Ted Cruz on the Courts Mandating Gay Marriage

Monday, October 6, AD 2014



At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address



God bless the Federal judiciary!  After having such a smashing success in “resolving” the abortion issue by legalizing it, they have “resolved” the gay marriage debate by mandating it.  Senator Ted Cruz (R.Tx.) is having none of it:

The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible. By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.

This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures.

The Supreme Court is, de facto, applying an extremely broad interpretation to the 14th Amendment without saying a word – an action that is likely to have far-reaching consequences. Because of the Court’s decision today, 11 States will likely now be forced to legalize same-sex marriage: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. And this action paves the way for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage to be overturned in any state.

It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.

Nothing in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the 14th Amendment or any other constitutional provision authorizes judges to redefine marriage for the Nation. It is for the elected representatives of the People to make the laws of marriage, acting on the basis of their own constitutional authority, and protecting it, if necessary, from usurpation by the courts.

Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.

Traditional marriage is an institution whose integrity and vitality are critical to the health of any society. We should remain faithful to our moral heritage and never hesitate to defend it.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Ted Cruz on the Courts Mandating Gay Marriage

  • May the Lord bless Ted Cruz as a he speaks in defense of Right. We know how he will be (and has been) attacked so we pray that he and others (who know and will speak the truth) will not lose heart. Mary Mother of God pray for us.

  • Our hope is that our Supreme Court would weigh and consider that correspondence of our laws with Right and Truth, as we have recognized and accepted corporately in our Constitution, so that our right and liberties might be maintained.
    Instead the Supreme Court may be presiding over state suicide by disintegration.
    Here is a thought from Orestes Brownson (The Americanrepublic) “ I ….still maintain that the sovereignty of the American Republic vests in the States, though in the States collectively, or united, not severally, and thus escape alike consolidation and disintegration.”

  • OK, so I found and read Sen. Cruz’ bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2024/text) which was mercifully short and as far as I can tell, right to the point. Of course, since I read law about as well as I read Sanskrit, there are possible nuances there which most likely evade me. So, I ask the panel assembled:
    Is this bill simply stating that, if it becomes law, State legislatures will be the final arbiters in the matter, and that it is in those august chambers the battles will contend, placing the issue beyond the scope of Federal courts at any level?
    If so, then hurrah for Sen. Cruz.
    Of course, any time that any government body claims that they have the right to define marriage, Mark 10:6-9 come to mind. Huh.

  • “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose of earth shall be loosed in heaven”
    Has the Supreme Court imparted procreative powers on same sex couples?
    “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” Same sex “marriage” needs to be put on the ballot.
    The Supreme Court is allowing sodomists to redefine our civilization, to redefine our marriage. After the Court defined Dred Scott as three-quarters of a person and the sovereign person in the womb, who constitutes our sovereign nation from the very first moment of his existence, as non-existent, people are lucky to be born before the Court says that you and I are non-existent, non-persons.
    God, in heaven, the Father of us all, will be dictated to by a Court who believes that it is a Church established by Christ. If the Court believes itself to be a church, then, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.” ought to decide for themselves the matter of same-sex wives.
    And there above the Court are the Ten Commandments for all to see and know: “God save this Court.”
    Ted Cruz refused to give the murderers in the room countenance.

  • Our most precious civil right is our right to rule ourselves. The Federal judiciary seems very unclear on the concept of “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

    The judiciary have fewer excuses. The problem is all over the haut bourgeois, really. I’ve got academics in my family whose understanding of ‘democratic choice’ is that they get what they want.

  • Anywho, my guess is that Roberts sided with the liberal justices to deny writ on the cases. Whether he did so because he agrees with the lower court decisions, or because he does not think a majority would reverse them (given Kenedy’s disgraceful record), who knows. At least this leaves a slim reed for a future SCOTUS to support real marriage.

  • One or more of the liberal justices could have made up the difference to reach four justices for review. My guess is that none of the justices, including perhaps Kennedy, are entirely sure which way he will jump.

  • “Questioning the moral character of Christians dying for their faith, the very ones that are being raped, beheaded, sold into slavery, and basically exterminated in an epic scale not seen since World War II is not something to be proud of nor cheerleading.”

    Rubbish. The people in that room who booed Cruz due to their overweening hatred of Jews deserve to have their moral character questioned. It was the equivalent of people seeking our aid against the Nazis in World War II booing our British allies. If they do not want our aid because of our relationship with Israel, I guess they will have to depend on the good will of their Arab muslim “brothers”. Lots of luck.

  • Well this thread went completely off topic and I was as much at fault as anyone. I am deleting the off topic comments and shutting down this thread.

Various & Sundry, 8/26/13

Monday, August 26, AD 2013

Bradley Manning Is Not a Woman

Kevin Williamson says what is obvious to most, but is sadly considered controversial considering the number of comments.

Judicial Activism – That Does Not Mean What You Think It Means

Justice Ginsburg – evidently with a straight face, claims that the Roberts court is the most activist in history. Frankly I think the term is misused, but any way you slice it – No.

Miley Cyrus Needs Help

It’s been kind of a fun day on social media seeing both the outrage and the  non-outrage over Miley Cyrus’s VMA performance. I think I saw more tweets and facebook posts from people saying that they’re not going to comment than from people actually commenting. As I said last night on twitter, I’ve basically become my father when it comes to VMAs. That said, it’s led to some hysterical (not in the ha ha sense) tweets. See the RS McCain link, but also check this out.

Lord (do not necessarily) Hear Our Prayer

As always, the USCCB really has its pulse on the issues that really merit out prayers and attention.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Various & Sundry, 8/26/13

The Fix Was In

Saturday, March 23, AD 2013



Patterico at Patterico’s Pontifications has received copies of e-mails between retired Fededal District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker and one of Ted Olson’s legal partners, demonstrating the depth of collusion between the judge who ruled that Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment in California approved by the voters banning gay marriage was unconstitional, and Ted Olson who led the legal team seeking to overturn Proposition 8:


Vaughn R. Walker, the judge who struck down Proposition 8, California’s gay marriage ban, sought Ted Olson’s opinion regarding whether Walker should attend next week’s Supreme Court arguments on the gay marriage cases. Olson was one of the lawyers who successfully persuaded Judge Walker to strike down Proposition 8 after a trial held in 2010.

In December 2012 emails obtained exclusively by Patterico.com, Judge Walker, who retired in February 2011, asked Olson’s law partner to “ask Ted if he thinks my attending the argument would be an unwanted distraction.”

Above: Retired federal judge Vaughn Walker, who struck down Proposition 8, seeks Ted Olson’s opinion as to whether he should attend next week’s Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage.

When Olson’s law partner responded that Olson thought Walker’s attendance would be a “potential distraction,” Walker agreed not to go, saying he understood Olson’s reaction and was not surprised by it. Walker described himself as “only moderately disappointed not to see the argument,” and added: “Ted’s argument will be spectacular, I’m sure.”

Continue reading...

18 Responses to The Fix Was In

  • Pingback: SATURDAY MORNING EDITION | God & Caesar
  • It’s this sort of thing that makes me question whether we continue to have a legitimate federal, and in some cases state government. We have widespread election fraud by the party in power and a disregard for the constitution that established our nation. We have different standards for how the law treats people dependent upon whether you agree with or dissent from the Democratic Party platform. The Democratic Party uses the taxpayers money (and heavily borrowed funds) to pay for the indoctrination of our children with their immoral principles. They have created a debt bomb that will end in either heavy taxation, or the devaluation of our currency. Either method results in the destruction of wealth and will prevent individuals and groups from gathering the financial means for opposing the party in power. Collusion by the judiciary is simply the party in power maintaining its power and crushing its opposition. Its further evidence that the law is of no consequence and our government is likely illegitimate at this point.

  • The United States of America is not a representative republic. It is a corrupt oligarchy. FDR showed the way for the Democrat Party to obtain and hold power. with a few exceptions, they have been doing what FDR did ever since.

    The Constitution means nothing. A federal judge has no business overthrowing a stat constitution amendment such as Prop 8, but he did it anyway. Vote fraud occurs on a massive scale in Philadelphia every four years, but the media won’t investigate it, the Democrat Party benefits from it and the GOP is too full of wimps to try to stop it.

  • The way the Prop 8 case was litigated (to the bench, not to a jury), with the government throwing the case, and a gay judge (who publicly announces his homosexual lifestyle AFTER he rules on the case, not before), trampling over every procedural and evidentiary rule, is literally sickening. This judge seemed to have been hand-picked. By his own admission, he delayed his retirement so he could be the assigned judge. He engaged in all sorts of dishonest and scheming ploys to get cameras to record his trial, breaking rules along the way, and then violated an appellate court’s ruling respecting the videotaping of that trial. Vaughn Walker disrespected the democratic vote of Californians on Prop 8, wrote a grotesquely dishonest opinion based on phony expert evidence (from obviously and equally biased homosexual expert witnesses to boot), and then fled into retirement, coming out of the closet after the case was over. He has since become a public champion of his own decision to jam gay marriage down the throats of the citizenry. This case and this judge stank to high heaven, and if Justice Kennedy (or CJ Roberts) affirm this corrupt judgment, they will not be on the “right side of history” but kill the legitimacy of the Court.

  • Your honor ????????

  • Higher education and ratings are often overrated!

  • When the honor has no honor how should one address him? Your Disgraced!? Your Unworthiness? Your Lair?
    Where’s the silver-lining in this field of nightmares?

  • [When the honor has no honor how should one address him?]

    How about “Your DisHonour”?

  • How about “Your Disgrace”?

  • I think Penguin Fan is right. We have lost our representative republic. I don’t know if oligarchy defines the situation, but I feel a definate erosion has occurred.

  • Why postpone the inevitable, Donald? Your fighting an uphill battle and there is another army waiting at the top. Sorry if I sound a tad bit defeatist.

  • Because this is my country Jon and I love her, as I do Democracy. Additionally, considering that the Republicans control some 30 states you are being defeatist, an attitude that is always a waste of time.

  • But we weren’t given a democracy. It was a representative republic as someone said earlier. A democracy would probably have been very short lived and would have ushered in something worse.

  • Please do not play word games Jon. No one expects direct rule a la Athens. What was established by the Founding Fathers has become known as Democracy. One of the many crimes of the Birchers is to cause that type of hair splitting debate to go on endlessly on conservative sites and I have small patience for it.

  • THe John Birch Society, you mean? Yes, many books have been written in the past few decades pointing out the great difference between a democracy and a republic. It was that kind of literature that caught myt attention to the subject.

  • Shawn-
    Your Dishonour.
    Right. Supreme Court later today. Prop 8, DOMA.
    Lets see if there’s “nobility” worthy of honour.
    Seems honor is a cheap cigar in the rainbow west.

The Worst Supreme Court Selections in American History

Friday, July 6, AD 2012

Chief Justice John Roberts’ recent decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, as well as his vote to overturn much of Arizona’s illegal immigration law, has made conservatives think that yet again a Republican president was bamboozled. Personally I think it’s a bit early to completely write off the Chief Justice. For most of his tenure he’s been a fairly reliable conservative vote, and there is still much time (presumably) before he retires. Then we will be better able to assess his legacy.

It did get me thinking, though. What are the worst Supreme Court selections in history? I’m looking at this question in terms of the president doing the selecting. Someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a doctrinaire liberal, wouldn’t make the cut because no doubt she has voted in much the way Bill Clinton would have wished when he picked her. Similarly, I do not include someone like John Paul Stevens. Though over time he veered much further to the left than Gerald Ford or his Attorney General , Edward Levi (who basically made the selection) could have anticipated, Stevens’ jurisprudence was not that radically removed from Ford’s own preferences. In fact, Ford wrote of Stevens:

For I am prepared to allow history’s judgment of my term in office to rest (if necessary, exclusively) on my nomination thrity years ago of Justice John Paul Stevens to the U.S. Supreme Court. I endorse his constitutional views on the secular character of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, on securing procedural safeguards in criminal case and on the constitution’s broad grant of regulatory authority to Congress. I include as well my special admiration for his charming wit and sense of humor; as evidence in his dissent in the 1986 commerce clause case of Maine v. Taylorand United States, involving the constitutionality of a Maine statute that broadly restricted any interstate trade of Maine’s minnows. In words perhaps somewhat less memorable then, “Shouting fire in a crowded theater,” Justice Stevens wrote, “There is something fishy about this case.”

He has served his nation well, at all times carrying out his judicial duties with dignity, intellect and without partisan political concerns. Justice Stevens has made me, and our fellow citizens, proud of my three decade old decision to appoint him to the Supreme Court. I wish him long life, good health and many more years on the bench.

Well, if Ford was willing to base his legacy on his choice of John Paul Stevens, then I’m happy to call Gerald Ford a miserable failure.

This, then, is a list of the biggest mistakes in Supreme Court selection. 

Continue reading...

15 Responses to The Worst Supreme Court Selections in American History

  • While I like your selections, I could also see arguments for James McReynolds and Harlan Stone. I guess in both of those cases it wasn’t that the Justices evolved but that the issues before the court that would have provoked the most conflict between them and their appointers were well after the appointments. Actually that point was after Wilson and Coolidge were both deceased.

  • Warren as Attorney General of California was a driving force behind the West Coast internment or evacuation of Japanese Americans, a move opposed at the time by J. Edgar Hoover who, no joke, received an award from the American Civil Liberties Union during the War. Warren later repented of the decision many years after the War, but his actions then clearly indicated that he would never let the Constitution stand in the path of anything that Earl Warren wanted done.

