average of less than 1 percent annually—and has actually been adding congregations.
However we should remember that the rationale for retaining our opposition to gay marriage et/al is not and should not be for the sake of growing numbers. The reason why the Catholic Church in particular and Christian Churches should not and can not embrace gay marriage is it is SIN. And no sin regardless of popularity should be supported by the church. That’s why the Catholic church and Martin Luther stand solidly against artificial contraception
Catholics and others committed to an orthodox understanding of morality and marriage in particular should not take comfort too easily. When our Lord walked the earth, people walked away from him because of things he taught, and in the end, the crowd chanted “crucify him” instead of “my Lord and my God.” So we should not expect to be popular when we offer the Lord’s message.
That’s a simple reality, we’ll just have to deal with it.
If ONLY we had just 3 networks again then the angry left could keep those Benham Brothers off of TV:
A couple of different networks could announce as early as today that they are interested in forming a show starring David and Jason Benham, the two brothers who say they were dumped by HGTV because they object to same-sex marriage.
You know one of the reasons why Monopolies are generally bad, they can stifle anything that they don’t care for.
One of the networks, The Hollywood Reporter has learned, is INSP TV, which reaches 75 million homes with content that honors “traditional values.”
You know those rules that existed in the United States until 2004?
“We never sought out the first show. HGTV came to us and wanted a house-flipping show, and we pulled the trigger. If another network wants us for a different show, we’ll sit down with them. But at this point, we have no preconceived ideas for a show. Right now, we’re just finalizing the media circus.”
Tip O’Neill used to famously say he always knew how to count. I suspect that the number of Christians combined with the number of people who don’t like being called bigots for holding a view of marriage that Barack Obama, Bill & Hillary Clinton held until it was politically expedient to believe otherwise is a lot higher that the people who would have such people burned as secular heretics.
I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD.
William Lloyd Garrison 1831
You will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.
Others stopped short of calling for Mr. Eich’s ouster but expressed frustration that Mozilla was being tarred with his views, and hope that they could rehabilitate Mr. Eich’s ideas about gay marriage. Several supported Mr. Eich staying in his role, though still strenuously distanced themselves from his position on gay rights. A few were thoroughly conflicted, but saddened that the debate had engulfed their beloved organization.
But it should be equally undeniable that the organization dedicated to the internet as “global public resource” should understand that the “global public” also contains people who—on their own time—espouse, advocate, and sometimes monetarily support foreign, even ugly, views.
Weren’t the professional red-baiters of the 1950s simply exercising their rights to free speech? Wasn’t Ann Coulter within her free speech rights when she issued her infamous and odious call for liberals to be “physically intimidated”?
Indeed she was. But the law is not everything. Our society will fall apart if we justify every abominable action with the words: “Yeah, but that action was technically legal.” It used to be understood widely that civilization depends on the majority of citizens observing rules of behavior that can never be legislated.
In other words, no one had any reason to worry that Eich, a longtime executive at the company, would do anything that would negatively affect gay Mozilla employees. In fact, Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker, his longtime business partner who now defends the need for his resignation, said this about discovering that he gave money to the Proposition 8 campaign: “That was shocking to me, because I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness.” It’s almost as if that donation illuminated exactly nothing about how he’d perform his professional duties.
But no matter.
Do you see the common thread here? All these people are talking about how he was quiet and submissive, not advancing his beliefs in any way nor making them apparent as if that’s what makes his firing so unjust.
That’s the trap and the trick, our friends are willing to concede that Mozilla went too far as long as we are willing to concede that the definition of marriage that was held by every human civilization and imposed upon the united states by four liberal Massachusetts judges 10 years ago is beyond the pale and should not be publicly expressed in a company.
Note the implicit suggestion of the opposite, if he publicly affirmed Gay Marriage and any Christian or Muslim who worked there who didn’t liked it, well their just bigots or christianists and just have to deal with it.
I’m not falling for that business. I’m against people redefining marriage from one man and one woman for their own purposes. It’s wrong when it’s done by segregationists to reinforce their own bigotry and it’s wrong when it’s dons by “progressives” to reinforce their own narcissism.
Elizabeth Scalia has this advice for the gay community:
I would ask my gay friends to openly reject this movement to oppress so-called “wrong” thinking — suffocate it right now, as it is being born — because eventually it will grow into a monster that will consume anyone, indiscriminately.
My advice is for Christians or any people who stand on the side of marriage. I would encourage you to utterly reject the trap being laid out by those who would accept our right to exist if we just shut up and be quiet about it. We must fight back, loudly. I’d start with “hostile workplace environment” suits and go from there.
Epilogue: Saturday before heading down to the Nashoba Club Restaurant for my live broadcast I was in the middle of a heated argument on Gay Marriage when I tweeted out this challenge.
But there’s a hitch: OkCupid’s co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan once donated to an anti-gay candidate. (Yagan is also CEO of Match.com.) Specifically, Yagan donated $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) in 2004, reports Uncrunched. During his time as congressman from 1997 to 2009, Cannon voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination, and for prohibition of gay adoptions.
He’s also voted for numerous anti-choice measures, earning a 0 percent rating from NARAL Pro Choice America. Among other measures, Cannon voted for laws prohibiting government from denying funds to medical facilities that withhold abortion information, stopping minors from crossing state lines to obtain an abortion, and banning family planning funding in US aid abroad. Cannon also earned a 7 percent rating from the ACLU for his poor civil rights voting record: He voted to amend FISA to allow warrant-less electronic surveillance, to allow NSA intelligence gathering without civil oversight, and to reauthorize the PATRIOT act.
It’s tempting to hoist OK Cupid on its own petard but I reject the entire “anti-guy” premise and we are fools if we fall into the trap simply to get back at an insignificant website.
