hmomoy (CC)

Kudos to Taranto for engaging in an admirable performance of legal and linguistic acrobatics, however Justice Elena Kagan’s “trick” question had an answer that should have literally leaped into the mind of anyone that currently has, or previously had widow or widower over the age of 55 in the family (or even a really close friend.) Anyone currently receiving or about to become eligible to receive Social Security benefits knows this little gem. If a beneficiary is receiving payments due to a deceased spouse, those benefits are forfeit in the case of re-marriage. So, while procreation may be a logical reason to defend heterosexual marriage (and deny same-sex marriage) among younger citizens, Kagan’s argument about older citizens marrying is relatively rare anyway. Widows don’t tend to want to give up the benefits they receive even for the sake of love, so the new trend among seniors is co-habitation. If nothing else, it would have been priceless to see the looks on the faces of the Justices if Charles Cooper had replied with something akin to, “well, with all due respect, because individuals of that age could stand to lose governmental benefits if they chose marriage, they tend to choose to ‘live in sin’ instead – there aren’t very many people in that age group that actually want marriage licenses in the first place.”

It would have been amusing, even a bit refreshing, to see the honest truth displayed in the highest court, but it still would not have resolved the issue at hand. Is there a real reason outside of religious philosophy that can defend traditional marriage? Is there something that is not attached to ideology or religious belief systems to counter the secular left’s desire to render all gender neutral, at least as far as marriage is concerned? It is tempting to suggest that the left has become so steeped in science fiction that they are envisioning a country with the same sort of gender neutrality the writers and creators of Star Trek tried to create. Of course the real results that they are achieving are far from that world, and include militant feminists that refuse to accept that there are biological and psychological differences between the sexes. It also includes faithful atheists that believe they follow a religion, albeit the anti-Judeo-Christian sort that apparently reduces its “followers” to the point where they can be compared with Hollywood-style vampires that are terrified of any religious article. It would be comical if it wasn’t so sad – watching them fight against symbols of deities that they supposedly do not believe exist in the first place.

As an atheist, I find it particularly disturbing that I seem to regularly end up either defending deists, or the respective religions they follow. This situation is no different. As for defending the concept of traditional marriage from being sullied by permitting gay couples to legally marry, I have nothing. That is a religious affair, beyond my reach – and for that matter, it should also be beyond the reach of the Federal Government. As far as government in general is concerned, marriage is not sacred. It is already nothing more than a personal contract, and means for the government to keep tabs on taxpayers. Many years ago, I sat in a high school economics class where the teacher pointed out the entire problem with marriage. His contention was that it was far too easy to get married, and far too difficult to get a divorce. In the case of non-religious couples, at the very least there should be mandatory prenuptial agreements that must be completed before a marriage license could be acquired. I know this sounds suspiciously like increasing the work of government, but in reality, it would eventually reduce it. Imagine removing the necessity of having bureaucrats around to settle financial and custody matters for couples getting a divorce, because those matters were settled before they even got married. Yes, there would still be a need for them in extenuating circumstances, particularly in abusive relationships that fall apart. However, perhaps the process of completing the paperwork would in itself prevent at least a few of those doomed relationships from getting started in the first place. Individuals that choose to have their unions solemnized in a church would have to complete whatever their respective faiths required, and acquire a statement of permission from a priest or minister. That would be in addition to the required prenuptial agreement, since that would be the means for the state to guarantee an easy divorce. It was an interesting concept to say the least, but one that if it was in effect now, would arguably have settled this particular issue. While it wouldn’t have removed the state from the marriage business as many Libertarians are suggesting now, it would have placed a great deal of control over the process in the hands of the churches.