  • I would have had Blackmun number one on the list. He made the Supreme Court only because he was a childhood friend of Chief Justice Warren Burger and it was thought he would vote like Burger. A man of infinite vanity and small mind, Blackmun gets my vote for worst Supreme Court justice.

  • O’Connor voted pretty reliably conservative while Reagan was in office. Reagan was badly served by Goldwater, a closet pro-abort and open Planned Parenthood backer, in regard to that appointment.

  • Souter was completely contemptible.

    “David Souter alone was shattered. He was, fundamentally, a very different person from his colleagues. It wasn’t just that they had immediate families; their lives off the bench were entirely unlike his. They went to parties and conferences; they gave speeches; they mingled in Washington, where cynicism about everything, inluding the work of the Supreme Court, was universal. Toughened, or coarsened, by the their worldly lives, the other dissenters could shrug and move on, but Souter couldn’t. His whole life was being a judge. He came from a tradition where the independence of the judiciary was the foundation of the rule of law. And Souter believed Bush v. Gore mocked that tradition. His colleagues’ actions were so transparently, so crudely partisan that Souter though he might not be able to serve with them anymore.

    Souter seriously considered resigning. For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice. That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same. There were times when David Souter thought of Bush v. Gore and wept.”


    A left wing partisan and all around doofus, his opinions have to be read to be believed.
    Souter was a warning against a stealth candidate who turns out to be a stealth candidate for the other side. Warren Rudman, the political mentor for Souter, was a pro-abort RINO senator from New Hampshire and he knew precisely what the nation was getting with his protege:


    Souter’s view of constitutional jurisprudence given a mocking to remember:


  • O’Connor voted pretty reliably conservative while Reagan was in office.

    I believe it was Jan Crawford’s book that detailed how O’Connor moved leftward as a result of Clarence Thomas. I’m not sure how much credence to put into that, but she certainly started her leftward drift around that time.

    As for Blackmun, I wouldn’t put him above Warren only because the latter was the Chief Justice and more instrumental in transforming the Court. Also – and this is pure conjecture – but I have a feeling that Ike regretted that pick more than Nixon regretted Blackmun.

    As for who was the worst – a slightly different topic perhaps worthy of a separate post – my vote would be Thurgood Marshall. Not only was he horrid from a constitutional standpoint, but his legal reasoning never impressed me.

  • Though wasn’t it O’Connor who said in 1983 that Roe was “on a collision course with itself” because medical advances were lowering the age of fetal viability and undermining the premise of Roe that unfettered abortion was OK through at least the 2nd trimester, if not longer, because the fetus wasn’t yet viable?

  • O’Connor was all over the map throughout her career when it came to abortion. In the AZ legislature she cast pro-choice votes, but then she signaled to President Reagan her personal opposition to abortion. I think Reagan was convinced that her personal opposition to abortion would carryover into her jurisprudence – which is the same reasoning Bush employed when he first nominated Miers. O’Connor did vote to ease some of the restrictions on abortion while on the Court, but ultimately could not vote to overturn Roe itself.

  • Arthur Goldberg, once a mouthpiece for the labor union goons. Breyer, who is mediocre, clerked for Goldberg, who went on to become UN ambassador without distinction. Although Goldberg found a “right to privacy” in Griswold v. Connecticut, he’s best remembered as a vigorous opponent of the death penalty as “cruel and unusual punishment.” Another weakhearted lib on a court dominated in recent decades by pinkos.

  • Souter is a snake, a very bad man.

    Joe Biden and Rudman jumped for joy after Souter’s Casey vote, evil indeed.


  • On a somewhat smaller fiasco scale, back in the 80’s the Right To Life in our state endorced a ‘conservative Lutheran Pastor” for state assembly. We worked our tails off to get this guy elected. He did and we ended up with the most pro abortion liberal leaning representative we ever elected in this state. We had to live with that end result for many years as once he got in there we couldn’t get him out. Kind of like the SC. I guess anyone can be wolf in sheeps clothing, and the best can be snookered. Too bad millions of unborn have had to be sacrified to these bums.

  • Oh and now our very liberty. I don’t care how anyone tries to defend roberts he’s Benedict Arnold in my book.

  • Paul

    Reference Chief Justice Warren.

    I read Brown v Board of Education I.

    That is one of the worst written documents I have read (believe me I have read an awful lot of bureaucratese). Excerpt he remembered to have one imperative sentence saying Plessey was overturned one has difficulty finding meaning.

    Of course that was his first major opinion did his writing get better with time.?

    Thank you.

    Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

  • If one looks back to an earlier period, in Jones v Opelika [319 US 584 (1942] one finds Roberts J complaining that, in some six years, the court had fourteen times reversed one or more of its earlier decisions, many of them recent. He observed that such decisions tended “to bring adjudications of this tribunal into the same class as a restricted railroad ticket, good for this day and train only. I have no assurance, in view of current decisions, that he opinion announced today may not shortly be repudiated and overruled by justices who deem they have new light on the subject.”

    As one particularly egregious example, a case, Minersville School District v Gobitis [310 US 586 (1940)] that was decided by a majority of eight to one, was overruled three years later in West Virginia School Board of Education v Barnette [319 US 624 (1943) by a majority of six to three. Of the six, three of the Justices (Black, Douglas & Murphy JJ) had changed their minds, two (Jackson & Ritledge JJ) were new appointments and one was the former lone dissident (Stone CJ, formerly Stone J)

    Whatever one thinks of the decision in question, such judicial capriciousness can only bring the law into disrepute. Surely, the highest court having once decided what the law is, it should be for the legislator to say what it ought to be.

  • I dunno.

    “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

    The inexplicable Roberts fuster-cluck devastates the economy and personal liberty.

    It creates an omnipotent federal government. The law will make health costs skyrocket and hamstring the private sector.

    It will destroy jobs and consign millions to penury. It will debase the currency and lower all Americans’ living standards.

    And, they will blame Bush.


Gay Fascism & Judicial Tyranny Strike Again

Thursday, June 7, AD 2012

A ruling by the New Mexico Court of Appeals has found that Christian photographers cannot refuse to photograph a “gay wedding” on religious grounds. The absurdity and tyranny of this ruling is almost unfathomable, but what is less surprising is the vindictive nature of the entire case. As an entire slew of court cases in Canada demonstrates, the radical homosexual movement is not about fairness, tolerance or equality. Like its equivalents among racial minorities (think Black Panther Party) or feminists, it is about envy, revenge, and domination. As I have argued and will continue to argue, the homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism. Whether your are Christian or not, whether you have homosexual inclinations or not, the implications of the New Mexico court’s rulings for political liberty, religious freedom and private property rights ought to frighten you if you care in the least about these concepts.

Continue reading...

119 Responses to Gay Fascism & Judicial Tyranny Strike Again

  • This is exactly what happens when a society turns it back on God, and more specifically on it self. The issue here isn’t homosexual marriage (incidentally as long as Christians continue to misuse the beautiful word “gay” to describe sodomy the problem will never improve). the issue is homosexuality at large.

    We have ignored an entire generation that euphemistically describes mortal sin as ” hooking up”. We go to unmarried couples homes and treat them as married, then wonder why their generation doesn’t marry anymore. Anyone with young adult children knows that the entire generation no longer sees homosexuality as deviant. Now if we have turned our backs on God in order to mollify our children, how dare we wonder what has become of our society. Is this travesty of homosexual “marriage” not entirely logical, given the cowardly state of we, who were called by God to resist it.

    These Laws will only be reversed when we have the courage to stand and call homosexuality what it is; sin. Only then, when we have the courage to teach our children that sex is the sacred bond between a married couple that leads to babies (I know it sounds simple, that’s the point!) can we, as Christians, claim the right to our faith. As long as we continue to turn our heads the other way and inadvertently encourage heterosexual sin in our “enlightened” children, have we any right to wonder how things like this happen?

  • “As I have argued and will continue to argue, the homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism.”

    You omitted a prefix. It should read:

    “the anti-homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism.”

  • Leo,

    To quote a famous 20th century American philosopher, John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious!”

    PS: Us knuckle-draggers ain’t forcing youse to accept our “hate, intolerance, etc.” However, you, your presumed moral superiority, and the moral bankrupts on the bench are . . .

  • God loves everyone, homo or heterosexual. God hates sin. Homosexual behavior is sin. Do you get that, Leo?

    By the way, if you want to play with another man’s genitals, then I won’t stand in your way. But kindly do it behind closed doors and don’t call the action marriage because it’s not. It’s filthy dirty. Yet I concede to your “right” to be a filth dirty pervert so long as you do not force the rest of society to follow you in your filthy dirty ways. God does allow you to be a filthy dirty sexual pervert. However, filthy dirty sex perverts like you want to force the rest of us to concede that your filthy dirty sexual perversion should be sanctified as marriage and that filty dirty sexual perverts should be treated the same as those united in the Sacrament of Holy Marriage. You are no different than those filthy dirty sexual perverts in Sodom and Gomorrah who tried to beat down the door to Lot’s house so that they could have anal sex with the angels whom Lot had welcomed inside. See Genesis 19:1-11. And you know the end of those men. First they were blinded (but they still didn’t give up – verse 11) and then their cities of wickedness were destroyed by fire from on high (buckle up, pervert, because God won’t withhold His justice forever. See Genesis 19:12-29.

    Well God says: NO! In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul in 1st Here is how a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear what Corinthians 6:9-10 says about dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:

    9 Don’t you know that unrighteous people will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t delude yourselves — people who engage in sex before marriage, who worship idols, who engage in sex after marriage with someone other than their spouse, who engage in active or passive homosexuality, 10 who steal, who are greedy, who get drunk [addictively and excessively], who assail people with contemptuous language, who rob — none of them will share in the Kingdom of God.

    Liberal. Progressive. Democrat. Demonic and Satanic by any other name. It’s time for disgusting, perverted, rancid sexual filth that your kind supports to be called what it is. We all have to repent – daily – lest we burn in hell for eternity. That include me repenting of my sin. That also includes you repenting of your filth. But you say that this call to repentance is unloving, unkind and unjust. You won’t say that before the Great White Throne of Judgment, but it’ll be too late:

    11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.


    Yes, I want people like you defeated, muzzled and emasculated (politically) so that you can’t drag others to the fires of hell with you.

  • Opps – editing error.

    “In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul in 1st Here is how a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear what Corinthians 6:9-10 says about dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:”

    should be

    “In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul (which a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear) in Corinthians 6:9-10 concerning dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:”

    Arrrrggghhh – got so upset that people like Leo say the fecal stuff that he said that I did not edit correctly.

  • Paul: Thank you for proving my point.

    T. Shaw: You presume to know me. You don’t. I don’t judge others, and I would appreciate not being judged in return. Only God judges (Deuteronomy 1:17).

  • Wow, Leo.
    I really appreciate how you gave your reasons and examples along with your explanation, as opposed to a baseless drive-by accusation.
    Nope, no hate, intolerance, bigotry, or totalitarianism there!

    Keep it up, liberals. If I ever had any doubts on the subject, you’re settling them for me.

    Have a great day and God bless you!

  • Need any more evidence that Satan is sitting on the Throne and God has been thrown out of the window???? But have a heart, people of goodwill….. God has the Final Word and the Casting Vote. And Christ voted on the Cross at Calvary…..stand up Christian Solders and fight for God……yes we love, and embrace sodomites….but we hate the Sin as God does….let all of us practice the First of the Spiritual Works of Mercy here : Admonish the Sinners…..never compromise with Satanic perversions.

  • To you, Leo. I admonish you in the name of God and His Son, Jesus Christ who condemn Sodomy and all sexual perversions. Do not misquote Him on “Do not judge, lest you be judged”. He tells the adulterous woman…..”neither do I condemn you. But go AND SIN NO MORE. You see, Leo, God loves sinners. He died such a horrible death for us all. But He HATES SIN like all level headed, normal, intelligent and decent men and women do. Sodomy, Lesbianism, Abortion, Euthanasia and all those bestialities now dominating the Western World are Satanic, evil and filthy. That is, as I said above, doing what Jesus told us to do : ADMONISH THE SINNERS. And you are sinners par excellence, who are so arrogant and want to force your pervesities upon us all. WE SHALL NOT ACCEPT THAT, NEVER, NEVER AND AGAIN…..NEVER

  • Folks,

    I should never so early in the morning read and respond to the kind of stuff that Leo Salazar writes. The only proper response is what Mary42 gave: “I admonish you in the name of God and His Son, Jesus Christ who condemn Sodomy and all sexual perversions.” Thus do verses 9 and 10 in the Epistle of Jude state:

    9* But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” 10 But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed.

  • Leo,

    I don’t hate homosexuals. Frankly I think most of them are the unfortunate victims of psychological abuse and/or social neglect.

    That being said, I do hate the radical gay movement, which is totalitarian in its ambitions.

  • “the anti-homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism.”


  • Whether sexual orientation is a choice or is in-born (I think it is neither, by the way)

    This is a bit curious – I have heard some argue it is in-born, others it is a choice, others it is a combination, and others that it can be in-born for some, choice for others, and a combination for yet others. But I have never heard someone say it is neither (which would seem to exclude all of the above). Do you consider cultural conditioning as a distinct cause from “choice”?

  • I think it results from social and psychological conditions experienced at an early and impressionable age. No one chooses the conditions they are brought up in, and they aren’t genetic.

    Like the professional psychiatric establishment did before it began self-thought-policing in the interests of political correctness, I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder.