Here’s the thing though — the point many writing on this issue seem to be missing: Writing on his blog after Eich’s resignation, Catlin revealed that he actually wanted more than “an apology” made in some distant past — that he wanted Eich to publicly disavow his donation while making a specific and current political point:
“I met with Brendan and asked him to just apologize for the discrimination under the law that we faced. He can still keep his personal beliefs, but I wanted him to recognize that we faced real issues with immigration and say that he never intended to cause people problems. It’s heartbreaking to us that he was unwilling to say even that.”
How very kind of Catlin to suggest that Eich would be permitted to “keep” his personal beliefs. But if the notion that a man can lose his livelihood unless he both recants his previous actions and then promulgates a bit of political propaganda on behalf of those who would hold his job hostage is “heartbreaking” for some, others would call it creepy, and totalitarian. To be sure, it is completely at odds with the full expression of human dignity, which demands the most fundamental of rights: the right to think what one will, right or wrong, without fear of reprisal and without coercion.
It’s Tuesday and based on yesterday & Sunday our consecutive streak of failing to make our $365 weekly goal is in no danger.
I do promise you if you do hit DaTipJar and help us get to our $365 weekly goal I’ll keep fighting like Mrs. Palin. I’m not as valuable to the conservative movement as her but I’ll continue to do my part.
If 61 of you hit Subscribe at $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year.
Brendan Eich resigned from Mozilla, the organization behind the Firefox Web browser, after intense criticism over a six-year-old, $1,000 donation he made in support of a 2008 California ballot initiative to ban gay marriage.
You are disqualified from employment, however, if you reveal your alleged “bigotry” and “cause pain” by stating your convictions. And you are certainly disqualified if you do anything to advance the historic understanding of marriage as a conjugal union in the public square. You see, that’s what Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich was discovered to have done—he made a contribution of $1000 to the successful effort to defend marriage in California in 2008. Like the majority of California voters, he thought it best for the state to retain its conjugal marriage law. Recently that historical fact came to light. And in less than a week Eich was gone.
You can bet its not just Mozilla. Now that’s [sic] the bullies have Eich’s head as a trophy on their wall, they will put the heat on every other corporation and major employer. They will pressure them to refuse employment to those who decline to conform their views to the new orthodoxy. And you can also bet that it won’t end with same-sex marriage. Next, it will be support for the pro-life cause that will be treated as moral turpitude in the same way that support for marriage is treated. Do you believe in protecting unborn babies from being slain in the womb? Why then “you are a misogynist. You are a hater of women. You are a bigot. We can’t have a person like you working for our company.” And there will be other political and moral issues, too, that will be treated as litmus tests for eligibility for employment. The defenestration of Eich by people at Mozilla for dissenting from the new orthodoxy on marriage is just the beginning.
When tactics of intimidation succeed, their success ensures that they will be used more and more often in more and more contexts to serve more and more causes. And standing up to intimidation will become more and more difficult. And more and more costly. And more and more dangerous.
Mozilla gave in to the bullies and apologized for Mr. Eich’s appointment.
Shame on them.
Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on US & Latin American politics and culture at Fausta’s Blog.
She was the Seattle Cartoonist who suggested ” Everybody draw Mohammad Day” to protest the restriction of speech.
It wasn’t long before a FATWA was put out on her, She apologized for her actions but it didn’t matter. As far as radical Islam was concerned she had blasphemed, she went into hiding for fear of her life and remains so to this day.
This came to mind when I heard about Brendan Eich who was just forced out as CEO of Mozilla
But those credentials were not good enough. You see six years ago he donated $1000 to the campaign to pass Proposition 8 which outlawed Gay Marriage in California or would have if a judge had not overturned it.
That donation when brought to the press brought a roar of media & activist generated uproar.
Mind you Mr. Eich’s position was not unique 7,001,084 voted to pass the law and at the time of his donation he had the same position on gay marriage as Barack Obama did.
But that didn’t matter so Mozilla today issued this statement on their blog:
Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community.
Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality.
The irony of course being they are saying this while not allowing comments on the post where the announcement takes place.
Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.
Actually it’s not hard at all, you simply base your hiring decisions on qualifications nothing more.
the Prop 8 donor list has already been used as a blacklist to ruin other lives and careers. Vote the wrong way, and the brownshirts come for you, simple as that.
The only difference between the pair is the removal of Mr. Eich was done without threats of violence, but rest assured those days are not far away.
Count on it
Final thought: If I was a young ambitious lawyer looking for a big payday and publicity I’d find a few Christians in companies like this willing to sue for the creation of a “hostile work environment”. You will be amazed at how fast the worm will turn once companies realize they are susceptive to such suits from a pool of people who represents 77% of the population of the country.
“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.
“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
There are a lot of people who can’t wait to see a veto in Arizona of the Religious Freedom bill.
CNN & MSNBC have made it their cause celebre, GLAAD sees it as a great way to recover from their Duck Dynasty defeat and many in the establishment GOP see it as an excellent change to put those social conservatives in their place.
But if there is one person who wants a veto of Arizona’s Religious Freedom bill more than anyone else gotta be Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church.
At first glance you might think that’s counter intuitive. Other than an e-mail blast fundraising bump what can Westboro have to gain from an Jan Brewer veto?
The left has spent a lot of time building a strawman falsely suggesting that this law is all about denying service in a Restaurants and accommodations to gay people. Regardless of the though of the matter this has become the media meme.
The end result? If this bill is rejected the media will declare that religion, conscience, a moral code, can NOT be used to deny anyone service, ANYONE.
Then watch watch Phelps and his minions dive in.