As Matt Lewis recently pointed out, conservatives have lost (are losing?) the culture war. Liberals are very big on pleasure and their right to do whatever they choose, as long as it feels good. Conservatives are focused more on the responsibilities that people must remember are inextricably linked to all rights. Instead of worrying about procreation, or even the concept of government protecting marriage from being destroyed by gays, conservatives should have shifted this argument to the realm of actions and consequences. The liberals do not play well in this arena, because they are so purely focused on self-gratification that they cannot shift gears easily to address the real consequences of their actions. Conservatives have been waging this battle for years over abortion. This argument really shouldn’t be about who may or may not get married legally, but about truly protecting the institution of marriage from the state. That old economics teacher had it right, because he recognized what religious leaders are oddly quiet about now. Instead of just saying allowing gays to marry is “wrong”, why aren’t they saying what has desperately needed to be said for years now? Why aren’t those leaders leaving the blame for the high divorce rate, and high numbers of single-parent families where it belongs? Yes, they often say it is the fault of liberal policies in government, but that idea should have been hammered home on the issue of same-sex marriage until even conservatives were complaining about the repetition. The bottom line remains that the true root cause of the erosion of the sanctity of marriage is a societal failure to accept responsibility for one’s actions. It is too easy for everyone to enter into marital relationships.

It’s unlikely that anyone would ever seriously suggest what I’ve outlined here as a solution to the problem, regardless of whether or not it actually would resolve the issue. I know social conservatives would never suggest it, at least not as I’ve stated it here, because it does not forbid same sex unions, per se. Admittedly, I intentionally avoided saying anything about that. The government has no place refusing such unions, because the state’s part in the process is purely the legalities – that is the case now, and should remain that way. Churches would be free to forbid those unions at will, and that would be protecting the sanctity of marriage – the state should not be able to dictate the actions of churches when it comes to the recognition of same sex marriage. Religion and politics do not mix well. This nation was founded because of that fact, but too many of us tend to forget that, or twist it to our own purposes. Too many people forget that the “separation of church and state” was meant to be a two-way street. It is meant to not only protect churches from interference by government, but also protect government from the same by churches. It was a good theory over 200 years ago, and it still is now.

Originally posted at PolitiChicks.tv.

When: Thursday, March 28th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight: Let’s talk about sex. And marriage. And civil unions. And sex.

1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.

 a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?

Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.

Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.

Since gay marriage has been thrusted into the political limelight again, Jacobson has resurrected his posts about Kagan from three years ago.  Now, when Jacobson posted about Kagan’s remarks, he was criticized by some conservatives, including Hot Air’s Allahpundit, over the semantics.  National Review’sMaggie Gallagher went a bit further, and called Jacobson’s post “shameful.”  Thankfully, Gallagher’s colleague at National Review, Ed Whelan, provided Jacobson with her letter to then-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania) at the time to clarify the issue.

In a March 18, 2009 letter (embedded below, at pp. 11-12), which is not publicly available but which Whelan kindly provided to me, Kagan supplemented her written answers at the request of Arlen Specter. Here is the language in the letter seized upon by my critics to show that Kagan really didn’t mean what she said, and really just was opining as to the current state of the law:

Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation’s citizenry and its elected representatives. By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

These sentences do make it seem as if Kagan walked away from her prior written statement that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

But these sentences are not the full supplemental response. Immediately preceding these sentences was the following language:

I previously answered this question briefly, but (I had hoped) clearly, saying that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” I meant for this statement to bear its natural meaning.

When the full supplemental statement by Kagan is read in context, there is nothing to suggest that Kagan was walking away from her written statement that there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Of additional interest is that when the Massachusetts Supreme Court found a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage, 18 Harvard Law School professors signed onto an amicus [i.e., friend of the court] brief supporting that ruling. But not Kagan.

Now, it’s Justice Kagan, and I wonder if she still thinks that “there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”  Then again, she could just hop on the bandwagon like everyone else.   Sorry Politico, but this is the real ‘gotcha‘ story.

(H/T Legal Insurrection)

Elena Kagan March 18, 2009 Letter to Arlen Specter

HRC symbol appearing on Facebook promoting gay marriage issue

Have you noticed a strange symbol showing up on the Internet, especially Facebook? There is a red block with two pink horizontal and parallel bars showing up on FB to replace people’s profile pics. This symbol is an alteration of the more commonly seen emblem of the Human Rights Commission, an organization that supports gay rights, (normally seen as two gold parallel horizontal bars on a purple field). There is an article today in HuffPo that explains this very thing.

The reason for the promotion of this symbol is to show support for gay marriage nationwide as the controversial Proposition 8 is being discussed in the Nation’s Supreme Court. This California Law is the legally binding law, approved of by the voting public of California defining marriage as the relationship between one man and one woman, effectively banning the relationship of any other type.