  • I think Bonchamps is correct. The propensity or inclination to homosexual behavior is a disease like alcoholism or drug addiction. Being an alcoholic or drug addict is not sinful. Indeed, millions are in recovery and abstinent from intoxicants. For the person afflicted with same sex attraction, the behavior is his or her intoxicant of choice. Being so afflicted is a cross perhaps similar in certain ways to the cross of alcoholism or addiction. We can choose to take up our cross and follow Jesus, denying our selfish wants, or we can give up and wallow in the intoxicant of our choice: homosexual behavior, alcohol or drugs.

    This is not a condemnation of those who drink alcohol in an adult manner, nor of the abstinent homosexual or lesbian. Not everyone is an alcoholic just as not everyone is a homosexual. Furthermore, there is only one place for sexual activity: in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony between one man and one woman. If a heterosexual is unmarried, then he is held to the same rules that a homosexual is held to: chastity. If a heterosexual is married, then he is not permitted to have sexual intercourse with anyone other than his spouse. It is utter selfishness (not love) to rut in heat like a mindless baboon expecting no consequences for one’s actions, whether that rutting is homosexual or heterosexual. Yet today’s liberal progressive society would have us believe that such animalistic rutting is freedom and liberty instead of what it really is: slavery to whatever titillates the genitals. That, my friends, is drug addiction “par excellence”. We are not baboons or bonobo chimpanzees. We are human beings created in the image and likeness of God Almighty Himself, and He expects and requires that we behave as such. Failure to so behave can result in being cast into the hell of addiction in this life time, never to end in the burning fires of hell in the next.

    Use your God-given brains, Leo, instead of the stirring in your loins. You’re better than that.

  • Both national legislation and international conventions are casting their net ever wider.

    The following is typical:- “Discrimination comprises any distinction applied between natural persons by reason of their origin, sex, family situation, physical appearance or patronymic, state of health, handicap, genetic characteristics, sexual morals or orientation, age, political opinions, trade union activities, or their membership or non-membership, true or supposed, of a given ethnic group, nation, race or religion.”

  • Leo,

    I apologize.

  • Everything in life is some combination of genetics, environment, and individual decision. I don’t understand the need to pretend to know the ratios. We’re responsible for our choices to the extend that they were freely made and understood. Beyond that, we’re just guessing.

    Leo – I think you missed the point. If someone writes an article entitled “A Penny Saved Is Not A Penny Earned”, you wouldn’t show up and reply, “no, that’s incorrect; a penny saved is a penny earned”. The title of this piece and the image accompanying it are shocking for a reason. They’re intended to jostle your thinking. At a time when the President is depicted with a rainbow halo, an image of a rainbow swastika is incongruent. A vibrant mind would ask why, not just reply that he agrees with conventional thinking. Maybe you did get the point of the article, but nothing in your comments indicates it.

  • Bonchamps said: “I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder.” I do too.
    Paul W. Primavera: I enjoyed reading your posts on Holy Scripture and still say my Hail Mary in Latin.
    Mary @42: You cut to the chase and clarified the issue quickly.
    Leo: What would the Holy Virgin say about your inexcusable defense of sinful behavior? The Holy Virgin weeps…and weeps.

  • Live and let live. Problems, accusations, and anti-stuff only happens when people impose upon other people and form ‘movements’ to do so.

    If aids and abortion didn’t kick up in the 80’s as an alert that something has gone off balance with humanity, then all this antagonizing, righteousness and division could move beyond emotional insanity to rational behavior and growth to calm ‘diversity’.

    We all have the possibility of achieving an integrity of our beliefs which are unique – we don’t need to butt heads or force change for another’s view of ‘integrity’. It’s just not right, practical, or any good to be ‘my way’ or else for anyone.

    This ‘anti’ bit is creepy because it is dehumanizing for all sides. Animals, away from man’s influence, have more intelligence and instinct. We could learn from them – and they are cute and beautiful.

  • As someone who makes a living in the visual arts, (including photography) this kind of ruling is rather chilling. One statement of the ruling stuck out to me:

    By taking photographs, Elane Photography does not express its own message. Rather, Elane Photography serves as a conduit for its clients to memorialize their personal ceremony. Willock merely asked Elane Photography to take photographs, not to disseminate any message of acceptance or tolerance on behalf of the gay community.

    The notion that this sort of photography is being ‘merely asked to take photographs’ is absurd. Artistic photography is as much an expression and message of the photographer as of the client. It’s not simply pressing a button on a camera- if that was the case, no one would hire photographers. Rather, the whole point of selecting a particular photographer over another (or over a family member with a camera phone) is that the photographer has a particular style, quality, etc.- even message- that is communicated by that style. Often times you even have to be careful with the clients you choose to work for so that your style and message don’t get diluted.

    Perhaps whoever made this ruling needs to open a photography business and see how well they do by merely ‘taking photographs.’

  • @Bonchamps

    “I don’t hate homosexuals . . . I do hate the radical gay movement.”

    First of all, I find your response disingenuous and indefensible. If there is a difference between homosexuals themselves and the purveyors of the “radical homosexual movement” (whatever that’s supposed to mean – I never realized one existed until I read about it here), you haven’t sufficiently defined it in your article. One needs to look no farther than the comments from your defenders on this page to see that, perceptually, most people see no difference.

    Secondly, I lived for a time in the deep South of the US, in lower Alabama. A far different environment from my native Southern California. Even back then, a full 20 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, there were white people living there who saw black people as genetically inferior human beings to whites. There was nothing I could say to them to convince them otherwise. The same seems to be true of you and your cohorts here: there’s nothing I can say to you to convince you that there is no difference between someone whose orientation is homosexual and you or me.

    Lastly, I notice a strong similarity between your “arguments” and those used by the racists I encountered in Alabama back then. Often they would say, “If I don’t want to deal with black people, then I should’t be forced to! It’s my right to refuse.” This is incorrect: if your only justification for denying someone a public service is based on their skin color, or their sexual orientation, then, no, it’s not your right. You are wrong.

  • Leo, Bon specifically addressed the difference between the individual and the behavior in paragraph 3. The photographer isn’t objecting to the individual; he’s objecting to the action of gay marraige. Paul Primavers puts it succinctly: “God loves everyone, homo or heterosexual. God hates sin. Homosexual behavior is sin.”

    As for the matter of genetic superiority, well, I don’t think anyone on this site cares about that. The real question is about moral superiority. Some people’s comments here have implied that heterosexuals are morally superior to homosexuals, and they’re wrong. Homosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior are wrong when they’re outside God’s parameters. The parameters for heterosexual sex are limited; those for homosexual sex are nonexistent.

  • There is a difference between having a certain melanin in one’s skin cells and willful perverted sexual behavior. That difference is however lost of enlightened Leo. Nevertheless, regardless of that loss on him, no one may discriminate against taking wedding photographs of a black heterosexual couple, but one may (indeed, must) for reason of conscience refuse to provide such services to two homosexual perverts who demand their ungodly “union” be normalized, accepted and even praised in photography.

    Homosexual union is NOT marriage. Mutual masturbation or insertion of one’s male sexual organ into the orifice of another male is sickening, disgusting, filthy, dirty, perverted and disease-spreading. Just because certain animals engage in homosexual behavior (e.g., dolphins, bonobo chimpanzees, etc.) does not mean that a human created in the image and likeness of God Almighty should so debase and denigrate himself. We are NOT animals (but I do wonder about godless liberal progressive Democrats). God holds us to a higher standard. But in Leo’s world, it is unloving, unkind, unjust and divisive to say that.

    Indeed we all agree that black people are no more or less genetically inferior or superior than white people (or any other kind of people for that matter: red, yellow, brown, etc). In like manner, homosexual people are no more or less genetically inferior or superior than heterosexual people. For that reason, those who engage in homosexual behavior will be held accountable before God for the same – because, since they are NOT by their own declaration mental defects, they are fully aware of the grave evil in which they engage. If they were mental defects, then they could be excuse as innocent on the grounds of such mental deficiency or disease.

    Romans 1:18-32 applies, especially the last verse: “Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.”

    18* For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20* Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21* for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23* and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

  • Leo;

    I kindly suggest you do some research on Log Cabin Republicans. There is a difference between being “gay” and a “militant homosexual”. It would be nice if you could see there is a diversity in your community and embrace that diversity. I also suggest that you look at the political basis that is the genesis of the militant homosexual movement – you will find it stems from far left socialist/communist ideology. Look at the underpinnings of thoses ideologies, do the research on what influenced the ideologies, look at the times those ideologies grew out of and then look at the public and personal histories of the men/women behind thoses ideologies. It will be enlightening and tragic at the same time. Much of the militant homosexual movement’s money comes from the same organizations or ppl that are sympathic to socialism/communism. I do not mean to be disrespectful but if you do not care to look and challege your beliefs then your ignorance cannot be helped. My beliefs are challenged every day by ppl like you and I have to analyze if I am mistaken – I am only a man and thus fallible. Ultimately, I find the truths contained in the teachings of the one and true Church are infallible.

    Just as you accuss the ppl here of being closed-minded so are you. There is nothing I or anyone that is a faithful Catholic can say that will change your opinion and views. I do not wish to change your views or force you to act in a certain way but you seem to have a need/desire/compulsion to try to change mine or force me to act in a certain way. I just ask you respect my personhood and my basic human dignity as I respect yours.

    There is a difference between a voluntary act, which ultimately homosexuality is, and a color, race, etc. You are trying to claim a similarity between racism and the anti-homosexuality as shown by believers in Christ’s word – there is none. One is based on hate and the differences in man (racism) and the other is based on the love for man (wishing that all could enjoy full fellowship with God) and desire that man live up to his/her potential.

    I hope you can find peace and harmony because you seem angry and troubled. I will pray that you find and feel the true love of God. Peace be with you, my brother.

  • It’d be nice if Primavera gave the next line: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” And that’s serious business. You’ve got to realize, Leo, that we know we’re under the same judgement for all of our misdeeds. Christianity doesn’t single out the homosexual for condemnation.

    We fight the battles we find ourselves in. If this were 1850, we’d be railing against slavery. Thirty years ago, we were mostly talking about abortion and communism. Now we’re talking about this. We haven’t suddenly started caring about homosexuality. We haven’t been secretly obsessed about homosexuality. We’re just playing the cards we’re dealt. And as this article demonstrates, the shift is taking place from protecting the rights of supporters of homosexual unions to diminishing the rights of opponents of homosexual unions. So the fight has been taken to our doorstep.

  • Post Script – my quote of Romans 1:32 doesn’t come across in the right way. In the original Greek of the epistle which St. Paul wrote to the Church at Rome, there were no divisions of chapter and verses. So Romans 2:1-16 immediately succeeds Romans 1:18-32 without the artifical divisions that were created to help the modern reader locate passages. Notice how St. Paul immediately stresses after his discussion about homosexual perversion that there is no partiality before God between the pagan homosexual pervert at the end of chapter 1 and the convert to Christianity at the beginning of chapter 2. The same rules apply to all of us, and none of us are worthy of Heaven. Note also that while St. Paul admonishes the believer NOT to judge, nowhere does he say that the believer is to give assent to sin either passively or actively. Indeed, his words are just the opposite. This gives new meaning to that other verse of Scripture which says, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12)

    1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

    12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

  • Sorry, Pinky!

    We were cross-posting!

    You’re right!

  • Paul – Yeah, I got that. That would’ve been a lot to pull together in six minutes.

    I think it’s important for Leo – and for us – that we mention every once in a while that we’re all trying to work toward perfection. There’s a lot more hetero sin out there, numerically, and there’s no one on this board with a perfect track record. I say this a lot on the threads, but we’re called to be both right and good; when we’re talking about how right we are, it can sound like we’re talking about how good we are. I’d hate to think that we come off as jerks to an outsider.

  • Double ditto to what Pinky just wrote. I know what I deserve. God’s mercy is that I do not get what I deserve. God’s grace is that I do get what I clearly do not deserve.

  • Soon it will be illegal to refuse to attend a homosexual “wedding” if you’ve been invited.

    Just wait! You’ll see!

  • Hear hear Paul

  • Y’know, Leo, I had a whole long, scathing diatribe written out, but then it occurred to me that fascists don’t listen anyway.

    Best of luck. Seriously.

  • Coexist heil!

  • At Mary De Voe’s request, for Leo Salazar, and for all homosexuals caught in the addiction to sexual sin:

    Av? Mar?a, gr?ti? pl?na,
    Dominus t?cum.
    Benedicta t? in mulieribus,
    et benedictus fr?ctus ventris tu?, I?sus.
    S?ncta Mar?a, M?ter De?,
    ?r? pr? n?b?s pecc?t?ribus,
    nunc et in h?r? mortis nostrae.

  • Main Entry: fas·cism
    Pronunciation: \?fa-?shi-z?m also ?fa-?si-\
    Function: noun

    1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race [sexuality] above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
    2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

    So there we have it, textbook fascist behavior by the left.

  • Thank you, Bonchamps for the post.

    May the Lord Jesus reveal His glory to Leo. May Leo come to know the Person of Jesus Christ and be lead to acknowledge Jesus as Sovereign Lord and Merciful Savior. May he be given a thirsting for Truth, and through this thirsting discover authentic Love.

    Amen to the thoughts expressed by Mary 42. Thank you for speaking in power and in the authority of the Holy Spirit.

    Thank you Leo for providing us an opportunity to check our relationship with the Lord…to test our courage to witness His Gospel, It takes little courage to comment on an anonymous blog; the true test is found on the battlefield of our heart.
    2 Timothy 1:14 “guard the Truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.”
    We need to engage intellect through faithfully presenting Truth, in order to win hearts for Christ. 2 Timothy 2: 24-26 “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”
    Titus 3:3-7 “For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another; but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, HE saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.”