Do you own a Gay Club? A restaurant or resort that caters to a primarily gay clientele? Get ready. Once the Arizona law is safely dead then expect Westboro baptist to come on down.
They’ll be down to rent your location for a dinner or a rally or an event, the press will come, Phelps will get a ton of publicity and use your venue to do it.
Watch him and his cronies turn it into a tour of Arizona, if you have a business that can be identified as Gay or LGBT, Phelps & company and he’ll take plenty of pictures (as will the media) before you know when your business’ name is google the name Westboro baptist will come up in the results, Pictures? Watch your venue name with a smiling Fred Phelps holding one of his Trademark signs smiling next to it.
Oh and beware, if you give less that your best service and qualify or if a single employee decides to make a statement with a tiny bit of spittle Phelps’ lawyers will pounce and the judgements and settlements will be legendary.
Such a plan could already have been done of course but there would have been little national attention in it, but thanks to the MSM & Gay groups move in Arizona it’s now worth his while.
I suspect national leaders of the LGBT community might be counting on this. While Phelps extremism is rejected by most Christians national gay groups will be delighted to use him as a poster boy for every fundraising they decide to send
So don’t worry Gay business owner in Arizona, while your own business’ longterm reputation will be harmed and your search engine results corrupted you can take comfort that national fundraisers for GLAAD & others will be able to live large off of your troubles for years to come.
Count on it.
Update: As for the strawmen I mentioned Erick Erickson notes them:
If a Christian owns a bakery or a florist shop or a photography shop or a diner, a Christian should no more be allowed to deny service to a gay person than to a black person. It is against the tenets of 2000 years of orthodox Christian faith, no matter how poorly some Christians have practiced their faith over two millennia.
And honestly, I don’t know that I know anyone who disagrees with any of this.
The disagreement comes on one issue only — should a Christian provide goods and services to a gay wedding. That’s it. We’re not talking about serving a meal at a restaurant. We’re not talking about baking a cake for a birthday party. We’re talking about a wedding, which millions of Christians view as a sacrament of the faith and other, mostly Protestant Christians, view as a relationship ordained by God to reflect a holy relationship.
This slope is only slippery if you grease it with hypotheticals not in play.
I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.
Anyone can walk into a kosher or halal butcher’s shop and buy a chicken, but if asked to cater a party with bacon burgers, the butcher will refuse. Should that invite a lawsuit? People understand that you don’t bother religious butchers with requests they cannot honor. Should we be permitted to demand services of a cameraman, or a florist or baker that tread upon their religious sensibilities?
I’m going to avoid getting into a theological debate over the issue of participating in same-sex weddings, because it’s an unresolvable topic. Some Christians might see it as Christian love, while others who read Corinthians might see a parallel to Paul’s ruling on eating meat sacrificed to idols, or even Jesus’ forgiveness of the adulterer with the proviso to “sin no more.” The point is that Christians and those of other religions on that spectrum of belief hold those beliefs sincerely, and that should be enough to allow them to choose when and whether to participate in such events. The right of religious expression takes precedence over the state interest in forcing bakers to produce cakes for same-sex weddings, or photographers to attend them.
Left unspoken is why anyone would want a baker for their wedding who didn’t want to participate — or a florist for that matter, or a photographer. Weddings are traumatic enough for all concerned without deliberately boosting the tension levels to a Spinal Tap-esque 11. Leaving the issue of religious belief aside for a moment, Phillips cannot possibly be the only baker in Denver capable of producing a wedding cake. Why not take Phillips at his word, tolerate his religious beliefs, and find a baker with more enthusiasm for the event?
I’ll speak it, the purpose is to generate fear to speak and live one’s Christian belief to make Christianity & Christian belief beyond the pale of acceptable behavior.
That is one of the points that our friends on the left have a real problem overcoming.
Unlike say Geology or Astronomy the Bible is a book. It says specific things in specific languages. Slight debates in translation not withstanding the text itself remains unchanged over the centuries
The Bible is one of the most read and studied books in human history. The greatest minds in the history of humanity have argued and debated it’s words, meaning and what it is all about for many many centuries. Throughout that time scholars uniformly maintained homosexual acts were sinful (as they are in Islam and other religions).
Yet our friends on the left would have you believe that until 2004 or so 99.9% of the scholars who studied the the single most studied volume in the history of mankind has been totally misinterpreted by the not only some of the finest minds humanity produced from Augustine to C. S. Lewis from Thomas Aquinas to Pope John Paul II.
How fortunate we are to be living in an age where we have scholars so brilliant that they can outshine giants like these. How lucky we are to have such minds among us.
One final thought:
While I agree with Mr. Erickson’s point and have argued it above If I was on the other side of the argument I’d make this one back at him:
Historically there has been a word long used to describe those who redefined Christian belief and practice into something different than it was…
…that word is “Protestant”
If I was a leftist I’d ask Erick to explain how this attempt to redefine centuries of scripture and sacraments is any different than John Calvin, Joseph Smith, William Miller, King Henry VIII, Martin Luther and all the Baptists, Congregationalists, Lutherans , Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Adventists who starting in 1517 threw out centuries of church doctrine and sacraments because those Catholics were and are still getting it wrong?
All animals are equal but some are more equal than others
George Orwell: Animal Farm 1945
1995:It is bigoted to opposeCivil Unions are simply a response to correct a longstanding injusticeThere is no need for a federal Marriage Amendment, nobody talking about legalizing Gay Marriage and DOMA is just affirming what everybody already knows.
2005:It is bigoted to oppose the 4-3 vote by the Massachusetts Supreme because it simply extends to gay couples rights that everyone should have. After all Gay Marriage isn’t going to affect you or anyone else, it the business of the people and their families and nobody else.