Now, let’s get this straight, I am not in favor of gay marriage of any type, as I am a Christian and I believe in what the Bible has to say on this issue. I will never be in favor of gay rights per say. Whenever homosexuality or any sexual perversion is mentioned in the Bible, bad things happen, (regardless of straight or gay). But from a purely intellectual standpoint, I understand and respect what the gay lobby is trying to do.

Currently, no one is being treated substantially different under the current law of California. Gay people have the same rights as straight couples; they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Of course, that’s not what they want. What they want is special treatment to marry someone of the same sex, which is a special status not currently allowed.

HRC’s normal symbol often seen as a bumper sticker.

Now from a strictly libertarian viewpoint, I don’t really care if gay people are allowed to get married or not. I don’t approve of that type of relationship, but who am I to judge my neighbor, as long as he is not picking my pocket or breaking my leg. I understand that the gay couple wants the same benefits from the government that I would get as a straight person, which include but are not limited to: a) passing on of employment benefits to a domestic partner, b) the privilege to adopt a child, c) the right to visit a sick domestic partner in the hospital without interference from other blood relatives.

These are admirable goals, which I think can be achieved outside of declaring sanction of gay marriage. Why shouldn’t gay couples have these benefits along with any straight couple? Clearly the states can enact specific laws regarding these very complex social issues.

Here is the slippery slop now. I work at the Mayo Clinic. Under current policy the Clinic accepts living wills or powers of attorney for patients diagnosed with terminal illnesses, and it tries to honor those. However, the Clinic will usurp that power of attorney or living will if a blood relative of the patient objects, negating the will of the patient. This is unacceptable whether we’re talking about straight or gay patients, this should not be. If I have gone through the effort to make my will known, why should anyone else, relative or not, be able to simply usurp my will while I lay helpless my deathbed? If you’re gay or straight, it doesn’t matter. Everyone should have their close friends by their side when dealing with a life-threatening or terminal disease. The right of the suffering patients should be considered above that of any other, period!

Obviously we should strengthen the force of powers of attorney and medical directives.

As for the adoption issue, I am fully in favor of letting gay couples adopt so long as social services is being involved. There is no evidence that I have seen that shows that a gay couple is any more or less prone to abuse a child than a straight family. I would rather see a child get a good home than remain wards of the state. Social service involvements can oversee parents, regardless of sexuality, to determine that the child is indeed being received by a safe and stable home.

Then there is the issue of employee and social services benefits. I am all in favor of employers extending benefits to same sex couples, but here again there is a slippery slope. Should the employer have to extend benefits to Muslim or Mormon families where there are multiple wives, multiplying the cost to the employer per the number of beneficiaries? Isn’t that discrimination? Is it fair to the employer?

I think that if we are going to recognize one type of relationship, then we are excluding the others. If we open up the definition of marriage, then we open a barrel of monkeys that will be hard to close. I believe that the employers should extend benefits to one spouse only, to the exclusion of relationships of multiple beneficiaries. But here is where the state can enact laws, with the consent of their citizens, to determine the details.

I have no objection to the individual states enacting laws that make sense to their voters. What I do object to is robed elites at the appellate and Supreme Court levels usurping the will of the voter. Let the people decide what’s best for them and let the courts mind their own business.

The only reason for the court involvement is that this loud and vocal minority cannot be satisfied and must usurp the will of the majority by going over their heads to the appellate and supreme courts. In my view, these courts have no authority to usurp these laws; their only jurisdiction is to determine whether the laws enacted are constitutional. I’ve read the constitution; I don’t think there is any reference there to marriage, gay or otherwise. The only logical decision the courts can do is kick back these lawsuits and let the legislatures do their jobs. But they won’t because there is a certain power and prestige that comes with the judge’s robe and they like to use it to their benefit. The minority concerns like the gay lobby make use of this fact. As long as judges are allowed to legislate from the bench, the will of the majority will be meaningless.

And why should the state be involved in endorsing marriage in the first place? Have we had enough of the nanny state as it is? Why should I as a single person be punished for remaining single while married people get tax breaks (or penalties in some states)? Isn’t this the federal government picking winners and losers? I have an idea, let’s treat everyone the same, with a flat income tax, starting at incomes of $20k or more that taxes everyone at the same rate. Wouldn’t that be fair? No winners or losers, everyone treated the same. Perhaps that’s an issue for another column.