    We need to prostrate ourselves before the Lord, as His Justice is also His mercy. The earth is blanketed with the spirit of the antichrist. The only response is fervent prayer and fasting.
    2 Timothy 1: 8-9 “Do not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord…Who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of His own purpose…”

  • Thank you, Paul W. Primavera. God bless

  • Leo,

    I can’t speak for anyone else. Here’s my reply to your comment.

    “First of all, I find your response disingenuous and indefensible.”

    Well, it’s the truth. Take it or leave it.

    “If there is a difference between homosexuals themselves and the purveyors of the “radical homosexual movement” (whatever that’s supposed to mean – I never realized one existed until I read about it here),”

    Then you’re incredibly ignorant or naive – or a liar. Of course a radical homosexual movement exists, as much as radical feminism, radical race politics, and communism exist. The lawyer for the plaintiff in this very case is a radical gay advocate.

    I defined “gay agenda” in my previous writing: a political movement with the objective of normalizing and legitimizing a homosexual lifestyle in every facet of social and personal life. That is a radical assault on the foundations of human civilization.

    “you haven’t sufficiently defined it in your article.”

    Why should I define what is self-evident? Of course there’s a distinction.

    “One needs to look no farther than the comments from your defenders on this page to see that, perceptually, most people see no difference.”

    Hey, I can’t tell people how to think. I’m not a radical gay activist, that’s not my thing. I would tell any of them that there is a difference between a person who simply lives their life, and a political activist, and that they would have to be brain-damaged not to understand this.

    “Secondly, I lived for a time in the deep South of the US, in lower Alabama. A far different environment from my native Southern California. Even back then, a full 20 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, there were white people living there who saw black people as genetically inferior human beings to whites. There was nothing I could say to them to convince them otherwise.”

    So what? Are you whining because you couldn’t control their thoughts either?

    Do you just lie awake at night cursing the 1st amendment or what? Or does it just bother you that anyone has the temerity to think an unacceptable thought?

    “The same seems to be true of you and your cohorts here: there’s nothing I can say to you to convince you that there is no difference between someone whose orientation is homosexual and you or me.”

    This is just nonsense. No difference? Of course there is a difference. There is a massive difference. There are also differences between black and white cultures, between men and women, between Christians and Jews. Pretending differences don’t exist is ignorant and naive.

    That being said, however, this has nothing to do with whether or not they are “the same” or “different” than me. I know you have this view in your head of us here as a bunch of tribalistic cavemen who want to oppress everyone who isn’t exactly like us – or at least, you seem as if you do. This is false. You’re engaging in prejudice of your own.

    I really don’t desire to dictate what two people of any gender or sexual orientation do. Under our existing conception of private property rights, any two people can enter into the same kind of contracts as anyone else. They can share property and wealth, share a household, grant one another medical and/or legal power of attorney. I don’t believe society can or should make attempts to discern whether or not the people seeking them are gay and deny them on that basis.

    “Gay rights” politics are not about obtaining the legal right to participate in society at the same level as everyone else, as the efforts against Jim Crow were. They are about one thing only: FORCING society, and particularly Christians, to treat them with the prestige and respectability they think they deserve.

    They do NOT have a right to respect, prestige, polite smiles, or anything of the sort. And no one has any right to any good or service. But we’ll get to that below.

    “Lastly, I notice a strong similarity between your “arguments” and those used by the racists I encountered in Alabama back then. Often they would say, “If I don’t want to deal with black people, then I should’t be forced to! It’s my right to refuse.” This is incorrect: if your only justification for denying someone a public service is based on their skin color, or their sexual orientation, then, no, it’s not your right. You are wrong.”

    Well, I actually completely disagree with this, and I stand with Ron Paul in his rejection of that particular portion of the Civil Rights Act. It is an intolerable violation of private property rights to force people to serve those whom they do not wish to serve. I think the original Civil Rights movement was perfectly within its rights to boycott businesses that wouldn’t serve blacks. And if gays want to boycott Christian photographers, that’s fine too.

    But just to be clear: it is an insult, a disgusting mockery, to compare black skin to what is often willfully chosen deviant behavior. And it is no coincidence that it is the black voter who has been the most consistent opponent of “gay marriage” legislation. How do you think black Protestants and Catholics feel about constantly being compared to the sort of filthy degenerates who march in the streets in leather waving sex-toys around? You’re the insensitive lout here.

    You need to think long and hard about this comparison, Leo.

  • The premise of this article is correct and we do need the courage to address this.

    Case in point: the recent expulsion from Dartmouth, prison sentence, criminal record and international humiliation of Tyler Clementi’s roommate who briefly watched part of an intimate encounter between Tyler and a male sex partner. Unfortunately, Tyler, who had many many personal issues prior to going to college, later committed suicide by jumping off the Geo. Washington Bridge. This was a tragic and horrible event.

    But Tyler was NOT the victim of gay-bashing, and this incident was turned into a political statement when it should have been about invasion of privacy–something we all need to confront in this electronic age.

    Tyler’s roommate had already “spied” on straight friends when he was in high school, as a prank. (And for the record, he never posted footage of Tyler on the internet.) He was an insensitive jerk, but there were indeed gay people among his acquaintences. He never referred to them with slurs. He made no complaint about having a gay roommate, other than some initial wisecracks to his friends when he first found out. He does sound like a pompous and insensitive kid, but those aren’t crimes. Tyler was the one who brought a strange “older” man to the room for a sexual encounter, kicking out his roommate, and creating “drama.” (This happens a lot in college–kids are expected to quietly leave the room if the roommate wants to have privacy with a partner. That’s ridiculous–the burden should be on the kid who brings home a sex partner to find a private place.)

    Peeping on your roommate in these circumstances is immature and creepy, but I’m sure it has happened before, even before webcam technology. I am also fairly certain that he would have spied on Tyler if Tyler had brought home a girl. This was an ill-considered dumb act that young people that age seem prone to. That is why we have consequences that are intended to help them learn from their mistakes. He should have been penalizied by the university before this became a criminal matter. Tyler, too, should have been penalized, as I am sure the school has rules for dorm conduct.

    It is conceivable to me that Tyler was depressed, perhaps had been rejected by this “older” guy (and older, to a college kid, may mean 25), and was still dealing with his parents finding out he was gay.

    I am amazed at how many people try to compare this to the Mathew Shepard murder, which WAS an example of a kid being targeted for his sexual orientation. But there is not a war on gay people in this country: gays are tolerated and embraced to a degree that even 20 years ago would have been inconceivable.

    The political Gay Rights movement would have us believe otherwise.

    But this whole thing was about TYLER’S personal struggles, not about GAYS.

    Yet the school immediately launched a lot of “sensitivity outreach” efforts.

  • “You need to think long and hard about this comparison [ black skin color and sexual deviancy ], Leo.”

    He won’t. But it would be nice if he did. His comparison is an insult to people of any race everywhere, particularly the human race.

  • Sparhawk that brings up the question why mess around with your roommate?

  • Valentin, I deleted a comment by you three times with what I consider to be vulgar language in it. I guess you couldn’t take a hint. I am placing you on moderation for the time being.

  • I am sorry Donald I was wondering about that. I tend to talk like a sailor but certain bad things need to be given bad names so that people don’t act like bad things are good. I apologize for the vulgar language and will try to be more discreet.

  • I thought that some of those terms I used seemed much more discreet than what I was thinking of saying before.

  • Good enough Valentin, and congratulations for spending the shortest time in moderation in the history of TAC! 🙂

  • can we come up with more discreet and yet effective terms to use instead because it seems like people just assert that homosexuality makes perfect sense without really talking about it.

  • what is TAC?

  • Can you delete the comment on which century I meant? It seems somewhat irrelevent.

  • Thank you for the complement I do hope other people will have more humility than I do.

  • Bonchamps wrote

    “Well, I actually completely disagree with this, and I stand with Ron Paul in his rejection of that particular portion of the Civil Rights Act. It is an intolerable violation of private property rights to force people to serve those whom they do not wish to serve.”

    Let me remind you of what Rousseau says about democracy. “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”

    His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu’on le forcera d’être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”

  • I think the “state of nature” has one advantage, or two, over the current, corrupt system: were-geld, for example.

    On this topic, what is the common superior of which above writes?

  • If people are “born gay”, as the current theory goes, then it follows that they were created that way. And if they were created with that nature, then it’s on the Creator. If, as scripture tells us, He is the Potter and we are the clay, then who is to blame for the result?
    I find homosexual behavior repugnant but at the same time wonder if gays are truly responsible for being true to their nature. For this reason, I remain agnostic and side with my old friend, Lucretius who put it this way 2,050 years ago:

    Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam
    Naturam rerum; tanta stat praedita culpa
    “Had God designed the world, it would not be
    A world so frail and faulty as we see.”

  • @Joe Green

    “He is the Potter and we are the clay, then who is to blame for the result?”

    You say “blame,” I say “credit.”

  • Joe Green wrote, “He is the Potter and we are the clay, then who is to blame for the result?”

    Leo Salazar wrote, “You say ‘blame,’ I say ‘credit.’

    Whom God formed in the Garden of Eden were two perfect human beings, male and female. He did NOT create a predisposition to homosexuality any more than He created a predisposition to alcoholism. That some are born with mental defect or disease (e.g., a predisposition to homosexuality or a predisposition to alcoholism) is NOT the fault of God, but the result of the mortal wound of sin to which man wilfully acceded in the Garden of Eden. If indeed people are born this way, then it is a genetic defect that God never ever created. Man yielded out of self-will run riot to satan’s temptation. That in turn resulted in sin, and the wages of that sin are death. No one would be homosexual were it not for man’s initial disobedience. Again, that some are born with a predisposition to same sex attraction is NO different than some having been born with a predisposition to alcoholism. It cannot be overemphasized that God does NOT create the predisposition to defect or disease. Understand this: the mortal wound in the flesh of mankind creates that predisposition. God cannot create or cause evil because God is inherently and intrinsically all-good. Rather, Adam and Eve’s rejection of obedience to God’s commands resulted in evil, and homosexual behavior is evil; therefore, Adam and Eve’s disobedience results in that behavior (as well as the heterosexual sins of adultery and fornication – the rules are the same for everyone).

    That being said, God has mercy on those for whom He chooses to have mercy, and God visits justice on those for whom He chooses to visit justice. It is God’s sovereign will, and in fact we ALL – hetero and homosexual – merit only God’s justice, NOT God’s mercy. That God so love the world to send His only begotten Son (John 3:16) is His divine and sovereign mercy which neither homo nor heterosexual merit.

    As Romans 9:6-29 states:

    [ Israel’s Rejection and God’s Purpose ]

    6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”[b] 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

    10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

    [ Israel’s Rejection and God’s Justice ]

    14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

    19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

    22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

    25 As He says also in Hosea:

    “I will call them My people, who were not My people,
    And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
    26 “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
    ‘You are not My people,’
    There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

    27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:

    “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
    The remnant will be saved.
    28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness,
    Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.”

    29 And as Isaiah said before:

    “Unless the Lord of Sabaoth[l] had left us a seed,
    We would have become like Sodom,
    And we would have been made like Gomorrah.”

  • @Bonchamps

    I’ve just read your response. I appreciate you taking the time to address my comments to you in detail. You’ve made some excellent points. But you’ve also made some points that seem to me based on gross assumptions and a plain misreading of what I wrote.

    I don’t think it’s useful to go into a detailed reaction to what you’ve written, but I would like to address two things.

    1) The comparison between race and sexual orientation discrimination: You weren’t the only one on this page to make an illogical leap based on my comments. Perhaps my writing lacked clarity. What I said was that I heard a striking similarity between the arguments that I heard racists using and the arguments that people on this forum use against homosexuals. I am very well aware that race/sexuality is apples/oranges. That’s precisely why I find the arguments of gay baiters so stunningly absurd.

    2) Personal attacks: You are a very literate writer and I enjoy reading your work. You sound like an intelligent person (no, I dont think you’re a bunch of tribalistic cavemen). That’s what is so disturbing to read from you, of all people, direct and personal attacks against me. From others on this page [unnamed] it’s par for the course, and I don’t take them seriously. But not from you.
    The key to civil discourse is “attack the ideas, not the person.” I admire very much that @T.Shaw apologized for judging me unfairly. I think we can have a far more productive and positive exchange with each other if we refrain from name calling.

    And, who knows? maybe we’ll learn something from each other.

  • T Shaw

    What Rousseau is saying is that, as between the Public on the one hand and the individual on the other, there is no outsider who has the power to adjudicate on their differences and enforce a decision.

    In other words, you cannot take a sovereign, independent state to court, precisely because it is sovereign and independent; it is subject to no superior person or body

    That is what he means, when he says there is no “common superior”

  • Valentin: Do you mean by “why mess around with your roommate?” that the incident (peeping) never should have taken place? Exactly. Not to get too far off the original topic, but the kid should NOT have been watching from elsewhere what was going on in that room. He should have faced penalties for invasion of privacy. But if he felt “entitled” to peep because he believed he had been edged out of his room to make space for a tryst and that made him uncomfortable–for whatever reason– he could and should have reported Tyler, who would also have faced disciplinary action.

    It’s too bad this was not about invasion of privacy, because people are constantly victimized by this, while they’re totally unaware. This would have been a great warning to technophilic peeping toms. instead Tyler Clementi’s death has been exploited by a cause he did not necessarilly embrace.