2014: Your business doesn’t have the right to refuse to participate in a Gay wedding in any way. Claiming that right makes you a bigot to be exposed and sued out of business but we have absolutely no intention of interfering with you place of worship and your religious beliefs within said place are secure
2020: (projected) If you refuse to perform our gay wedding in your church then obviously you are not a true religion and the US government can no longer recognize your denomination as a religion under the 1st amendment.
If you think my entry for 2020 is alarmist, you simply have not been paying attention for the last 20 years.
There has been some confusion and consternation concerning the statements of Governor Andrew Cuomo concerning pro-life, pro-family and pro-second Amendment people in NY. Readinghis statements one might assume that he would, for example, decide that Pope Francis I having called abortion “Horrific” would not be welcome in either NYC or the state in general. It would, of course go without saying that Cardinal Timothy Dolan should pack his bags along with any faithful Catholic who follows the church teachings.
But I think it might be prudent to run the governor’s words through a translation circuit before jumping to conclusions, therefore using the most advanced piece of computational material that I have direct access to let me provide you with my translation of the Governor’s statement:
I am a candidate for the Democrat nomination for president in 2016 so if you are a progressive with a lot of money or a gay activist with a lot of money or Michael Bloomberg you want to support me and write me checks instead of that Clinton family who believes that Abortion should be rare, that supported and passed DOMA and comes from a state that embraces the gun culture.
Since we pro-life types are not welcome in NY anymore it might behoove us to use some kind of identification so that state officials can mark us undesirables if we enter or pass through the state. I understand the symbol to the right was quite popular not a very long time ago for that very purpose.
It’s also my understanding that people wearing such a mark were prevented from owning and or possessing firearms by the state, which was of course for their own good as such people could not be trusted with dangerous weapons, particularly people as extreme as they who opposed the sane and reasonable policies of the state that only wanted what was best for them.
But as this is the 21st century rather than the 20th and the a different group is more identified with the extreme doctrines of marriage being a union of a man and a woman and the concept that human life begins at conception and must be protected that so offend the governor perhaps a different symbol might be more in keeping with 21st century realities. For example this one.
The advantage of this badge twofold. Not only does it mark those who profess an extreme ideological on marriage & abortion but it doubles as a handy reminder of what happens if you preach unacceptable religious doctrines contrary to what the state considers the public good.
I don’t know why but I have the oddest feeling that if the governor of NY suggests the mandatory wearing of this badge by those who oppose Gay Marriage and abortion that it would not only delight the very people he wishes to support his 2016 presidential campaign but that the people he wishes to mark might in fact willingly and proudly wear such a symbol on their person to publicly associate themselves with the gentleman in question.
Seconding Andy Fox, I just sent a note through the governor’s website that my family will not be visiting New York while Mr. Cuomo is governor, absent a complete retraction and apology — should have insisted on “sensitivity training” as well, but I didn’t think of it.
Guess we’ll find out how much pull Andy Cuomo’s people have with the IRS!
Would it not be possible for any state employee who is either 1. Pro 2nd Amendment, 2. Pro-Life 3. Pro-Marriage or simply a faithful Catholic to lodge a complaint against the governor for creating a “hostile work environment”?
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has decreed that (just like Barack Obama) his job is not to work for his entire constituency. Cuomo believes that it his job to advance the agenda of the radical far left only, and that anyone who does not completely agree with him is not welcome in New York State AT ALL.
It is 7 AM on Saturday and by the end of the day one of two things will be true.
Either this will be the third week in a row were we failed to make paycheck and the prospect of making the mortgage this month will be doubtful even if we make our goal for the final two weeks of the month.
Or this will be the first week of 2014 where we make a full paycheck and we have an outside chance of making the mortgage if we make our goals for the next two weeks.
57 1/4 more subscribers @ at $20 a month the bills will be paid every week and the problem will be solved on a permanent basis. It won’t cover CPAC but it will do all the base bills and that’s what counts
On Jan 3rd I commented on a story where the Holy Father encouraged the Bishop of Malta to speak against “Gay Adoption” in his country and disagreed with Popewatch that this would be the breaking point with the left and the media:
The problem is this is still an election year in America and if the left is seen as systematically attacking the first Latin American Pope it will not play well.
I predict while some uber advocates will push it the mainstream will ignore the story after all it’s likely the only thing anyone on the left knows about Malta is lesbian porn star Magdalene St. Michaels was born there.
Well two days later a story concerning the Pope, gays and children has made the mainstream and as predicted it’s not the one I mentioned before:
Pope Francis has called for a rethink in the way the Catholic Church deals with the children of gay couples and divorced parents, warning against “administering a vaccine against faith”.
If you search on the net it’s everywhere from GMA news to NBC and the story is the same whereever you go:
I remember a case in which a sad little girl confessed to her teacher: ‘my mother’s girlfriend doesn’t love me’,” he was quoted as saying, according to AFP. Due to the Church’s opposition to homosexuality, same-sex marriage and divorce, these children may feel unwelcome, the pontiff — who has garnered a reputation for his efforts toward greater inclusion — indicated.
“We must be careful not to administer a vaccine against faith to them,” Francis added.
There is one other thing that is the same, nobody seems to have a link to the actual speech that the reports say was given in November of last year. There is no sign of the speech anywhere in any language, an oddity since the Vatican site put everything out there in many different languages. For example this is page for last November speeches.
Without the actual speech the context of what the Pope is saying is totally lost.
Now to faithful Catholics the obvious interpretation is the Pope makes the point that the sin of the parents can’t stand between the message of Christ and their children as it says in Luke 18:16-17
Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, “Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as theseAmen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.”
However the pitch the media is giving is totally different, suggesting the Pope is no longer things Gay Marriage and or Adoption or even divorce is a big deal. As if the Malta story never happened.
