In 2008, Will It Be Mormon in America?
That's the title of this piece in The Weekly Standard. Obviously,m it discusses Mitt Romney's possible candidacy in 2008. Go check it out.
Compromise on Same-sex Marriage?
No. There is no room for compromise when it comes to core principles, and the absolute protection of traditional marriage and family is a core principle, as is championing sexual morality. Ramesh Ponnuru, in a National Review article claims that "the issue of benefits can, to a large extent, be separated from the issue of the legal recognition of [same-sex] relationships." Admittedly, I do not know exactly where he is coming from because this statement is made at the end of the publicly available portion of the article. I am not a subscriber to National Review and thus could not access the remainder of the article.
However, I do not see how the issue of benefits can be separated from the issue of legal recognition of same-sex relationships. In order to confer benefits, there must be some acknowledgement if not legal recognition of the relationship. It does not matter if the relationships for which benefits are conferred go beyond same-sex relationships (e.g. granparent/granchild, elderly siblings, etc.). Placing same-sex relationships into any system that grants such relationships societal/governmental benefits is legal recognition. What Ponnuru and other, what I might call, squishy conservatives fail to realize is that the sticking point for many conservatives, in my view, is that same-sex relationships are inherently immoral. Therefore, granting any societal or governmental benefits of any kind to such relationships is wrong.
Granting of benefits to same-sex couples is legal recognition of the relationship, period. I do not care what you call it-- whether "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" or "snarfblatt", granting benefits to same-sex relationships elevates the status of such relationships. It puts such relationships in a favorable light, even if not made comparable, or not entirely comparable, to traditional marriage. However, such relationship do not confer the same benefits on society. (I could argue that such relationships, in fact, harm society.) I, for one, do not want to pay for such relationships, either through taxes or through increased consumer costs due to the provision of such benefits by private companies (and yes, I realize that this is already the case and has become inevitable under current immoral climate in which we live). I also long for the day when I can tell my children that their society values morality, values family and values God.
The truth hurts ... to write, I guess
Through the quarter post of the 2005 baseball season, my beloved Cincinnati Reds are among the saddest sacks in the game. They enter tonight's game with a 15-26 record, which is good enough for butt-naked last in the National League Central -- tied with the Houston Astros.
After 41 games, the Reds lead baseball in strikeouts (331) and are 24th in hits (343) and fifth in grounding into double plays (36).
On Friday, management tried shaking up the roster by releasing D'Angelo Jimenez -- he of the .229-hitting with 5 RBIs and $2 million annual salary D'Angelo Jimenez. In effect, he was fired.
Jimenez sucks and so does the reporting. On Saturday, the Dayton Daily News described the transaction this way:
" ... to rid the roster of the pouty, non-hustling Jimenez."
Also on Saturday, The Cincinnati Enquirer said Jimenez was fat and slow:
"He was out of shape enough that he had limited range and no speed on the base paths."
This is the first mention of any kind by any of the three Reds beat writers that there was any indication that Jimenez wasn't doing the things to be deserving of a spot on the team's 40-man roster. Why wasn't this stuff written when Jimenez was still in a Reds' uniform stinking up the joint?
In that light, a researcher at Penn State found that 39 percent of sports editors surveyed thought a newspaper's job should be to "boost the home team."
I guess political reporters aren't the only ones who have a hard time keeping their emotions out of reporting.
Mfume Admits "Dating" NAACP Subordinate
Say it ain't so, Kweisi.
"I'm a human being," Mfume said Monday of the relationship. "It was very short-lived and terminated because I recognized it was a boneheaded thing to do. It was my mistake and my mistake solely. That's what makes us better as human beings. Not to repeat mistakes ... and to try to own up to them."
Comment -- how come every time some joker politician screws up, it's because they are a "human being"? So what?
Two links for stories you should read:
THE ABORTION INDUSTRY'S HYPOCRITICAL SEXUAL ABUSE COVER-UP
REVEALED: HOW AN ABORTION PUTS THE NEXT BABY AT RISK
Grant Lee Buffalo
It's been more than ten years, and I still love Mighty Joe Moon. Guess that makes it a classic.
As a follow-up to this morning's post about first-class moron (rather than Mormon) Harry Reid, I ask this: if Reid is so confident that there is a "problem" in Judge Saad's FBI file, and this disqualifies Saad from serving as a federal judge, why can't we see the FBI file on Reid? Surely, Reid will make his own FBI file public (he seems to have no problem sabotaging others with supposed information from theirs).