  • This civilization’s embrace of homosexual behavior is a sign of the coming apocalypse.

    However . . .

    I tried to buy a house recently. I had almost signed the papers when the owner learned that I was a practicing Catholic. They refused to sell me the house. So I kept looking. I found another house. Almost signed the paper. And again, when they learned I was a practicing Catholic, they refused to sell me the house. The third time this happened, the owner said, “I only sell to devout Muslims.”

    Irate, I told him that this kind of discrimination was deplorable. He said that it was perfectly fine to discriminate against me, “Because it isn’t like you were born Catholic. You chose to be Catholic. You act in certain ways that horrify me. You promote ideas that horrify me. Allah only knows what kind of deviant behavior you will teach your family in this house. I cannot in good conscience allow this house to serve your devil-deity. If you decide to reform your behavior, then I will allow you to buy my house.”

    I tried to tell him that I was indeed born a Catholic, at baptism. But he said, “Look, if you were merely baptized, I’d led you buy the house. It isn’t who you are that bothers me. It is what you do. It’s the fact that you actually act Catholic!”

    Most of us have accepted the idea that certain behaviors can be protected by law: faith being the most important kind of behavior. One may not persecute either Catholics or Blacks — even though being a Catholic depends on choice, and being Black depends on birth. Now ‘persecution’ may or may not venture into private business decisions: may a man sell his house to whomever he wishes, regardless of how vile his reasoning? On individual cases, it seems like government intrusion is unwarranted. But on a societal level, can we allow the mass of men to refuse to sell their homes to Black people, Jewish people, and dare I say . . . practicing homosexuals?

    May a photographer refuse to take photos at a devout Catholic wedding, or a Hindu wedding, or Satanists wedding, or a homosexual wedding? All of those criteria are behavior-based. Once we say, “no, a photographer may not decline a wedding because of behavior”, then we run into those questions.

    Now, many homosexuals want to say there were ‘born’ that way, putting them into the category of White Weddings, Black Weddings, Red-headed Weddings, Blue-eyed Weddings, etc. That puts their argument on firmer ground, because it makes their behavior untouchable. So it’s important to point out that, “No, homosexuality is defined by behavior, not biology.”

    But pointing this out doesn’t make for a solid argument. Because you still have to point out why we may protect certain behaviors (Catholicism), while arguing that other behaviors shouldn’t be protected (Child molestation).

    And yet . . . am I correct in saying that businesses may not legally refuse service to Child Molesters who have done their time in prison and are off of probation? Can a car wash say, “We don’t provide this service to Child Molesters”? Can a day care refuse to hire a Child Molester?

    As a Catholic Worker, and thus as a good anarchist and pacifist, I would sweep aside all these laws that protect us from persecution. Let sin boil up. Let all our hidden hatreds come to the surface. Let the truth reign. And then let us pray for the Holy Spirit to wipe us all clean. The government cannot secure human rights. It can’t even identify them.

  • Taking wedding pictures is a “public service?” Since when? Aren’t photographers private citizens running private businesses? If so, then they have the legal right to deny their services to anyone for any reason, whether you agree with their reasons or not.

  • Thanks!

    Obviously, I don’t know Rousseau from Russo. It’s in the USConst, you can petition the gov, you cannot sue it without permission. Now, I get it.

    I recognize one Eternal Superior.

    The World was judged one long-ago Friday on Calvary. John 12: 27-28; 31-33.

  • –Nate Wildermuth…” Because you still have to point out why we may protect certain behaviors (Catholicism), while arguing that other behaviors shouldn’t be protected (Child molestation).”

    First amendment protects Catholicism. Child molestation; No.

  • Nate, your story about a home purchase is fictional, no?

  • Kristin

    A photographic studio or shop, offering goods or services to the public was held to constitute “public accommodation.”

    Pretty well anything amounting to commerce or business is covered. The sale of a house, as in Nate’s example, would not be covered, unless the seller was a builder or developer, who makes a business out of selling houses. But a realtor would be covered

  • The essence of man is the image and likeness of God in him. When a man is born, the government gives him a birth certificate and a tax bill. When a rational, immortal soul is created and endowed with unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, God gives the man His Name: “I AM”. God is Being. God is existence. God creates all things and keeps them in existence. Therefore, the man who exists, exists at the will of God from one second to the next. Therefore, I am able to say: “I AM Mary De Voe.”

  • If someone (hetero or homosexual) needs food, drink, shelter or any of the other necessities of life, then yes, one may and should do business to provide for such services. That’s always the right and correct thing to do.

    But no one needs photographic services. So if I own a photography studio and a homosexual “couple” comes to me to buy my services for photographing their disgusting and perverted “union,” then I may (and would) deny them.

    Homosexual behavior is perversion, to be differentiated from the person. (So, by the way, is adultery and fornication – the same rules apply equally to all, hetero and homosexual.) We must never tolerate or normalize disgusting and perverted sexual behavior. But we are still required to love the homosexual (just as we are required to love the adulterer and the fornicator – again, the same rules apply to everyone). So yes, we are under obligation to help provide what is necessary for life without respect to who or what the person is. Yet there is no moral compulsion to accede to a homosexual’s request for non-necessary services. In fact, there is every reason to compel them understand how harmful and wrongful their perverted sexual behavior is on the rest of society. For example, I’m heterosexual and in my teenage years my Dad made perfectly clear to me how wrongful adultery and fornication are; his exact words were, “If you get a girl pregnant and desert her, then I’ll put a two bitted ax in your head.” He deliberately endeavored to be as politically incorrect as possible. And I never got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, and those children to whose genetic material I contributed within wedlock I currently support as is my duty (I do more than that, but the reader gets the idea: responsibility and accountability).

    And I don’t care what passes for the law of the land and what it says when it supports this godless sexual iniquity called “gay rights”. These people have got to be made to realize that their disgusting, perverted behavior will not be tolerated in the public sphere. This is not a matter of judgment. It is a matter of preserving the cornerstone of society – the family: one man, one woman and children. That’s why God’s Law says: no homosexual behavior, no adultery, no fornication. God cares about humanity and what happens to it. So He makes Laws that if obeyed, will ensure its survival, even its prosperity. But the libertine hedonist doesn’t care about humanity, humanity’s survival or humanity’s prosperity. He only cares about his own license to titillate his genitals like a drug addict without regard for whom that will adversely affect or how injurious his behavior of sexual iniquity and idolatry is on the rest of society. This is called “Liberal-ISM” or “I”, “Self” and “Me”.

    Yes, I want the behavior of these people shoved back into the closet where it belongs. It is at best abnormal, but even worse, a destroyer of civilization and a denier of God.

  • PS, At least in the State of Washington, normal people are fighting back and winning against the tide of the facism of sodomy:

    Washington gay ‘marriage’ law stopped after opponents gather 240,000 signatures

  • Mary, that phrasing seems wrong. God gives us our identity, but he doesn’t make us identical to God. That sacred name applies, as I understand it, only to the God who absolutely, unconditionally Is.

  • “can we come up with more discreet and yet effective terms to use instead because it seems like people just assert that homosexuality makes perfect sense without really talking about it.”
    An individual who perpetrates sodomy is called a sodomite. How sad that the atheist must die to learn that he has immortality. Unless, of course, the atheist and the sodomite have confused immortality with heaven. Dante wrote that the devil is frozen, immobile, into the bottom of the pit. That would prevent the devil from soaring with the saints and angels. The devil roams the earth seeking the ruin of souls. The practice of homosexual behavior is the “ruin of souls”. Only one of many.

  • “If you get a girl pregnant and desert her, then I’ll put a two bitted ax in your head.” I Love You, Paul W. Primavera, but only Platonically. I believe that this love is called friendship. Your dad was a feminist. He did right by you. Do you know Paul, that science has determined that when a woman carries a child, some of the baby’s cells with his genome enter the mother’s body and the woman carries her beloved. Pretty awesome. I very much appreciate your handsome knowledge of Sacred Scripture and your generosity in sharing. God bless you.

  • “Mary, that phrasing seems wrong. God gives us our identity, but he doesn’t make us identical to God. That sacred name applies, as I understand it, only to the God who absolutely, unconditionally Is.
    ” God’s “I AM” is infinite. Man’s “I AM” is finite. God creates all things and keeps them in existence. Therefore, the man who exists, exists at the will of God “I AM” from one instance to the next. In Jesus Christ, God’s “I AM” is justified, and redeemed.

  • Leo,

    If you wanted to have a civil, rational, intelligent discussion without name-calling, you really shouldn’t have started out by calling my reply to your first post “disingenuous.” You poisoned this well.

    I don’t hold grudges, so let’s move on.

    As for your first point, let me make this simple: I don’t care if the arguments are the same. It means nothing to me. As far as private property rights go, the argument is valid in both cases.

    And I’d like you to consider my questions. Would any of these comparisons be made if it were a cabal of Satanists demanding that Catholics photograph their ritual desecration of the Eucharist? Would these ridiculous comparisons to Jim Crow Alabama be made on behalf of the poor, persecuted Satanists?

  • Nate,

    “As a Catholic Worker, and thus as a good anarchist and pacifist, I would sweep aside all these laws that protect us from persecution. Let sin boil up. Let all our hidden hatreds come to the surface. Let the truth reign. And then let us pray for the Holy Spirit to wipe us all clean. The government cannot secure human rights. It can’t even identify them.”

    I’m fine with that. If you think I’m arguing that “my” group ought to have protections while gays or Satanists should have none, you’ve misread me.

    For the the record: I do not object to Muslims refusing to photograph Christian weddings, or Satanist real-estate agents refusing to sell homes to Jews, or anything of the sort. I don’t believe in protected categories at ALL when it comes to private property rights. Gays can boycott Christian businesses they don’t like, just as we can boycott companies that support the obscene “gay agenda.”

  • I am concerned about attempts by radical caders representing a tiny minority using the coercive power of the state to impose their will in an authoritarian manner on people they could not rationally persuade to approve of their lifestyles. I am concerned with the preservation of MY right, MY liberty, to disapprove and to avoid behavior that I believe is morally vile and reprehensible.

    If I don’t have that right, then I may as well live in a third-world dictatorship.

  • Joe nobody is born doing homosexual things.

  • I don’t understand the argument for homosexuality or why it would be reasonable so if someone who does have an argument and is friendly enough to post it please do.

  • Sparhawk it seems a little unfriendly to keep a roommate out of the room for such unjustified things.

  • Valentin: Yes, you’re right. As I said, Tyler was in violation of the housing code, not to mention common courtesy, in expecting to have the room to himself and to de facto kick out his roommate. From what I’ve read on the matter, Tyler had problems relating to people and communicating with his peers. Assuming he could make the room off-limits to another person paying A LOT for board takes nerve. And he should have been held accountable.

  • Pingback: Luckless in New Mexico « Blithe Spirit
  • Valentin, of course not, but the inclination is there from the beginning and acted upon as soon as the person reaches sexual maturity. Of course, adultery and fornication are equally condemned in Scripture — which is much ignored by the Bible thumpers, who seem to have a special disdain for homos. However, I must say I find homosexual activity more perverse than either adultery or fornication, which, though “sins,” seem more “normal” to me though no less punishable by the “creator” who allegedly made all of us.

  • Bonchamps

    As far as private property rights go, it is law that distinguishes mere possession (which is a physical fact) from ownership (which is a legal right) and law is an expression of the general will. Hence, Theodore Roosevelt’s words, “Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.”

    This was treated as a truism, long before Socialism was ever heard of. As the great classical scholar, Charles Rollin (1661-1741), reminds us, “Theft was permitted in Sparta. It was severely punished among the Scythians. The reason for this difference is obvious: the law, which alone determines the right to property and the use of goods, granted a private individual no right, among the Scythians, to the goods of another person, whereas in Sparta the contrary was the case.”

    You can see this principle everywhere enunciated in the French Revolution. Take Mirabeau (a moderate) “Property is a social creation. The laws not only protect and maintain property; they bring it into being; they determine its scope and the extent that it occupies in the rights of the citizens” So, too, Robespierre (not a moderate) “In defining liberty, the first of man’s needs, the most sacred of his natural rights, we have said, quite correctly, that its limit is to be found in the rights of others. Why have you not applied this principle to property, which is a social institution, as if natural laws were less inviolable than human conventions?”

  • Without reading most of the Comments, let me come back again with this simple question, my good people. If I was born with the propensity of being a thief, would it be OK for me to take stealing as my lifelong occupation and not get punished because I was born that way???? Of course, not. Those child abusers who excuse themselves by saying they were born that way, do we say OK continued raping your infant daughter, continue sodomising your pre-teen son, your pupil, if you are a Teacher, your Choir youngsters, if you are a Protestant Pastor???? OF COURSE NOT. And, oooh yes, the Catholic Church has been crucified for the Priests who abused minors. If we accept Leo’s Creed none of those I have mentioned should be admonished and punished.

    And how about a murderer claiming I was born with the propensity of killing people because it gives me great sexual joy to see a person expiring before my eyes????? Surely, we all know where such a person belongs.

    So, again I say, sodomy, lesbianism are perversities that should never be accepted by normal, rational, intelligent human beings. And on this Catholic Website, we must PROCLAIM FROM THE ROOFTOPS…..WE REJECT TOTALLY THESE ABBERATIONS. THEY ARE INTRINSICALLY EVIL, INHUMAN, BEYOND ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR AND MUST BE REJECTED. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church shall never teach, accept or permit anything with is contrary to God’s and Natural Law. We pray for those with sodomy and lesbianism perversities but they MUST STOP pushing their filthy acts down our throats, forcing us to accept their bestialities, let alone accepting their unnatural co-habitations can be called “Marriage”. Marriage is between One man and One Woman. Even male animals do not mate with male animals. Sheesh, this Culture is Devilish….and once again, in the name of God I pray for these people that they look for a cure to their perversions…….the Medical Science must surely have an answer to cure these dirty disorders.