All in all I believe this is a 10th Amendment issue. States have the right, with the consent of their citizens, to determine what laws to enact in their state, and as long as those laws don’t break the constitutional standard, they should remain issues of the state. Where the constitution is silent on an issue, so too should be the court.

Jimmy LaSilvia of GOProud.

I recognize there will be debate even among conservatives and libertarians in regard to this issue. I welcome polite interface with people of differing opinions. My friends at GOProud for instance might have a different take. I respect their opinion. It annoys me that my friend Jimmy LaSilvia and his organization were barred from attending CPAC. As a conservative, I think there is room for debate on these very controversial issues. What there isn’t room for in the Republican and Conservative circles is hatred and name calling. That is reserved for the lockstep Liberals and Progressives. It suits their narrow-mindedness and low tolerance.

The church has played a key role in our cultural and spiritual development almost from the time our ancestors were first dragged here in chains. At times, God and His church were all Black Americans had to cling to in the darkest oppressions. Even as we have moved from segregation to freedom we have always held fast to the tenants of God’s Word, and as a result we are largely socially conservative as a group. However, when it comes to our votes we don’t seem to carry that same adherence to our faith to the polls.

The official platform of the Democrat party embraces gay marriage, while the Black community sees this as antithetical to God’s Word.

Despite being only 12% of the population and representing over 35% of abortions, the majority of Black Americans still believe life is God-given; and yet the Democrat platform endorses abortion.

Record unemployment in Black communities and America in general, 47 million Americans receiving food stamps, skyrocketing energy prices and a debt that threatens to topple the country seem to have very little effect on Black Christians – by all indications they are still solidly in Obama’s camp.

Some say it is because they are uncomfortable with Romney’s Mormon faith, some genuinely believe that he (and his party) is racist and would roll back civil rights.

Some say that things really will get better if we just hang on a little longer and don’t change horses mid-race. My father-in-law, Victor Davis (a conservative Black pastor who served his community of Gary, IN for over 40 years) told me this: “I had coined the phrase “Chocolate Covered Pretzels”  to describe many of the “African-American church folk” after Obama made his endorsement of Homosexual Marriage. That represented to me the theological twisting and bending that they would go through to find a way to support their “black president-brother-man” and sadly that is what I hear and see more and more of.

Some are not able to differentiate between what a man “says he believes” and what a man legislates or enforces in the way of policies and laws. Even the unbeliever (Cyrus Ezra 6:4) can lead a nation in righteous decrees and provide an atmosphere in which the Gospel has freedom to be proclaimed and practiced (1 Tim 2:1-4) without restraint. However to contrast that, is when the “so-called believer” legislates Antichrist/laws, along with upholding the killing of God conceived babies and then work to restrict the “faith practices” of clear scriptural teaching, then that ” believer” is in direct conflict with the Kingdom purpose of God (that His will would be done on earth as it is in Heaven)”

I want to ask this question specifically to my Black Christian brothers and sisters: Do your political loyalties represent your faith? When you go vote on Tuesday, will you be voting as a “Chocolate-covered pretzel” or a participant in the Kingdom of God?

I know what’ I’ll be doing.

crossposted at kiradavis.net

simone.brunozzi (CC)

So, if we’re running on the premise that there is some prompting from the Dems here, what does that mean about their strategy going forward? Yes, they will be going for whatever they can to keep the spotlight off the economy, and Obama’s massive failures in general. But, does this also mean that the Obama camp might be thinking that their only hope is to rely on the popular vote?

It’s no secret that the Obama camp is in near panic mode, begging for money at least once daily via email, and any other way it can. And then there’s the situation with Hillary Clinton. In case you missed it, she’s going to the Cook Islands for a very important conference with a bunch of nominal nations that rely heavily on the U.S. for many things – like trade – but rarely show up in the headlines here unless there’s some sort of atrocity or natural disaster there. Yep, that’s MUCH more important than the DNC next week! Needless to say, people aren’t even bothering to whisper that this is probably to protect Hillary as much as possible from Obama fallout in 2016 – they’re shouting it from the rooftops at this point.