The reason is there is a narrative to be created to try to divide the conservatives away from the church and to suggest to Latino’s that the Pope is with the cultural left on issues because the alternative is to attack the first Latin American Pope and generate anger.
There are a lot of low information voters that are going to fall for this nonsense, but any conservative Catholic who buys into the media BS should be ashamed of themselves for being a sucker.
Italian media on Sunday ran headlines saying the pope’s words were an opening to legal provision for civil unions for gay couples, a subject of debate in Italy.
Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi told Vatican Radio that media interpretations were “paradoxical” and a “manipulation” of the pope’s words, particularly as some media quoted him as speaking specifically of homosexual unions, which he did not.
Lombardi said the pope was merely “alluding to the suffering of children” and not taking a stand on the political debate in Italy.
Hmmm you mean to say the media of the left might be spinning the Pope to advance their own ends?
Who woulda thunk it? I haven’t been this shocked since I found out there was gambling going on at Rick’s Cafe in Casablanca.
Update 2: Morning Joe found space for this story and the Vatican denial, the Malta story, not so much
Update 3: Via an e-mail from the Anchoress Jimmy Akin at the National Catholic Register has more including two critical points, one on translation:
4) This translation has “my mother’s fiancé,” not “my mother’s girlfriend.” Could that indicate he’s talking about a heterosexual couple?
The AFP story used the translation, “my mother’s girlfriend,” as we saw above.
The English translation we are quoting from here was produced by Fr. Donald Maldari, S.J., who used the term fiancé.
If the translation “fiancé” (a man engaged to be married) were correct, Pope Francis would be referring to the daughter of a woman who is planning marriage with a man (presumably after divorce, annulment, or widowhood).
If the translation “girlfriend” is correct, it would indicate the daughter of a woman who has a lesbian lover.
6) He’s not suggesting that the Church should change its teachings on homosexuality or divorce?
No. He’s talking about how to present the Church’s teaching to children in a way that ultimately leads them to embrace the fullness of Christian teaching.
He’s not talking about lopping of bits of that teaching that are inconvenient in a modern setting.
Because many children have parents today that are publicly living in unions contrary to Christian teaching, there is a real problem in terms of how to communicate Christian teaching to them in a way that does not alienate them from the Church.
This is what he means when he says: “We must be careful not to administer a vaccine against faith to them.”
It’s a tough problem worth the church’s full attention.
It’s Sunday a new week and a chnace to make up for last week’s failure and shortfall toward a full paycheck
While we weren’t able to pull it off last week $345 to pay for the mortgage the seven, plus our first local villager is totally possible
Let’s make sure one bad week doesn’t drop us behind in our monthly goals, please hit datipjar below
It’s the 12th day of christmas and we remain 58 1/4 new subscribers at $20 a month to do this
Help us narrow that gap, subscribe for any amount below.
Every now and then you read a piece that you simply don’t want to excerpt because it is so well written, so well argued and fits together so perfectly that it’s almost a crime to take any bit of it out.
That scenario includes me, and the point about intentionally forcing a charade on your children is an excellent one. I am a divorced mom, now living celibate because my kids only have one dad. In order to be a good parent, my life must be ordered toward the good of my children. This includes every aspect of my life, including my sexuality. My celibacy after divorce is good for my children because it teaches them, despite my divorce, that marriage is forever, that they have only one dad, and that they should be committed to their dad despite the problems that have befallen us.
Where does someone like me “fit” into the worldview of same-sex couples who demand that we see marriage as a selfish institution, as opposed to a selfless one? Redefining marriage means more than most people realize, in this respect. It changes society’s view of the institution from being one of selflessness for the good of children to one of selfishness, children be damned.
My post on Beb Schieffer and Gay Marriage from July 1st is still regularly getting hits and links and continues to draw commentary around the net. For those who missed it the post was on Schieffer’s surprise to hear on Face the Nation that in states where Gay Marriage is legal Private citizens who are Christians are being sued for not aiding and abetting it.
I don’t think Schieffer has considered transforming American society into one where Evangelicals, Catholics, and traditionalist Jews can be prosecuted for not wishing to agree that marriage includes same sex relationships (a different question from whether or not such relationships are permissible, or even moral).
And that is really what this is all about. Let me remind you of what I said about Gay Marriage in my very first post on the subject oh those many years ago:
Mr. Cohen is not a bigot, he is a joiner. The Gay marriage movement has all the trimmings of both a pop fad and a political movement by a loud group of elite people with money and clout; no different than the eugenics movements in the last century. I suspect beyond the core set of true believers the support is actually very thin. It is what the “enlightened” and “right” type of people support to show how good and tolerant they are. It allows people to feel good about themselves without actually doing anything. It keep them safe from that most dreaded charge of bigotry. In short it is an exercise in narcissism.
I submit and suggest that a lot of people like Bob Schieffer jumped on the Gay Marriage bandwagon because they wanted to be considered “on the right side” of the argument and I suspect a lot of youth went along for the same reason. I’ll wager none of these folks who went along to get along never considered or imagined the consequences in terms of legal Coercion of people to violate their religion in a Prima facie violation of 1st amendment rights and their willingness to ignore or pretend it is not happening is going to cost us all.
Schieffer is more of an old-school “Liberal,” who thinks that people get to be free in America. As such he and others like him need to be moved out to make room for the new, young sharks who plan to leave Americans free to follow orders.
When you are a narcissist you don’t care about the effect on future generation’s 1st amendment rights and the left in general and gay rights in particular is all about narcissism.
Sgt Schultz:I see nothing, I was not here, I did not even get up this morning!