  • Michael,

    The Church holds that private property is a natural right, and that labor is what confers the status of private property on any object:

    “Now, when man thus turns the activity of his mind and the strength of his body toward procuring the fruits of nature, by such act he makes his own that portion of nature’s field which he cultivates – that portion on which he leaves, as it were, the impress of his personality; and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his very own, and have a right to hold it without any one being justified in violating that right.” — Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 9

    It is simply false that the law “creates” private property.

    “Nature accordingly must have given to man a source that is stable and remaining always with him, from which he might look to draw continual supplies. And this stable condition of things he finds solely in the earth and its fruits. There is no need to bring in the State. Man precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body. ” — RN, 7

    Private property rights exist prior to the state. The state exists to protect them:

    “the State has for its office to protect natural rights, not to destroy them” — RN, 51

    Of course, the state can “regulate” private property. You can’t use your private property to violate someone else’s rights, or to engage in evil behavior (i.e. pornography or prostitution or something like that).

    “The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair.” — RN, 47

  • The first Commandments given by directly, in-Person God Almighty are found in Genesis.

    “Go forth and be fruitful (procreate)” is given in genesis six or seven times not just to man, but to all creatures.

  • 10% of the population is left-handed, 3% is queer, and so on. God must have gotten bored making the rest of us perfect. : )

  • If the homosexual activist could give proof positive that the immortal soul of the partner and his own immortal soul will not be going to eternal, infernal damnation, that he is not subject to death, that almighty God Who made all things and keeps them in existence cannot watch over His creation, even while some men abuse themselves through homosexual behavior, for God to see exactly what these individuals are doing, then and only then, will I be free to make an informed choice to give informed consent to aggravated assault and battery of the anus.
    Recently posted was the suicide of a young man, Tyler, who jumped off the George Washington Bridge because his homosexual behavior was broadcast into the public domain. God is watching and sees all homosexual behavior. When, in olden days, Kings and Queens married, their bishop had to present himself into their marriage chamber to verify that the marriage was consummated. So, the bishop did witness to the consummation of the marriage covenant and to the legitimacy of the children who became the next in line for the throne. God watched the consummation of the marriage covenant without the screen the bishop used. God watches every person in every instance of their life. It is called Divine Providence and found inscribed in our Declaration of Independence. So, each and every individual must live accordingly, in grace and dignity, for God is watching.
    P.S. I really do not believe that any individual will be spared death and judgment. This is what the devil, Satan, promised Adam and Eve. Abel was murdered and Adam and Eve both died. The homosexual proponent has embraced a losing argument.
    P.P.S. If a bishop was not present in your marriage chamber, you and your offspring will probably not be the next king and/or queen. Off the cuff: Does anyone know if the bishop was present in Obama’s marital chamber?

  • It is government’s duty to protect private property, virginity, innocence and “to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. In Executive Order 13575, Rural Councils, Obama arrogated to himself the unauthorized power to seize private property at will.

  • Bonchamps

    But we read in the 2nd book of Institutes and in the 41st book of the Digest of Justinian that “those things that we take from enemies become ours by Natural Law (naturali ratione). In fact, for the Roman jurists, it is the paradigm case of acquisition of ownership. Now, without a law and a ruler, all men are enemies, so there would be no security of possession. His “natural right” is only as good as his natural powers of defending it.

    The Church certainly recognises strict limits to the right of private property. Populorum Progressio (23), citing St Ambrose, “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich,” declares, “These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional. No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life.”

    As an example, the Pope states (24) that “ If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.”

    So there you have it; a right that is contingent (“not absolute”), conditional and defensible (by expropriation). Even Robespierre was asserting no more than that.

  • Not to get off topic here, but I’m not so sure Mary is correct about bishops and royal weddings. I know it was common practice for bishops to bless the marriage bed/chamber of a newly married king/queen or prince/princess on their wedding night…. but did they REALLY have to stick around to witness the, ahem, main event? I rather doubt that. There were other ways of verifying that a royal marriage had been consummated that were, shall we say, a bit less intrusive.

    Returning to our topic…

    I know some people like to compare the photographer refusing to do photos for a same-sex “wedding” to restaurants refusing to serve blacks in the Jim Crow South.

    However, there is another important difference between the two situations (besides the difference between race and sexual preference/orientation/behavior). The segregation that took place in the South was enforced by STATE laws and local ordinances and was not necessarily, or entirely, the result of “free market” choices by individual business owners exercising their right to do business as they pleased. If a restaurant owner had wanted to serve black customers in the Jim Crow era, he/she would have been forbidden by state law to do so, just as a restaurant owner who does NOT want to serve blacks today is forbidden by both federal and state law from refusing such service.

    If New Mexico had a state law forbidding ALL business owners from providing services to couples attempting same-sex marriages, on the grounds that same-sex marriage is illegal in that state (and at last report, it was), then the gay couple in question might have grounds to sue to have that law overturned. An argument could be made that if such a state law existed, it would be an unjust infringement upon not only the rights of the couple involved, but upon the rights of business owners who wanted to provide services for same-sex weddings, or had no objections to doing so.

    But that is not the case here. This is an individual choice by ONE business owner, which leaves other business owners perfectly free to provide the services the same-sex couple is seeking.

  • A photographic studio or shop, offering goods or services to the public was held to constitute “public accommodation.”

    Pretty well anything amounting to commerce or business is covered. The sale of a house, as in Nate’s example, would not be covered, unless the seller was a builder or developer, who makes a business out of selling houses. But a realtor would be covered

    If that’s the case, then it sets a pretty troubling precedent, even if same sex marriages were a-ok. Private businesses should have the legal right to choose their clients – especially if said businesses aren’t essential to life. I think refusing to sell food and water to a same-sex couple would be very wrong, but refusing to take their pictures? Nah.

  • Michael,

    I don’t care about Robespierre. I don’t care about the 54th book of Blah or the 78th Treatise on Blegh. In some contexts these might be relevant, depending upon what you want to establish. As concerns the moral rightness and justification of a thing, only Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium count.

    You’ve ignored the multiple quotations from Rerum Novarum I provided that demonstrate that the right to private property is natural, sacred, and inviolable – subject to some regulations, to be sure, but not to excessive taxation and certainly not expropriation for some social cause.

    “The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.” — RN, 15

    “We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable.” — RN, 46

    Meanwhile, this statement:

    “These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional. No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life.”

    What does this mean, exactly? That “appropriating surplus goods” in such conditions (and if we think globally, this would mean EVERYONE) ought to be illegal? Or that it is simply immoral? If there is an argument here that the “surplus goods” ought to be confiscated by the state and redistributed to the needy, I don’t see it. If it is simply a moral admonishment, fine.

    What we have a natural RIGHT to is the fruits of our labor, which become our property. Whether or not we privately own the fruits of our labor has NOTHING TO DO with the material condition of our neighbor. Of course if we refuse to act charitably towards those in need when we very well could, then we will be held accountable by God.

    I don’t want to get into all the reasons why I find Giovanni Montini’s statements, especially about economics, highly suspect and not deserving of uncritical and immediate assent. But I don’t believe I can be faulted for standing firmly on the foundation laid by Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum.

  • Bonchamps your last comment seems dangerous are you saying that the Gospel is the only word of God? or are you saying that if something says something contrary the Gospel should be rejected? because one big difference the Baptists and us Catholics is that Baptists claim that the Gospel is the only word of the lord where as we believe that the Gospel is the word of the lord.

  • I didn’t even mention the Gospel.

    RN = Rerum Novarum. An encyclical by Pope Leo XIII.

  • There should be a “to” in between “the” and “Gospel” as well as a “it” in between “Gospel” and “should”

  • I also clearly said that Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are the sources of authority.

    You need to read carefully before you post.

  • Bonchamps I had a few pretty big typos when you read my comment.

  • Well Ultimately Christ, The Father, and The Holy Spirit are the source of authority because they are the Author, but The Holy Spirit being the protector of Tradition and The Magisterium and God speaking through the Prophets as well as written accounts by the Apostles all three you mentioned do have Authority.

  • A group based on pride does not have Authority because pride is a vice. Therefore Gay Pride groups do not have authority.

  • I don’t care about your typos. Your implication that I was somehow elevating the Gospel above other sources of authority was clear even with the typos, and it is that implication that is completely false. I didn’t even mention the Gospels. So I really don’t know why you would even say such a thing.

  • I was not saying you were doing that I was asking whether you were.

  • The typos were significant typos which should not be there because they change the entire comment.

  • Why would you even ask it?

  • I asked because I was not sure what you meant when you said that The Scriptures, The Tradition, and The Magistereum are the sources of authority.

  • What was unclear about that?

  • Whether you were saying that because those are sources authority there is no other source of authority or whether you were saying that nothing that is incompatible with the sources can have authority.

  • Elaine: I was not there. I will try to find the text. My point is that God is there. Your post on “free market” is excellent.

  • Bonchamps

    I mentioned the Corpus Juris of the Catholic emperor Justinian, because it has been treated by theologians and canonists as an authoritative (but no infallible) source of Natural Law reasoning.

    As for the Magisterium, the best interpretation of earlier encyclicals is the light cast on their teaching by later ones and we should read Rerum Novarum in a way that is compatible with Populorum Progressio.

    Now, Section 23 gives a clear rôle to the civil authority, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.” Here the Pope is quoting from the Letter to the 52nd Social Week at Brest, in L’homme et la révolution urbaine, Lyon: Chronique sociale (1965), 8-9.

    He then proceeds to give the example I have already cited, “If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.” I call it an example, for it is difficult to suppose that one régime applies to immoveable property and another to movables or to intellectual property, or that one is liable to expropriation and the other is not. Certainly, there is nothing in the encyclical to suggest this

    The balance to be struck is set out in Section 33, “Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for “directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating” the work of individuals and intermediary organizations.

    It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. But they must also see to it that private initiative and intermediary organizations are involved in this work. In this way they will avoid total collectivization and the dangers of a planned economy which might threaten human liberty and obstruct the exercise of man’s basic human rights.”

  • Michael,

    “As for the Magisterium, the best interpretation of earlier encyclicals is the light cast on their teaching by later ones and we should read Rerum Novarum in a way that is compatible with Populorum Progressio.”

    If you want to do that, be my guest. I cannot overlook what is a clear conflict of fundamental assumptions about the origin of private property. I also can’t overlook Montini’s left-wing sympathies, including his meetings with Saul Alinsky.

    “Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. ”

    This is faulty logic, commonly found among left-liberals and socialists. The “interplay of competition” increases everyone’s wealth – it is not a zero-sum game in which some people grow rich at the cost of other people’s poverty.

    Finally, the idea that you can have “public authorities” establishing goals, plans, and methods – and then graciously allowing private property owners to participate in them – while avoiding a planned economy is rather spurious. The best “plan” is to allow people to make rational economic decisions within a legal framework that protects private property rights.

  • “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich,”
    “My kingdom is not of this world” The principle of separation of church and state. “You would not have power if it had not been given to you from above.” Caesar belongs to God. In the Old Testament, the Israelites acknowledged God. Every seventh year was a Jubilee Year. The land reverted back to God, its Creator. After the Jubilee year, the land, according to its legal demarcations, usually reverted to its original owners. During the Jubilee year, the soil was left fallow. The soil was left to rest, untilled and the people ate of the aftergrowth.
    The Popes’ encyclicals speak to the sovereign individual person, to the soul of each and every one, literally, to their conscience. Read from this perspective, the Popes’ encyclicals encourage perfect charity and conscientious stewardship. If one has more than one can handle, one probably has more than he needs and ought to share for the sake of the land, if not for brotherhood, knowing full well that if he falls into need, his fellow brethren will share with him, and even in their need. The Popes’ encyclicals are a call to serve God righteously…in one nation under God.
    Proper government seeks to serve, to establish Justice and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our posterity for the common good in good will. Government exists at the will of the people, for the people and by the people.
    Communism denies that it is a creature of the people, existing at the will of the people. Communism is the imposition of unauthorized, usurped power over the people, as in the HHS mandate. Communism is evil because it denies the Creator, the nature of the human being, as a sovereign person, composed of body and immortal soul, redefines the laws of nature to accommodate its evil agenda, and usurps the unalienable rights endowed by “their Creator”.
    Obama’s regime demands good will towards its evil agenda. Hitler made the slaves sing and smile on their way to the work camps… or death. Hitler demanded that Hitler be their “pursuit of Happiness”.

  • The New Mexico case is a decision of an intermediate appellate court dealing with state law. I do not know the laws of New Mexico, all the facts of the case, or whether the case will be appealed. But I suspect this article is not telling the whole story.

    As for the Canadian cases, Canada is not the United States. Canada does not have a First Amendment. It’s a completely different legal system that has no bearing on US law.

  • Canada does not have a First Amendment. It’s a completely different legal system that has no bearing on US law.

    Constitutional provisions will be ignored when the collective culture of the Bar changes. Our appellate judiciary is not overly endowed with integrity. When the wind shifts, constitutional protections for the spoken and written world will matter no more than freedom of contract amongst local businesses.

  • Art Deco is correct: “Constitutional provisions will be ignored when the collective culture of the Bar changes. Our appellate judiciary is not overly endowed with integrity. When the wind shifts, constitutional protections for the spoken and written world will matter no more than freedom of contract amongst local businesses.”