So what’s a floundering presidential campaign to do when it can’t manage to fill venues for its “coming out party”? Well, it could invite 20,000 Muslims. Why not? It’s not like the folks of Charlotte weren’t already annoyed with the Dem party endorsing gay marriage – sure, they didn’t vote to make such unions absolutely illegal, right?

If you’re getting lost here, my point is that the Obama camp has sunk so low at this point, throwing Al Gore in the mix couldn’t possibly make it worse, could it? I think maybe we should ask Clint Eastwood’s version of Obama on that one – at least we’ll get a more intelligent answer! But, here’s to Al Gore, for bringing up yet another non-issue to distract everyone. Next!

According to Chick-fil-A’s Dan Cathy and many Americans of faith, the Bible has the final word.  Marriage = man and woman.  End of story.

This simple statement, and still widely held belief, has infuriated homosexual activists and become a focal point of the culture war that is engulfing America.  Gay marriage zealots, who claim to preach tolerance and love, instead hurl insults and openly wish financial ruin, injury or death upon anyone who dares to support a biblical definition of marriage.  The preachers of tolerance themselves have become wildly intolerant.  Accusing others of “hate” while in the same breath spewing forth a cocktail of profanity ridden vitriol, they become the very thing that they rail against.

Purveyors of hate and intolerance.

It’s an ugly scene.  Volatile.  And it’s going to get worse.

The proponents of gay marriage claim that their struggle is about equal rights, equal treatment under the law and the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But, the issue is not about equality.

It’s not about rights.

It’s about right and wrong.  The question of morality.

Who will define it and by what moral standard should we, as a nation, live?

Ultimately, almost every law has a moral component to it.  Some more than others.  Since long before 1776, the colonies and their inhabitants looked to a single source for their understanding of right and wrong.

The Bible.

The American Revolution itself was kindled by the contradiction between the actions of King George III and the pronouncements of Scripture.  A simple reading of the Declaration of Independence confirms this in its most recognizable passage. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

It was a radical statement for the time.  Rooted in biblical truth.

“…all men are created equal…”.  A not-so-veiled swipe at the superiority of the Monarchy and the institution of slavery.  The statement is drawn from numerous passages of Scripture that clearly indicate that we are all viewed equally in the sight of God.  We are all equally accountable to our Maker.

“…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”.  A clear declaration that all rights descend to all men from God, not from the throne and not by edict from any ruler or institution of man.  Anyone who tramples on those rights is guilty of an offense to God and man.

While early America’s view of morality and law was certainly based on biblical principles, it took 89 years for the nation to end the cruel and immoral practice of slavery.  Once again, as in the Revolution, the effort was led by people of the Bible—Christian abolitionists—and paid for by the blood of over 600,000 Americans.

It’s clear that Americans have always looked to the Bible as the source of moral teaching.  It’s part of our national heritage.  It’s in the American DNA.  It’s who we are.  It crafted our nation and our national identity.  One cannot understand America without understanding the role that the Bible has played in our development as a nation and as a people.  Over time, our nation has begun to stray from its biblical roots, but in large part the people of the nation still view morality from a biblical perspective—even if they are not aware of it.

So, is gay marriage moral?  Is it morally equivalent to the marriage of a man and woman and therefore deserving of the same status, rights and benefits?

Proponents say “yes,” that America has evolved beyond our dependency on the Bible as the source of truth and morality.   They believe that our laws should reflect the moral behavior of the current culture.

For gay marriage supporters and their Democrat party brethren, truth and morality are moving targets and are dependent upon the whims of society at any given moment.  In reality, what they advocate is a world where absolute truth does not exist and morality is determined by the behavior of the masses.

This is the horror of moral relativism.  And it is incredibly dangerous.

History is filled with examples of nations and peoples ruled by “of the moment” morality, whether it was imposed by executive order or simply embraced as the common, everyday behavior of the average person.

Dictators have murdered millions in the name of their own twisted moralities.  Nations have descended into decay and disorder as an unquenchable thirst to fulfill every human desire spread like a cancer, corroding cultures and shattering civil societies.

America, on the other hand, has been the greatest success story the world has ever known.  Rising from obscurity to become the dominant economic, military and cultural powerhouse of the world.  Why is that?