So let's see it -- what have you got to hide, Harry? Maybe Judge Saad can make his public too, and then we'll compare them. In fact, Judge Saad should challenge Senator Reid -- I'll make mine public if you disclose yours. Whaddaya say, Harry?
Man, that would be hilarious. Maybe then the Senate could debate the respective merits of Reid and Saad for their positions. That's another vote the Democrats would filibuster. Perhaps Reid's constituents should consider this kind of behavior next time Reid is up for re-election. The Democrats can't filibuster that vote (unfortunately for Reid).
The following quote seems appropriate in this instance:
MR. RUSSERT: Many people who've been criticizing you have said: Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records. Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let the historians...
SEN. KERRY: I'd be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren't even relevant to the record. So when we get--I'm going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn't in the record and we'll put it out. I have no problem with that.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?
SEN. KERRY: But everything, Tim...
MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?
SEN. KERRY: Yes, I will. But everything that we put in it, Tim--everything we put in--I mean, everything that was out was a full documentation of all of the medical records, all of the fitness reports. And I'd call on those who have challenged me, let's see their records. I want to see the records of each of those people who have put up a challenge, because some of them have some serious questions in them, and it hasn't been appropriate...
MR. RUSSERT: So they should sign Form 180s for themselves as well?
SEN. KERRY: You bet.
Sounds like Senator Kerry agrees with me.
There is a good article by that title today at NRO. Noting that it is the championing of sexual license that likely binds the homosexual rights lobby with the abortion rights lobby, the author states the following:
This is why the cultural battle in defense of traditional marriage is largely the same battle waged to protect the innocent life of the unborn child. Marriage defined as a contract between one man and one woman, or the recognition of the rights of the unborn child, naturally flow from a sense that sex is something more than an act of personal gratification. Sex provides physical pleasure but it also is a profound gift to the individual that comes with responsibility. Sex does have consequences that place some restrictions on sexual activity. The restrictions, however, are not limiting but rather put sex within a context that is natural and healthy for both the individual and society. Without this foundation of human sexuality, sex becomes nothing other than the pursuit of personal gratification.
It is critical to recognize the ideology of absolute sexual license that drives and unites abortion and same-sex-marriage advocates. They form a strong coalition that has reshaped the political landscape. It is, consequently, necessary to fight the two fronts of the cultural battle (the dignity of life and the definition of marriage) with the same reaffirmation of the dignity and responsibility of sex. Sex is a great good, but its consequences and procreative purpose cannot be ignored if it is to remain so.
Absolutely. We will never win the war against the killing of innocent children and the protection of marriage without bringing back some sense of sexual morality. Too many have fallen for a new sense of morality-sex with whoever you feel something for, which is nothing more than justification of an old immorality. Sex ought to be confined to marriage. End of story. Can you imagine what would happen if everyone followed this as the rule? Just think of the health ramifications alone. Alas, it will never happen, but we ought to promote chastity as the rule, rather than let it be made the exception.
Senator Reid, the Mormon leader of the Democrats in the Senate, shot his mouth off again yesterday and promised to continue opposing one of President Bush's judicial nominees based on "a problem" he said is in the nominee's "confidential report from the FBI."
The story contains this interesting quote:
"Harry Reid is a disgrace to the Senate and to [his] Church of Latter-day Saints," said Manuel Miranda, who was forced to resign as a Republican Senate staffer after downloading files on judicial nominees from Democratic computer servers.
"Both bodies should censure him," said Mr. Miranda, who leads a private advocacy group for Mr. Bush's judicial nominees.
Jacquelynn May Andrewsen was born on Monday, May 9 at 3:37 p.m. She weighed 7 pounds and 2 ounces, and measured 19 and 1/2 inches in length. Mother and baby are recovering well at home. Big sisters, Ashlynn and Kaitlynn, and big brother, Lance, are happy with the addition to the family. (Lance, however, has been somewhat aloof as Jacquelynn has taken him out of the spotlight.) Dad is trying to keep everything together while Mom recovers. All in all, things are going very well.