    The Constitution means nothing to these collectivists except as it exists to block their schemes. It like manner the Declaration of Independence means nothing. Nor coincidentally do Holy Writ, the Magisterium or Sacred Tradition.

    Their god is themselves. Their religion is hedonistic libertinism. Their goal is the destruction of anything sacred, including but not limited to God. They had their chance and succeeded with murdering God on the Cross, and that proved to be not their victory but their defeat.

    They may ignore or void the Constitution. They may ignore or void the Declaration of Independence. But one day every knee shall bend and every tongue shall confess that HE is Lord of all to the glory of God the Father. Obama and his minions from hell shall NOT escape. Hallelujah!

  • Jim,

    “The New Mexico case is a decision of an intermediate appellate court dealing with state law. I do not know the laws of New Mexico, all the facts of the case, or whether the case will be appealed. But I suspect this article is not telling the whole story.”

    Well, when you discover what part of the story it is I’m not telling through your own diligent research, please share with us all.

    “As for the Canadian cases, Canada is not the United States. Canada does not have a First Amendment. It’s a completely different legal system that has no bearing on US law.”

    No one said it “had bearing on US law.” The point is to highlight the aggressive and totalitarian impulse of the gay movement.

  • It is amazing that some people assert that 2 men deserve the same “rights” as a married man and woman, 2 men by natural law cannot procreate we know this whereas a married man and woman can and so a married man and woman deserve to be recognised as more in accordance with god than 2 men trying and failing to reach the same position as the married couple.

  • “The point is to highlight the aggressive and totalitarian impulse of the gay movement”

    If a man or woman does not love enough to sublimate their sexual impulses, they do not love at all. Homosexual behavior is not only not marriage, homosexual behavior is not love. The gay-movement seeks to codify the vice of lust as the virtue of Love. The gay-movement seeks to impose corruption and abolish the duty of the state to protect virginity, innocence and the freedom of the people to protect their virginity and innocence. The gay-movement seeks to impose their phallic idolatry on America’s founding principles as an unalienable right endowed by “their Creator”. The gay-movement is not an individual, a unique person created by God. The gay-movement is actually demanding to be recognized as a legal corporation enjoying the freedom of a legal corporation as an artificial person and they are demanding birth as an artificial person from every sovereign citizen. A normal gay-person lives his private life, privately and does not demand that any other person recognize him as an establishment anti-thetical to culture, family and the founding principles. Only individual persons are created equal, with unalienable rights, not so of legal entities or artificial corporations whose so -called “rights” are inscribed by their founders at will, to be imposed by their founders, upon the will of the people.

  • Valentin wrote

    “It is amazing that some people assert that 2 men deserve the same “rights” as a married man and woman, 2 men by natural law cannot procreate we know this whereas a married man and woman can”

    Absolutely. It is very noticeable that, whilst the civil codes of various countries rarely define marriage, they all contain the rule that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father and many jurists have seen filiation as the primary purpose of civil marriage

    It was this consideration that led the highest courts in a country so wedded to the principle of laïcité as France to reject same-sex marriage on equality grounds, as not so much immoral as illogical.

  • Roe v. Wade created an artificial community of individuals who could legally separate the human body from the human soul, literally dismember the soul from the body, and thereby end the begotten humanity yet to be born. The community of Roe v. Wade was superimposed upon our founding principles enumerated in The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Roe was to have been tried under Freedom of Religion as humanity is a gift from God. Another illegally contrived, superimposed community opposed to God is a different religion. Roe establishes atheism. The Right to Choose community chooses between the Person of God, their Creator and endower of unalienable right to Life, the Giver of Life and the taker of Life, the abortionist.

    Atheism, tried under the penumbra of Freedom of Religion at least acknowledged God and the fact that now, the Person of God was being dispossessed under the artificial legal person contrived called penumbra, a lie and perjury in a court of law.

    Gay-marriage agenda, another artificial illegal community intends to supplant matrimony as the proper relationship between one man’s soul and another woman’s soul in covenant. Matrimony is a covenant between two persons, body and immortal soul, ordained by God. The gay-marriage agenda too, must be tried under Freedom of Religion, since it too, judges what is God’s and what is man’s. God is the source of authority in civil marriages.

    “or prohibit the free exercise thereof” has been used against every virtue and all that is Holy. “Or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” is being used as license by every vice against every virtue. These illegal constructs must be tried under the penumbra of TRUTH, God is TRUTH, Freedom of Religion and the First Amendment. The First Amendment is a single virtue of peaceable assembly to speak, and pray about ‘their Creator”, in public and in private, as all persons are joint and common tenants of the public square.

    The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights declares that all inalienable human rights are derived from the people to whom a person is born, but it does not tell of the Freedom of God WHO endows the people with their freedom and inalienable human rights. Kind of like Human Rights and FREEDOM evolve from America. The evolution of inalienable human rights from other people is another false construct that must be tried under the First Amendment’s Freedom of God and man’s response to the gift of Faith from God, man’s Religion.

    One world government under the bank did not work in the European Union why would it work in America?

The Left Suddenly Uncomfortable with Concept of Judicial Review

Wednesday, April 4, AD 2012

Don has covered President Obama’s not too subtle threat to the Court that it not dare strike down all or even part of Obamacare.  Yesterday he somewhat toned down his remarks, but still managed to step in it.

At an appearance this afternoon, a reporter asked Obama a question following up on yesterday’s comments: “Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be ‘unprecedented’ for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the court’s done during its entire existence. If the court were to overturn the individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn’t have health care after that ruling?”

Obama’s answer to the question was that he expects to win in court, and “as a consequence, we’re not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies.” He went on to talk at some length about the “human element”–that is, people who would supposedly suffer in the absence of ObamaCare. Message: Obama cares, though not enough to spend “a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies.”

But the most interesting part of his answer was the beginning, in which he tried to walk back, or at least clarify, his statement from yesterday. He spoke slowly, with long pauses, giving the sense that he was speaking with great thought and precision: “Well, first of all, let me be very specific. Um [pause], we have not seen a court overturn [pause] a [pause] law that was passed [pause] by Congress on [pause] a [pause] economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned [pause] at least since Lochner,right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre-New Deal.”

As James Taranto points out, this response is wrong on multiple levels.  The case that Obama cites in fact pre-dates the New Deal by a good thirty year.  Second, the full title of the case – Lochner vs. New York – tells us that this was a case involving state law, not federal legislation.  As Taranto further explains, there have been plenty of Supreme Court cases in which the high court struck down state laws, some dealing with economic matters.  And there of course have been plenty of cases where the Court has in fact declared federal statutes unconstitutional.  In fact two cases in the late 90s – US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison – directly implicated the commerce clause, and in both cases the Court rendered a 5-4 decision overturning acts of Congress which relied upon the commerce clause for their justification.

But other than that, I guess Obama was spot on.

The broader issue, other than Obama’s seeming ignorance of constitutional law, is that the left has suddenly decided that they don’t much care for this concept of judicial review.

Continue reading...

36 Responses to The Left Suddenly Uncomfortable with Concept of Judicial Review

  • Much of the Left is going through a collective melt down that is a pure joy to behold. They really did buy into the malarkey that Obama was going to be FDR II. Now that he has turned out to be, on his good days, Jimmy Carter II, they are left to rant against the Supreme Court to attempt to save the miserable ObamaCare, the sole accomplishment of the Obama administration, unless they consider an accomplishment the amassing in three years of the amount of debt it took the Bush administration eight years to run up.

  • I rarely disagree with Don (or Paul for that matter), but my take on Obama’s commentary differs. I don’t think he is registering any discomfort with the concept of judicial review. He is simply claiming that the Court should be deferential to the legislature rather than activist in its own understanding of its role. And he is pointing out that this is a conservative principle that should be embraced by a conservative Court, implying that to do otherwise would be hypocrisy. Of course, the real hypocrisy rests with Obama et al who normally have no problem with judicial activism trumping state or federal legislation that they find disagreeable.

    I think the claims that the administration is somehow suggesting that an adverse ruling by the Court would be invalid or illegitimate are over the top and largely just grandstanding attempts to score rhetorical points. When he suggests that the Court would be over-stepping its powers to strike down the mandate Obama is saying exactly the same thing that we conservative said, and quite correctly, with respect to the Court’s decision in Lawrence. We were making a claim on the merits, as is he. No one is suggesting that the Court is without the legal power to render a decision with which many will disagree and honestly believe is wrong and therefore an inappropriate exercise of authority.

    With respect to judicial activism, this case presents a clash of two conservative principles. First, courts should be uphold laws even if they disagree with them, as long as they are constitutional. In other words, courts should not confuse their policy preferences with constitutional boundaries. Second, courts should respect the fact that the Constitution allocates only limited powers to the federal government, with those unallocated (including general police powers) resting with the states, subject to the Bill of Rights. Opponents of Obamacare are relying on the second principle to trump the first. Obama and other proponents are citing the first principle as a tactic to convince the Court and the American public that the mandate is constitutional, even from a conservative perspective — nothing out of bounds about that really.

    Finally, I don’t think that Obama’s inference of hypocrisy misses the mark completely. The mandate issue is not an easy one. On the one hand, plainly it is an attempt to regulate interstate commerce. But doing so by requiring people to purchase a product whether they want to or not was almost certainly beyond the comprehension of the Framers and also without precedent. But nor is their precedent to the contrary. As odious as this legislation is to me, I do not consider its constitutionality an easy question. just because the Framers may not have envisioned an expansive federal government does not mean they didn’t give us the architecture to allow for it.

    Obama is a terrible President for a host of reasons. We hardly need to manufacture any phony ones — and I think this one really is phony.

  • Perhaps it’s not a direct refutation of the concept of judicial review (though in the case of Dowd, she is certainly implying as much). What Obama is doing is casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Court’s decision, and I suspect we’ll see a lot more of this in various corners on the left over the coming months. I do honestly think that his original comments were made in attempt to sway the Court. Plan B is to convince the public that the Court is usurping its legitimate authority.

    Do I put it beyond Obama to try and make an end-run around the Court? No. At least, there is greater than zero chance that he would try and pull an Andrew Jackson. I’m not saying it’s likely, but sadly there is a chance.

    As odious as this legislation is to me, I do not consider its constitutionality an easy question.

    I do, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on that question.

    We hardly need to manufacture any phony ones — and I think this one really is phony.

    I’m not sure it’s phony to point out that Obama is attempting – as usual – to demagogue an issue in order to cover his ass.

  • Obama’s minions are taking up the cudgels in support of his bullying of the Court. David R. Dow, Cullen Professor at the University of Houston Law Center, calls for the impeachment of Justices who vote against ObamaCare if they strike down ObamaCare.


    What makes this hilarious is that Dow wrote a book called America’s Prophets: How Judicial Activism Makes America Great.


    Mike, I have a huge amount of respect for you, as you know, but there is nothing phony about this issue. Obama knew precisely what he was doing when he picked this fight with the Court. This may well become the major issue this year, after the economy.

  • In 2008, it was “Hope and Change!”

    In 2012, it’s “Obey me!”

    They don’t know how to think. They only know what to think.


    Plus, clueless Prof. Dow ain’t too smart. He apparently confused which SCOTUS impeachee he was ranting over.

    From an Instapundit commenter.

    “He’s not even writing about the right justice.

    “Samuel Chase is the justice who was impeached in 1805. Salmon Chase was the chief justice appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1864.”

  • If they can make you buy health insurance, what else can they make you buy or make you do, or . . . ?

    The New York Sun: “Ex Parte Obama”

    “It’s been a long time since we’ve heard a presidential demarche as outrageous as President Obama’s warning to the Supreme Court not to overturn Obamacare. T he president made the remarks at a press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. It was an attack on the court’s standing and even its integrity in a backhanded way that is typically Obamanian. For starters the president expressed confidence that the Court would “not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” . . .

    “It is outrageous enough that the president’s protest was inaccurate. What in the world is he talking about when he asserts the law was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”? T he Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act barely squeaked through the Congress. In the Senate it escaped a filibuster by but a hair. T he vote was so tight in the house — 219 to 212 — that the leadership went through byzantine maneuvers to get the measure to the president’s desk. No Republicans voted for it when it came up in the House, and the drive to repeal the measure began the day after Mr. Obama signed the measure.

    “It is the aspersions the President cast on the Supreme Court, though, that take the cake. We speak of the libel about the court being an “unelected group of people” who might “somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” This libel was dealt with more than two centuries ago in the newspaper column known as 78 Federalist and written by Alexander Hamilton.”

  • For the record, Dowd is an idiot shill. Who cares what she thinks. Dow is also a shill, if not an idiot. He, like many college profs, doesn’t have a bone of academic integrity in him. It may be that these fools are doing Obama’s bidding, but I don’t think one can fairly tease that from the words that Obama has actually spoken. Obama is not attacking judicial review — he is asserting that his legislation is constitutional if considered under a conservative lens. It is not a silly argument, even if hypocritical. Moreover, while Obama failed to mention Lopez and Morrison those cases really don’t help opponents of Obamacare aside from the fact that they stand for the proposition that the commerce clause is not a blank check.

    Finally, regarding impeachment of judges for rendering disagreeable decisions, Dow’s position is silly beyond measure. The mandate question is unprecedented and the commerce clauses reach in that context cannot be easily discerned from the words. Unlike Paul, I can see merit in both arguments. Roe and progeny, however, not so. The Court just fabricated law to suit its policy preferences and in so doing truly did act outside the scope of its power. But even the most conservative jurists did not call for impeachment or governmental disobedience of the decision, although the case for such would at least be tenable. Professors like Dow are whores.