Is it our political or economic system?  The strength of our military?  Not so, say Chinese researchers.  According to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, an official government institution, Christianity is where our strength lies.  “…Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful.  The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”

In other words, America is successful because of our biblical heritage.  Our Christian culture and society.

Will America continue as a nation that draws its sense of morality from a biblical perspective or are the concepts of “right” and “wrong” simply to be determined by ballot or public opinion?

If the Democrat party and gay marriage advocates are successful in enacting gay marriage laws throughout the country, we will have started down a road of ruin where morality is not determined by any objective standard, but by political tactics, advertising and relentless publicity campaigns.

We will be vulnerable to continued attempts to define morality downward in an ever expanding search for unlimited personal freedom and the “right” to do all that we might imagine.  The freedom and right to do anything and everything that the human heart desires will drive our understanding of right and wrong, effectively removing “wrong” from the equation altogether.

Unleashed from our archaic understanding of biblical morality, we will then be free to express our darkest desires under the protection of law and with broad, societal acceptance.  We will be emancipated.  Free to live as animals do, without regard to our Creator and without concern for such things as decency, goodness and honor.  Our moral code will be limited only by the cravings of our corrupted hearts.

This is what the gay marriage issue is really about.

What is right and what is wrong.

The moral code upon which our society shall rise, or fall.

If that code is cracked, we are in great peril indeed.

The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 Restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.

Chick-fil-A is a family-owned and family-led company serving the communities in which it operates. From the day Truett Cathy started the company, he began applying biblically-based principles to managing his business. For example, we believe that closing on Sundays, operating debt-free and devoting a percentage of our profits back to our communities are what make us a stronger company and Chick-fil-A family.

Our mission is simple: to serve great food, provide genuine hospitality and have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.

This of course preceded an original statement released by Dan Cathy:

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage, I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

Of course, this belief is automatically labeled by the left side of the political spectrum as ‘Hate Speech’ and therefore must be silenced.

Case in point, the mayor of Boston has recently announced to the Boston Herald that he will work to prevent Chick-Fil-A from opening a restaurant in his city, following Chick-Fil-A’s statement. He is quoted as followed: “You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population.”

Mayor Menino has been backed my many Liberals across the nation who are vouching for a boycott of the famous restaurant chain. For example, many Liberals have taken to Twitter to express their frustration. 

My Opinion:

My opinion is simple, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and everyone should be allowed to share their opinion. If they are criticized because their opinion is illogical, then that’s their problem. I myself share the beliefs and common opinions with Mr. Cathy, and he has my 100% support on this issue.

The simple fact of the matter is this: If a company came out and said they were in support of Gay Marriage, what would happen? Something tells me the Boston Government would not intervene. That’s because it’s not their place. Even though the nation is divided almost equally on the issue of Gay Marriage, the local government still wrongly forced their view of the issue on a business that was suppose to be operating in a free enterprise environment.

Mr. Mayor, let me ask you this: has Chick-Fil-A turned people away because they were homosexual? No. Have they asked people if they are heterosexual, or homosexual before they allow them to place an order for a meal? No. Atleast, I’ve never been asked that question.

Believe me, I eat a lot of Chick Fil A.

The attacks launched by Mayor Menino are not patriotic, he may believe he is standing up for ‘Civil Rights’ but he is merely launching an attack on a business because of the morals and beliefs they support and encourage. That is simply wrong and unconstitutional. His actions are simple: boycott and harm those who he disagrees with in order to gain more support from his constituents.

Mayor Menino, if you are a man of morals, a man who stands up for Civil Rights, then I would encourage you to go after a different business: Planned Parenthood. Do they have beliefs? Sure. Are they entitled to their beliefs? Yes they are. What are their beliefs? Well, they are openly Pro-Choice, simply stating that they are Pro-Abortion. Would you boycott them if they wanted to open a new center? I’m not sure you wouldn’t, but want thing I do know for sure is that they do preform abortions, therefore, practicing their beliefs.

Being in a position of authority, especially in the American Government, it is flat our wrong to pick winners and losers.