Good Post -- Dems for Life
Antioch Road has a good post on the Democrats for Life. A taste:
There is only one way to prevent, with 100% certainty, an unwanted pregnancy and a sexually transmitted disease, and that is to abstain from sex until marriage (and those aren’t the only benefits). Yet, for some reason, our political leaders refuse to commit to an abstinence-only program. We chalk it up to teens are going to have sex no matter what.
Let’s stop setting the bar so low. Let’s stop perpetuating the myth that teens are incapable of controlling their hormones. As a commenter on this post at nykola.com wrote, “This idea that young people are incapable of self-control is enabling in the worst way. ‘They’re gonna do it anyway...’ Bah. Sez who? This is massively disrespectful of teens. It says to them that they are animals in heat, ruled by hormones. And people do seem to live up to expectations, don’t they.” Teaching kids how to “safely” have sex hasn’t worked with AIDS prevention, and it hasn’t worked with preventing unwanted children.
17 Year Old Female Wrestler Faked Hate Crimes
Is it just me, or does it seem that most "hate crimes" are committed by people dying to be seen as victims? Check out this story:
A 17-year-old top wrestler at an area high school here faked a series of gay-bashing incidents that prompted a police investigation, authorities said.
The rash of gay-bashing incidents at Tamalpais High School was the work of a student gay leader who claimed she was the victim of hate crimes, according to Mill Valley Police Capt. James Wickham.
The teen, who heads the school's Gay-Straight Alliance, admitted to authorities that she was the perpetrator of the incidents, which included vandalizing her own car with derogatory graffiti, police said.
Other incidents involved teachers who received threatening telephone messages.
"It has been determined that all the incidents have been committed by a single individual," Wickham said.
Question -- if the events were faked, were they really "gay bashing"? Just asking.
And what exactly does this quote at the end of the article mean?
Paula Pilecki, executive director of San Anselmo's Spectrum, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group, said she was surprised that police released a statement about the girl's admission.
"The next few weeks will no doubt be difficult for everyone involved, and I hope the community reacts with compassion," she said.
Difficult for everyone involved? I thought there was only one person involved, the gay wrestler.
And exactly why the community should react with "compassion" is not stated. Should the community have compassion simply because the individual who lied is a homosexual? Why didn't the "reporter" bother to ask -- without some context the quote is meaningless.
Finally, why shouldn't the police let the "community" know that there is NOT in fact a "gay basher" in their midst, just a goofball seeking attention (as if being a lesbian wrestler wasn't enough)?
There's a lot of nuance . . .
. . . that's been brought up in the discussion of abortion. It buttresses "our" argument, yet it complicates it, too. At least it does for this Simpleton Blogger. Henceforth, I offer my explanation, which not coincidentally, will be the way I'll explain it to my kids when they're ready:
For life to "be" as a concept, there must also be something that we could call "not life." That's not to say, "not life" is "dead". "Not life" is never having lived or existed.
As Mark and Brent have so eloquently waxed, the only argument that makes any logical sense is that life begins at conception; for it is absolutely the only time it can possibly begin. Remember back to the day your kids were born (if you don't have kids, imagine). What was that baby the day before you saw, touched, smelled him for the first time? Life or not life? In the vast majority of cases, if he was born today, he surely could have been born yesterday and survived all the same. The answer, then, is that yesterday he "was" life. What about the day before that? And keep asking the question: What was he the day before that ... before that ... before that? Tracking it back, the only time you can answer the question with "not life" -– and be 100 percent sure -- is the instance just before conception. As soon as the sperm-and-egg party starts, it's life, brutha.
Of course, at that point the pro-abortion crowd inserts the "viable tissue" argument. I find that pure folly. Frankly, that newborn I mentioned isn't a "viable" tissue for quite a little while after you get him home. He can't possibly survive -- for years, no doubt -- without wide-scoping care and nuturing from an adult ("adult" should be loosely applied, of course).
Who, then, would condone ending a “Viable Tissue’s” life at any point after birth because they wanted to have the right to chose?
Life, Personhood, Who Cares?
Lance has another great post over at Ragged Edges on abortion and the debate over when life begins, etc. He notes that in response to the question as to when life begins (i.e. at first breath or at conception), Dr. Collins, Vice President of Medical Affairs for Planned Parenthood responded as follows:
"The really hot question is, "When does being a person begin?" Most medical authorities and Planned Parenthood agree that it starts when a baby takes its first breath."