Hogan’s Heroes Hold that Tiger, 1965
Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,”
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes Sliverblaze
A rather extraordinary event took place this Friday.
The first Encyclical from the Papacy of Francis I was released titled LUMEN FIDEI (the light of faith).
Under ordinary circumstances the first Encyclical of a new pope is significant, this one even more so as it an Encyclical that, while signed by one Pope is authored by two:
As Francis himself told a group of cardinals and bishops in May, the encyclical was written “with four hands” together with retired Pope Benedict XVI.
Benedict had almost finished the text when he resigned on Feb. 28. Francis took up the unfinished work, adding a “few contributions” to Benedict’s “fine work” and publishing it under his own name.Francis himself has
It was also released the same day as another joint appearance by Francis & Benedict XVI. While this is not as unique as it once was it is still an amazing sight and an excellent hook for a TV report on the subject.
And if this was not enough reason to make this story newsworthy, the section on faith and family, given the recent rulings on Gay Marriage from the Supreme Court would surely draw media attention (all emphasis mine):
In Abraham’s journey towards the future city, the Letter to the Hebrews mentions the blessing which was passed on from fathers to sons (cf. Heb 11:20-21). The first setting in which faith enlightens the human city is the family. I think first and foremost of the stable union of man and woman in marriage. This union is born of their love, as a sign and presence of God’s own love, and of the acknowledgment and acceptance of the goodness of sexual differentiation, whereby spouses can become one flesh (cf. Gen 2:24) and are enabled to give birth to a new life, a manifestation of the Creator’s goodness, wisdom and loving plan. Grounded in this love, a man and a woman can promise each other mutual love in a gesture which engages their entire lives and mirrors many features of faith. Promising love for ever is possible when we perceive a plan bigger than our own ideas and undertakings, a plan which sustains us and enables us to surrender our future entirely to the one we love. Faith also helps us to grasp in all its depth and richness the begetting of children, as a sign of the love of the Creator who entrusts us with the mystery of a new person. So it was that Sarah, by faith, became a mother, for she trusted in God’s fidelity to his promise (cf. Heb 11:11).
The family: “A stable union of man and woman“, “a manifestation of the Creator’s goodness, wisdom and loving plan.“, “a plan bigger than our own ideas and undertakings“!
Such a statement would be considered “Fighting words” if uttered by a Bishop on TV. There would be no shortage of journalists challenging him with hard-hitting questions or side guests raining critique on such a clergyman in the most vehement of terms.
On Memeorandum there would be link after link from Media Matters and Think Progress decrying it as “homophobic”, as contrary to “marriage equality” (a phrase that means absolutely nothing) and leftist bloggers would amplify the attack in an unending stream of paragraphs filled with vitriol.
Yet how does the media react when the Supreme Pontiff, the head of the Worldwide Roman Catholic Church the single most important religious figure in the world releases, in writing a statement that challenges the MSM most cherished belief (next to the sanctity of abortion) and does it in his very first public Encyclical? What do we hear from the media who has never found a traditional value it wasn’t willing to attack?
All that could be mustered was one post on FiredogLake so weak that in its title it actually states the Pope has excluded adopters from the definition of family (as apparently a homo-centric argument was not strong enough).
Why? Why this conspicuous silence, why does the MSM, when this pope challenges them, see nothing and know nothing?
Because they are still afraid of a direct confrontation.
They understand that unlike the Gabriel Gomez campaign or the Amnesty Bill an attack on the beloved first Pope from Latin America can be considered by many an attack on Latin Americans in general. It can actually create a united “Hispanica“. United against them.
So they will see nothing as they did on the LCWR and they did on lukewarm Catholics (Hi Mrs. Pelosi) in the hope that nobody will notice until one day his “My Chcemy Boga” moment comes and it’s too late.
All is proceeding as the Holy Spirit has planned.
Update: Added the Sherlock Holmes quote
Update 2: Instalanches are no less welcome a day after the post. If you don’t know what I mean about the whole “Hispanica” bit I plan on posting my entire radio speech about “Hispanica” on Youtube as an audio with illustrations when (and if) time permits
I’ve not given a lot of attention to the Free Kate case lately although Stacy McCain continues to be all overit.
However I was struck by something he wrote concerning the NYC gay pride march
For some strange reason, a search of news sites doesn’t turn up any mainstream media coverage of Kaitlyn Hunt’s Gay Pride Parade appearance in New York City. It’s almost as if the media don’t think the “Free Kate” movement is good for gay rights. Perhaps the media even disagree with Kate’s mom, Kelley Hunt Smith:
Sometimes the media don’t want to publicize exactly what the liberal agenda is for your kids. When the American Life League wanted to place advertisements showing examples of Planned Parenthood’s sex education materials, the New York Times rejected these ads as being “too graphic.” Do you really want to click this link? Don’t say you weren’t warned, and if it’s NSFW — if you could be fired for viewing Planned Parenthood sex-education lessons in your office cubicle — why is it OK to show it to your kids in public school?
That’s what I’ve always found interesting about the Free Kate case. The family insists what was done should not be a crime and is perfectly normal but if a boy had been in that bathroom and videotaped what they did. Then uploaded that video he would be guilty of a Federal Offense.
This would be true if they gave consent to that video or no.
Let’s forget, for a moment, the general NSFW content of the parade itself and consider the symbolism.
It would not be unfair to say that the past week was one of the most significant weeks in the history of those pushing for Gay Marriage both in country in general and in NY State in particular.
The plaintiff in the DOMA case was from NY and the fact that NYC’s gay pride parade came just after their victory likely had meaning to quite a few of the people who organized, participated in, or attended the event.
That being the case there would naturally be more than the usual amount of attention to the parade and those who marched in it.
So what did those in charge of the parade do?