Chick-Fil-A has beliefs but does not force them on others. If you want to be a Civil Rights activist, a true activist, then fight for the defenseless unborn. I advise you to contact and put pressure on the local Planned Parenthood center, they truly discriminate.  Chick-Fil-A believes in traditional marriage, but is not discriminating upon others. Want to fight for Civil Rights? Here, I’ll help you out! Their address is:  1055 Commonwealth Avenue Boston, MA 02215. Oh and their phone number? (800) 258-4448

Stand up for real Civil Rights, Mayor Menino.

A T-shirt slogan that caught my attention last week, “Jesus is not a homophobe” so intrigued me I googled the word homophobe and according to internet lore it was coined in the sixties by George Weinberg, a Gay activist and psychologist who defined it as an irrational fear of homosexuals, a contagion of sorts. Boy, how things have changed. I don’t fear catching the lifestyle, but wrath from the LGBT agenda, now that’s another story.

The word Homophobe has since evolved from it’s clinical definition to the role of a de-humanizing slang-shooting weapon when referring to people of faith; particularly Christians by those in the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) community, and now recently the Obama administration has joined in on the assault. Is it not always the case that the folks most involved in helping those who are hurting often seem to get the brunt end of the stick ?

So exactly what should governments role be in the matter ? Let me borrow a phrase from Jay Warner Wallace at Please Convince me. Should the government permit Gay marriage ? Should they even go further and promote it ? Or simply prohibit it ? Those are all questions for all of us to figure out, but each one of those questions have consequences. I think we can figure them out right out of the gate.

I see a contradiction in our government supporting the LGBT community and Gay marriage while holding fast philosophically to Darwinian Evolution. A belief in Darwinism is a belief against same sex marriage, and the Gay community–no way around it. Remember The United States government made a philosophical commitment to Darwinian Evolution starting in 1962-(63) when they essentially threw out school prayer and the Bible, thus Creationism as a popular view of our origins began its steep decent. So no surprise we are discussing this.

Let’s think about science for a moment. The very definition of Darwinian Evolution concerning humanity essentially says; mankind evolved from a combination of genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection in such a way so that the survival of the fittest is afforded the right of reproduction. All those in the animal kingdom failing to reproduce the right genes will disappear into extinction. Not a pleasant thought.

So hear this clearly: according to Natural Selection, the major stanchion of Darwinian evolution; is also the damming component that makes support for same sex relationships as a continuing advancement to civil society,  biologically futile. Bottom-line is that same sex couples can not reproduce and thus have no future from a purely Darwinian evolutionary perspective. The Obama administrations support for same-sex relationships is purely political and nothing else.

If your in the LGBT community this is bad news— according to Darwin extinction is the Gay communities destiny; and in the interim they are being played like chess pieces by the Obama political machine. To say it another way–your’e being punk’d.  Yet, the very people you despise–Christians, have been telling you the truth–that Gay and Lesbian behavior is just that–behavior that can and should be changed not according to me, but according to the Creator of the Universe.

Jesus promoted a heterosexual lifestyle. The Bible is chock full of both warnings against this behavior and many others as well. However it is also filled with encouragement, and a way out of the same-sex bondage. Please hear me–there is a way out! Our current government, and Darwinism are not filled with anything but tyranny, strife, and extinction if you take them seriously—I don’t for most of it, but the inability to reproduce from same-sex couples is a fact as well as the Biblical immorality of it. Please think through your decision making and turn from the Gay life style.

Finally, as I think back to the slogan, “Jesus is not a homophobe” I do agree that he was not, and no one who follows Jesus should be either. I can’t say I have been perfect in this. I certainly have my list of sins I have wrestled with, but if I want to follow Jesus’ example then I need to tell the truth even if it is not popular. No, Jesus is not a homophobe  he is a straight talking savior.  Promoting marriage between a man and a women makes biological and ethical sense, don’t you agree ?

Listening as a Democrat pundit said Thursday that sixty-something percent of Americans “support marriage” but saying so in a way that was intended to purport that the same majority supported gay marriage, the goal of redefining what marriage actually means felt eerily near to coming to fruition. The guest also mentioned that Obama’s recent evolution on gay marriage was a show of support for “marriage”.  Whoever rejects Obama’s push to redefine marriage is now effectively against marriage according to the interviewee.

Semanticism is the tool of the left – redefining terms in a way that is socially, although illogically, acceptable in the hopes of diminishing an institution or idea that is an obstacle to realizing the unicorn-trodden, rainbow-emblazoned progressive stomping ground known as Utopia.