Lance makes some great points that I will not revisit here. I find it troubling, that even accepting that personhood is the relevant question, the "mother" (I hesitate to refer to a woman considering an abortion as a mother) gets to decide if and when the "potential" person reaches his or her potential. That is the real beef that pro-lifers have with the pro-abortionists. Those of us who are pro-life do want personhood to be achieved. There is something inherently wrong with allowing, let alone establishing a Constitutional right to, someone to decide this for what is clearly a life or potential person, whatever you want to call a child in embryo; especially when the primary reasons and justification for denying a baby the right to personhood are the self-serving and selfish desires of the pregnant woman. It really does not matter what terms you use, or when life begins, or when personhood begins. It is indisputable, that, if you let a fetus properly develop until birth, he or she will breath, then grow, develop etc. From the moment of conception, this chain of events begins. Who in their right mind can dispute what the end result will be following conception and normal development? And, knowing that, who in their right mind would champion killing an unborn child, or pre-person if that term suits you, at any stage of development? I think this is why Michael Savage may be on to something with his theory that "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." Civilized people in their right mind don't argue for such barbarism.
Rumsfeld v. FAIR
Recently, the Supremes agreed to hear the government's petition for cert concerning the Solomon Amendment. Of course, the Third Circuit's decision will be reversed. In a strong column, Marci Hamilton explains why.
In short, on-point Supreme Court precedent very strongly suggests the military ought to win this case - and FAIR ought to lose.
Beyond constitutional law, however, the law schools ought to rethink their position as a matter of policy and ethics, as well. The real message they are sending by this lawsuit - and their protests of military recruiting - is an ugly one: They are telling all of us just how much they care about the welfare of this country in difficult times.
Of course, liberal law schools and their professors publicly disavow any negative attitude toward the military. But their hyper-legalistic arguments regarding the Solomon Amendment betray a more troubling truth.
This Oughta Help...
Massachusetts Democrats are expected to add an endorsement of gay marriage to the party platform next week. Question: how on earth do they think this will help them reach out to the "values voters" they crave? Heck, I'll bet that a majority of Democrat voters don't support gay marriage. But go ahead. See if I care.
News on the Same-Sex Marriage Front
Maggie Gallagher highlights some interesting developments with respect to same-sex marriage. Most interesting are the recent poll numbers on the matter. The liberal press would have us believe that more Americans are becoming accepting of same-sex marriage, but that simply is not the case. She does warn, however, that pending lawsuits in California, Washington and elsewhere are likely to produce exactly the kinds of problems marriage defenders have been warning against. We must not rest on our laurels while our most important societal institution, traditional marriage and family, remains under attack.
Mark has a good post over at Southern Appeal. It has sparked an interesting discussion. Go check it out.
I've Said it Before. . .
and I'll say it again, argue, if you must, about whether same-sex marriage should be legal or whether homosexuality should be socially acceptable, but don't try to argue for acceptance of such a lifestyle within a religious setting. The number of scriptures calling for sexual purity and limiting the sexual relationship to marriage, and that between a man and a woman, are numerous and unambiguous. Therefore, it continues to baffle and bother me to read or hear stories like that linked above.
It is clear that Gene Robinson is as confused as ever. "We hear God's voice and it says you are my beloved," he said. "We have tasted God's liberation and that toothpaste is not going to go back in the tube." Anyone who listens for God's voice will hear that they are beloved. That is one of God's overarching messages to His children. (How toothpaste plays into the equation is a mystery to me.) He calls to us and tells us we are loved, so that we will turn to His son and accept Him as our Savior. However, and unfortunately for Mr. Robinson and Ms. Stroud, God sent His son to free us FROM our sins, but not IN them. That is the problem in Mr. Robinson's and Ms. Stroud's position. To claim that a clear violation of God's commandments is anything but that, eliminates the needs for God and Christ in the first instance. If you can pick and choose which of God's commands you are going to follow rather than be bound to obey them all, then what need is there for a God or a Savior?
It is the age old argument over agency, started as a "war in heaven." Would man be given the responsibility to choose between right and wrong? The answer was a resounding yes, and a third of the hosts of heaven rebelled as a result. Now, the war continues here below, with agency being undermined by the continued assault on claims that certain thing are "right" and "good" and that certain things are "wrong" and "bad". If anyone can do whatever they want, then where is agency? How is man able to choose between God's way and the world's way, when there is no clear delineation?