They allowed the Free Kate crowd to actively march in the parade bearing their banner.
Now given what is on .. er …display… at this parade you might not think the Free Kate crowd is a big deal, but it IS.
One of the oddities of the Church’s s sex scandals has been the media simultaneously pushing the guilt of the Catholic Church while ignoring it was overwhelmingly a scandal of gay men having sex with underage boys. This is, as Stacy McCain would call it, a Neutral objective fact yet the fastest way to get yourself called a hater or a bigot or to produce outrage or anger from the gay community is to point this out.
Yet at the most significant Gay event after the most significant court victory in the land, you have marching as Stacy McCain puts it: America’s Most Famous Sex Offender™.
One could say the organizers, busy as they are with the details, may be unaware of the developments on the case since the Freekate crowd first appeared on the Today Show. Given the level of discussion online, in the gay community, I suspect that is very unlikely.
It’s also possible that they counted on the MSM ignoring her presence (as they did) since the is plenty of precedent for the media covering for those they support. (See the Barack Obama election campaign circa 2008 & 2012)
And it could be they were worried that some of the more radical participants of the parade would make a fuss. There is plenty of precedent of ostracization in the gay community for those who dare stray from the radical line even in the slightest. It’s not time for division in the ranks. Keeping her out might have been more trouble than it was worth.
But there is also one other possibility, the one that is suggested in Stacy post’s title. It’s possible, just possible that the organizers backed by Justice Kennedy’s (and those who signed onto his opinion) words decided that there is no reason to conceal or hide that part of the agenda anymore. Perhaps it was time to say loudly and proudly: This is what is coming and there is not a thing you can do about it and if you dare to object we will treat you in the way we treated the family that dared oppose the Hunts.”
Matthew Harrison Brady:I do not think about things I do not think about.
Henry Drummond:Do you ever think about things that you do think about?
Inherit the Wind 1960
There was a moment during Sunday’s victory lap on the News shows for gay marriage and its media allies who support it that was very telling. Bob Schieffer the oldest and fairest (and that’s not saying much) of the Sunday Morning Hosts in the MSM had just finished speaking with Ted Olsen and brought on Tony Perkins of the Family Research Counsel to talk the Gay Marriage Issue.
TONY PERKINS: …We’re already seeing bakers and florists and photographers forced to participate in same-sex marriages under the threat of law and in some cases even jail. I can’t think of anything that’s more un-American than that. So I think as Americans see that there’s a lot more to same-sex marriage than simply two people who love each other that they’ll have time to reconsider this and– and– and decide whether or not we want to trade fundamental freedoms of speech and religion for the right of two people who love each other, which they can do now. They can live together, but can they redefine marriage in the rest of society with it?
Now to us in Massachusetts and who have been following the ride of the tolerance police, those sentences are nothing extraordinary but Bob Schieffer had no idea what Tony Perkins was talking about
BOB SCHIEFFER: How is it that bakers and florists are being forced to participate in this? I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here.
Perkins then educates him
TONY PERKINS: Well, we’re seeing in Washington State, Colorado, and some of the other states that have these anti– anti-discrimination statutes that are being imposed that when a same sex couple comes and says “I want you to take pictures of my wedding or I want you to bake a cake.” And they say, look, my religious convictions will not allow me participate in that, they’re literally being sued by the government, not the individuals, and they’ve even been adjudicated in such places as New Mexico. So we’re going to see a loss of religious freedom. There is no question about it. It’s already happening.
Schieffer seems to be totally caught off guard by this, as evidenced by his hesitation in the following question.
BOB SCHIEFFER: How many– how many lawsuits have been filed on that? Because I must say this is under my radar. I haven’t– I haven’t heard this.
Perkins educates him (emphasis mine)
TONY PERKINS: Well, you know, Bob, that’s a great point. Because the media’s not reporting on this because they realize there’s a lot more behind this than the marriage altar. It’s literally about altering the landscape of America. There are a number of suits. I mean just a few weeks ago in Colorado one was filed. So this is happening. And it’s the reality that people will come to face to face with over time because right now same-sex marriage is limited to twelve jurisdictions. And as more people see that their freedoms, the freedoms of parents to determine what their children are taught, to be able to live your life according to your faith, and all of that’s at risk here. I think people will say, wait a minute, that’s not– I gave a nod of affirmation but not to that. And– and so I– I do think there’s going to be time to rethink this.
Frankly I think the media totally agrees with the prosecution of people in this fashion so they find nothing incredible about it, hopefully thanks to Bob Schieffer’s age he might find the prosecution of Catholics and Protestants for following their religion worrysome as opposed to Justice Kennedy, Kagen, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Breyer who declare them simply haters.
(BTW I include the other four as none of them has disavowed the language Justice Kennedy used.)
Now you might have missed this small exchange in the vast ocean of hagiography surrounding the case, but it is significant and If I was Tony Perkins I would offer the defendants in these cases as interview subjects to Mr. Schieffer. He is old enough to not worry about being invited to dinner parties for daring to talk about it.
Frankly If I was Brian Brown, and Tony Perkins or any of the other defenders of marriage I would make sure I had the defendants in these cases at every rally and on every TV Appearance from this point on.
Update: Left out the word “worrisome” in the paragraph beginning “Frankly I think” corrected.
I Remember those heady days of Yesteryear. That time only 17 months ago when Rick Santorum was making this point in Concord New Hampshire:
“How about the argument that all men are created equal and the right to happiness?” Santorum pounces:
“Are we saying everyone has the right to marry?”
The crowd claps and agrees with loud shouts, Santorum continues
“So anyone can marry anyone else?” when the crowd approves, he asks “So anyone can marry several people?”