Marriage is the foundation of family. Family is what comes together in times of hardship to weather the storm. If the progressives can dismantle strong families they can create an entirely government dependent culture – one that could never, ever vote them out for the fear of having no one left to take care of them. As the Washington Post printed today.. why bother getting married at all? And if you do, getting divorced may not be as bad as you used to think.

Then there is the contracteption mandate in Obamacare. Obama’s regulatory agency has made an exception that defines who or what is or is not a religious institution when considering the requirement for employers to provide reproductive coverage (a.k.a. contraception) to employees. It dictates which institutions are or are not a church based on how they are ministered to. The definition is narrow, narrow-minded and built to destroy the current understanding of the wall between church and state. It is, as progressives are fond to admit, a nudge – a nudge intended to end another non-governmental safety-net: the church.

Those who would say that this election is not about these issues, but instead about the Constitution confuse me. Marriage is not a power enumerated in the Constitution and is therefor the States’ to handle – so says the tenth amendment. Why wouldn’t staunch Constitutionalists step-up to say that the federal government cannot decide who may or may not get married? The separation of church and state (1st amendment), although bastardized by the left, was intended to prevent exactly the kind of oppressive activity that the Obama administration is undertaking against the Catholic church. Those who purport a firm understanding of our founding document can’t be found to argue these important issues. They are after all “social issues” that they cannot be bothered with. What will happens when those disenfranchised by this nudge are not there to protect the strict Consitutionalists when a different amendment is under attack? Nothing, they’ll simply be the next domino to fall in the progression of liberal oppression.

If this nudge simply redefines what a church is or what is the definition of marriage, what will the next one bring?

These may seem like small things when viewed in a 30-second television sound bite, but they are nibbles – small bites out of the basis of American society intended to bring about a new one – without families, churches, opportunity or freedom.

The real test of a Constitutionalist is not what they do when their own rights are being threatened – but what they do when the rights of someone with whom they disagree are in peril. The redefinitions of marriage and church are exactly those tests by which Conservatives will be judged.

On Wednesday, May 9, 2012, President Unbelievable Gall (otherwise known as Barack Hussein Obama) said that members of the US military are “fighting on my behalf.” That sentiment sounds eerily familiar. It was Adolf Hitler who had the German military swear allegiance to him, not to Germany.

Obama’s lack of accomplishments is well documented by Gina Aveni. She says, “The new approach is an attempt to win votes ….” So now this gay marriage diversion and vote buying attempt has caused Obama to open his mouth once again.

In taking the Führer Oath, the German Army swore allegiance not to Germany, its constitution, or its flag, not to the constitution, but to Adolf Hitler personally who attained absolute power over the German people. The word “führer” in the German language ie equivalent to what we call a “leader” or “guide” or “dictator.” This site has a very brief history of what happened in Germany. The similarities between then and what is happening now is striking.

For comparison, let’s look at the oath sworn by the US military today, and what happened to the German military oath before and after Hitler came to power.

Current US military officer oath:

I, _____ having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.

Current US military enlisted oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Nowhere in either oath is Obama’s named mentioned.

German military oath before Hitler took over:

I swear by almighty God this sacred oath: I will at all times loyally and honestly serve my people and country and, as a brave soldier I will be ready at any time to stake my life for this oath.

German military oath after Hitler took over:

I swear by almighty God this sacred oath: I will render unconditional obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, and, as a brave soldier, I will be ready at any time to stake my life for this oath.

Did Obama make a Freudian slip? Obama’s remark was couched in homosexual rights terms and how he has evolved on gay marriage. But we have to wonder about his ultimate intentions. Does he really think the US military is fighting on his behalf? Polls of former and current US military personnel suggest otherwise.

Additionally, Hitler’s rise to power is not the only similarity to Obama’s current situation. Look at these promises Hitler made:

• To Unemployed Workers: Jobs building public works such as roads
• To the Middle Class: To restore the profits of small business and the value of savings
• To Farmers: Higher prices for their produce, making up for all their losses during the Depression

Do any of today’s promises from Obama sound familiar? Is history repeating itself?

But that’s just my opinion.

“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

Cross-posted at RWNO, my personal web site.