At once the crowd starts to object, filibuster and interrupt,
Well of COURSE they were objecting , filibustering and interrupting after all it’s not like gay marriage was going to lead to polygamy, otherwise after the Supreme Court ruled it it’s favor you would have mainstream reporters like Matt Lewis in the Daily Caller talking like this:
I mean, who are we to say that two or three or even four consenting adults — who want to make a lifelong commitment to love one another — shouldn’t be allowed to do so?
Anne Wilde, a vocal advocate for polygamist rights who practiced the lifestyle herself until her husband died in 2003, praised the court’s decision as a sign that society’s stringent attachment to traditional “family values” is evolving.
“I was very glad… The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore,” said Wilde. “Now it’s grandparents taking care of kids, single parents, gay parents. I think people are more and more understanding that as consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose.”
Is it time for a discussion of polygamy as a viable life choice tolerated by the federal government? With the Supreme Court striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, it may be the time to start publicly considering whether the state has any legitimate interest in monitoring the number of people in a marriage, not just the gender. And unlike spouses in same-sex marriages, polygamists can go to jail.
Weren’t those fun old days when all the right people justy knew Rick Santorum was just some Catholic fundamentalist spreading alarmist rhetoric.
Down to $52 bucks for a full paycheck and $423 for a full Mortgage payment.
The second is a bit iffy but the first only requires two readers at $26 or one at $52.
I gotta believe it that can be done in the next 7 hours.
As a person who opposes Gay Marriage and has publicly called it simply narcissism I am of course displeased with the Supreme Court’s rulings today but even worse that the result of the final Prop 8 case is the overturning of that referendum based on standing.
Let’s wind back the tape. In California gay marriage was imposed by fiat. Dissenting citizens, opposed by the entrenched Democrat Machine at every turn, went through the complicated expensive and time-consuming process to mount a referendum to reverse them and against all odds, won.
Opponents immediately went to court where a sympathetic judge ruled against the referendum. The State’s Democrat machine refused to defend a law passed over their wishes on appeal so the people took on the appeal themselves.
Now the Supreme Court has decided they don’t have the right to do so.
In a one party state the implications are staggering!
If a state government, overwhelmingly controlled by a single party wants to push unpopular laws for the benefit of any group the people’s ability to stop them by referendum is stymied.
Any sort of referendum is very hard. It requires a vast amount of people willing to invest millions of dollars and months or maybe even years of time while being willing to stand up to opponents who will vilify you. In a one party state it’s even harder since the people who oppose you control all levers of government, making it easy to punish your friends and reward your foes.
Why go through all that time and effort and expense when even if you win, all the party machine needs is a single sympathetic lower court judge to rule in their and violà you’re foiled without standing to appeal.
Fans of Gay Marriage might be cheering today, but not as loud as fans of one party autocratic government.
The death of the ballot initiative movement as Court gives de facto veto power to government officials who want to lose a case.
Update 2: Justice Kennedy
There is much irony in the Court’s approach to justiciability in this case. A prime purpose of justiciability is to ensure vigorous advocacy, yet the Court insists upon litigation conducted by state officials whose preference ist o lose the case….
In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government.
General Custer:Still trying to outsmart me, aren’t you, mule-skinner. You want me to think that you don’t want me to go down there, but the subtle truth is you really *don’t* want me to go down there!
Little Big Man 1970
Orry Main: George, he’s fallen through
George Hazard:Good ought to slow him down
Orry Main:We can’t leave him there he might drown
George Hazard:I was afraid you’d say that
North and South 1985
4th Doctor:You’re making a terrible mistake. Those are the wrong ones. RASK:You can do better than that, Doctor.
Doctor Who Underworld 1978
Thursday when commenting on the Kate Hunt case and the impending gay days I said the following.
for the Gay Community that is starting to win more and more votes and arguments the whole Kaitlyn Hunt = Rosa Parks business simply makes them pawns not only in the Hunt’s family quest to avoid any consequences for her daughter but for the same crowd that has looked at the reactions to that Gawker piece with great interest.
You have been warned.
This advice would seem counter-intuitive on my part. Since I’m looking to both persuade people to oppose Gay Marriage and to persuade others logically it would be to the great advantage of my side of the debate if the LGBT community invested itself wholly and completely in the Free Kate movement, to declare Kaitlyn’s cause their cause. I’d want those pushing the hardest for Gay marriage to shackle itself to the Hunt family so completely that one could not think of Gay Marriage without thinking of Kaitlyn Hunt her mother, father and sister and all they represent.
That being so, logically no member of the LGBT community committed to the cause of gay marriage should take my advice when my opposition to them is well known. After all at the very start of this blog I wrote on Gay Marriage describing it thus:
The Gay marriage movement has all the trimmings of both a pop fad and a political movement by a loud group of elite people with money and clout; no different than the eugenics movements in the last century. I suspect beyond the core set of true believers the support is actually very thin. It is what the “enlightened” and “right” type of people support to show how good and tolerant they are. It allows people to feel good about themselves without actually doing anything. It keep them safe from that most dreaded charge of bigotry. In short it is an exercise in narcissism.
So while I’ve done my moral duty to warn the supporters of Gay Marriage of the danger of being used or abused by a family trying to get their daughter out of a bit of trouble and maybe make a buck or two in the process. You are under no obligation to take that advice. If you choose to endure the current Hiroshima
and the potential promised Nagasaki, well that’s your problem.
But if you won’t believe me perhaps you might believe PFLAG of Vero Beach:
We have been watching the developments in this case since it was brought to our attention. PFLAG of Vero Beach cannot enter into the controversy for the following reason. We have not been able to find where the charges brought against this unfortunate young lady are inspired by homophobia, or are in any way anti-LGBTQ.