  • “Professors like Dow are whores.”

    Now that we agree on Mike! 🙂

  • Was the DOMA subject to “executive” judicial review when the DOJ, I believe, as ordered/requested by Mr. Obama publicly announced that it would no longer defend that piece of legislation passed by both houses of congress or was that merely an act in contempt of congress, which is ok when the executive branch has “issues” with legislation but is not ok when the, constituionally mandated, judicial branch has problems of its own with legislation it is required to review?

    Why has this man not been removed from office? Oops, I forgot, he is demagogue
    and they control the senate.

  • Speaking of lousy law professors, how bad must Obama have been?

  • Pinky, I can only imagine. The guy thinks Lochner was a commerce clause case involving the scope of Congress’s commerce clause powers. Yikes. What a dope.

  • Well, I certainly didn’t mean any disrespect. And I’m sure he’s an excellent law professor, when he’s in his comfort zone. But apparently making precise public statements about the most basic elements of Constitutional law is outside that zone. See, I’m not a lawyer, so I would’ve thought that ability was important. That shows how little us non-lawyers really understand.

  • Gee, where was Maureen Dowd after Roe V. Wade?


  • Rush suspects that Obama is playing dumb, to some extent, and is playing to the lowest common denominator. I suspect there is something to that. That said, yeesh, I pity any future lawyers trapped in a classroom with him.

  • Late in commenting. Just my typical hell fire and brimstone. I don’t expect there to be any justice on this earth.

    Every single one of us mortal human beings are going to be subject to Judicial Review. We will on that Great and Terrible Day be judged by the Supreme Justice Himself, and that judgment will be based on our deeds. Those who today call the murder of the unborn the right to choose, and the filth of homosexual sodomy civil rights will stand before the Great White Throne with no excuse, facing eye ball to eye ball the Almighty Himself. May God have mercy on their souls, and on ours for no one is exempt. God, being perfect Love, is absolute Justice, and He will NOT let the murder of the unborn or the filth of homosexual sodomy go unavenged.

    Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Matthew 7:13-14

  • The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act. It’s name is tenuous. The words “protection” and “affordable” are vague and subject to changes over time, meaning to say that coverage of what for whom is not set in stone. Since the government has no money to pay for anything, the administrators of the insurance can change and eventually deny coverage. There’s an issue in Massachusetts with limiting the dental procedures of MassHealth. And, he’s talking about the people, ‘human element’, that would suffer without this – call it an etch a sketch act because, I think, it applies more to the 2700 pgs. of HHS Admin (and not Gov. Romney). Considering the way this administration cannot budget after years on the job, I doubt that it would happen with health insurance.

  • From what I understand, Obama was not a Law professor, just a lecturer.

    “Obama is attempting – as usual – to demagogue an issue in order to cover his ass.”

    Yes, that’s his M.O., but although Barry is certainly a gifted demagogue, how do you get people angry because a law they never liked or approved of in the first place has been struck down? Two years ago, when this monstrosity was forced through Congress, I recall libs pooh-poohing the polls which showed Obamacare was despised by a majority of Americans. The conventional wisdom among leftists was that although the dumb American public (so inferior to those progressive Europeans) would initially resist the change, Old Silver Tongue would explain the goodness and necessity of the law so eloquently that our hard hearts would melt and we’d all be foursquare behind Obamacare by the time 2012 rolled around. Well, here it is, election year, and most Americans still think Obamacare stinks on ice. That wasn’t in the Dem script.

    Demagoging the issue will certainly motivate the Dem base. But the rest of us, who didn’t like the law then and don’t like it now? It’ll be a very tough sell, she said with a smile on her face.

  • Does anyone else think it’s ridiculously funny when Leftists whine about priests in ages past getting paid 10% tax which actually went to feeding people whereas now people have to pay something like 50% tax to the government and you don’t know what the hell most of it is funding. As far as health insurance goes if we had a monastary near every town and city the poor man could get free health care from monks. As far as I can tell Obama is a sneaky bastard who can’t be trusted as president, he is inconsiderate of the supreme court simply because of his acutely obvious overconfidence in his statements.

  • Someone compiled a list of why Obama can’t run on his record. Any other “firsts”?

    • First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

    • First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

    • First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States

    • First President to violate the War Powers Act. .

    • First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .

    • First President to defy a Federal Judge’s court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.

    • First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

    • First President to spend a trillion dollars on ‘shovel-ready’ jobs when there was no such thing as ‘shovel-ready’ jobs.

    • First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

    • First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat. .

    • First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.

    • First President to demand a company hand over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

    • First President to terminate America ’s ability to put a man in space.

    • First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

    • First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

    • First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

    • First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

    • First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

    • First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

    • First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

    • First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office. .

    • First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date.

    • First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.

    • First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

    • First President to go on multiple global ‘apology tours’.

    • First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends; paid for by the taxpayer.

    • First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

    • First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

    • First President to assets the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

    • First President to take a 17 day vacation.

  • Dow, Dowd, Holder, Obama, et al are children of Satan. They do their father’s bidding.

    They were never on the side of truth.

    There is no truth in them.

    They do what is natural to them. They lie.

    Their father is the father of all lies.

  • I’m confused. So what’s the big deal? Obama says that Lochner was the last time that the court struck down a legislative measure. But conservatives are saying “Ha! That was only state legislation, not federal legislation!!”. What’s the point? Obama is not wrong about it – and you’re all agreeing with him: Lochner was struck down regardless if it’s state or federal.

  • What’s the point? Obama is not wrong about it – and you’re all agreeing with him: Lochner was struck down regardless if it’s state or federal.

    Let’s see:

    He was wrong about it being federal legislation.
    He was wrong about the time period.
    He was wrong about the Court not having struck down major federal legislation since the New Deal era.

    So he was wrong about every single element, but somehow he was right?

    And the state/federal difference is not some minor distinction.

  • Has anyone put together a list of decisions that the average liberal supports where the Court struck down federal law? Roe, Griswold, and that Texas sodomy law were all cases where the Court overturned state law, yielding results that liberals wanted. I can’t think of any federal examples though.

  • Pinky,

    Off the top of my head, I would guess New York v. Clinton, which struck down the line item veto.

  • Pinky raises a very important point. Libs favor an expansive understanding of various “rights” hidden deep inside the creases of the constitution. Because these rights almost always serve to limit police powers and because police powers generally rest with the states, Libs tend to favor activist judges vis-a-vis state legislation. Because libs disfavor economic liberty and instead favor sweeping regulation of commerce, they support an expansive understanding of federal power via the commerce clause.

  • Wrong about the time period? The New Deal was from 1933 to 1936.
    Lochner v New York was from 1905.
    Obama said that it was pre-New Deal.

  • I just found a .pdf from the Government Printing Office listing Congressional acts that the Supreme Court overturned. Pretty interesting stuff. Congress keeps violating the commerce clause, and keeps getting called out for it. I also noticed that the Supreme Court really likes protecting obscenity and anything that can loosely be called free speech (such as flag burning).

  • Student – He said ’30’s, pre-New Deal.

  • What law cannot Congress pass that would not be legit by the lib interpretations of the “commerce clause”?

    Plus, Student’s right.

    Obama is never in error.

    Whatever he says is correct because it supports the agenda.

    For all such sons of Satan, the truth is that which serves their purposes.

    Obama is never wrong. He is ever lying.

  • Hey, I’m not saying that Obama’s never wrong.
    I was just about to comment that Zummo proved me wrong.

  • Has anyone put together a list of decisions that the average liberal supports where the Court struck down federal law?

    There was also United States v. Eichman where the Supreme Court struck down a federal statute against desecration of the US flag.

    Just to agree with Mike Petrik: when liberals fund expansive federal programs with tax dollars, it is difficult to show standing as a plantiff to bring suit.

  • Thanks Joe Green for listing many of Obama’s presidental actions to date. The list gives me pause on this Holy Saturday. The impulse to drop to my knees and implore God’s Mercy upon this nation whose leadership is so corrupt and the hearts of the citizens so ignorant and apathetic is great. Many are like sheep without a Shepherd; unable to recognize His Voice which beckons them to follow Truth and to receive life in abundance. Pontificating about the interior motives of the Presidents’ heart is speculation and generally a useless waste of energy.

  • I’m not law savvy…. but what is the big deal with the Commerce Clause and why do people feel that the courts should not strike down legislation when it pertains to the commerce clause? I get what commerce is, but what is it that makes it such a big deal for courts to strike down laws that fall under that banner of Commerce Clause.

    I’m liberal, but if Obamacare is wrong then it’s wrong. I’ve spoke to friends who are also liberal and I’ll ask “why is it wrong for the courts to strike down Obamacare?” and I just get the response “because it falls under the Commerce Clause”. Then I will ask “what about the Commerce Clause prevents legislation related to that clause from being stuck down by a court” and the response will be “Courts just shouldn’t do that.”

    It makes no flippin’ sense to me. Please help

  • Student,
    Our constitution grants Congress only limited powers, and each law Congress enacts must come within the ambit of those powers. The constitution grants Congress to power to regulate commerce among the states. The question is whether Obamacare (particularly the mandate) comes within the ambit of that power or is outside it. If the former, then the legislation is within Congress’s power to enact and the Court should uphold it; if the latter, then the legislation is outside of Congress’s power and the Court should strike it down.

  • Thank you for that answer, Mike.

    So then if it would be the former the courts do indeed have no right to strike down that type of legislation.

  • Yes, exactly. What the Court must do is discern whether the power to regulate commerce among the states inludes the power to require citizens to purchase health insurance. If it concludes that it does, then it should uphold the law. The question is not an easy one in my view. While the constitution does not generally limit *state* legislative powers outside the Bill of Rights (which is why the Massachusetts insurance mandate is almost certainly constititional), there must be a warrant for Congressional legislation. Congress’s commerce clause power has been construed broadly by federal courts, but it is not without limit. The idea that this power can be used to require each citizen to purchase a product he may not want would be almost certainly regarded as unthinkable by the Framers; yet, the language employed in the commerce clause seems broad on its face, and just because the Framers may not have intended to grant Congress such sweeping power does not mean that it did not do so nonetheless. Words can have meaning, and therefore effect, outside their intent. Nonetheless, critics have a powerful point in noting that such a power to compel an affirmative act dramatically alters our historic understanding between the relationship between our supposedly limited federal government and its individual citizens. While it is that alteration that supplies the disturbing subtext, the precise legal question many be more mundane, such as does the power to regulate interstate commerce include the power to require a person to engage in commerce who wishes not to. This is interesting stuff and reasonable people can come out differently in my view, though I realize that most of my fellow conservative commentators disagree with me on that.

Activism! They Cried

Tuesday, December 14, AD 2010

The reaction to Judge Hanson’s ruling in Virginia v. Sebelius was predictable:  rejoicing on the right . . . not so much on the left.  A few people actually attempted to analyze the decision on a legal, rather than policy basis.  (Shocking!)

It’s also not surprising in the least to hear the talking point going out – like on the appropriately named Talking Points Memo blog linked above – that this demonstrates conservative hypocrisy with regards to judicial activism.  After all, don’t conservatives bemoan activist judges who overturn the will of democratic legislatures?  This would be a fair point if it actually captured the gist of conservative sentiment on judicial matters.

Happily for us all I wrote a post some two and a half years back detailing why I didn’t like the term judicial activism.  I’ll re-post most of it here.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Activism! They Cried

  • Justice Thomas will buy it but it’s not clear that the others will. Justice Scalia concurred in Gonzales v. Raich which allowed the federal government to regulate non-economic intra-state activity if it frustrates the regulation of interstate commerce.

  • I guess we’ll see, but I disagree. It’s probably lining up as 4-4 from the start, and ultimately it will come down to what Justice Kennedy had for breakfast the morning he decides.

    As an aside, it’s a bit sad that the fate of our country so often winds up being decided by Anthony Kennedy. In that regard, I share Jeff Goldstein’s less than exuberant attitude this morning.

  • Great analysis Paul! How about judicial tyranny as a name replacement? I would call Judge Hanson’s ruling an act of Judicial constitutionalism which abides by the will of the people. Justice Kennedy is a centrist so it will be a close call, but ultimately the ruling will depend on the arguments by both sides.


  • For what it’s worth: I heard a lame stream media radio report call Judge Hanson a GOP judge.

    Is GOP a liberal swear word?

    Thank God for small mercies. They didn’t accuse the Judge of stealing money from impecunious, undocumented immigrants and penurious, single-parent families.

    Is the Supreme Court exempt from Obamacare? Congress is.

  • I don’t see Roberts getting five votes to “overturn the will of the people”. I can imagine one of those six-opinions in-part-concurring decisions that establishes no precedent and manages to cut a few paragraphs out of the legislation.

    Does the other side have a term for their approach, other than “living Constitution”?

  • I can see anything from 5-4 striking down the individual mandate to 8-1 upholding it. Attention has focused on Kennedy as the swing vote, but it’s easy to see Roberts, Alito, or even Scalia defecting.

    What killed the government in Lopez was that the government was asked to give an example of a law that would exceed Congress’ authority under their theory and weren’t able to do it. My understanding is that the government has so far been unable to give such an example in this case as well.

Not So Fast…

Monday, August 16, AD 2010

A Panel of the 9th Circuit has surprisingly issued a wise decision, deciding to allow Proposition 8 to remain in place while the 9th Circuit considers its constitutionality.

This was undoubtedly the right decision. It makes no sense to force a state to marry people while knowing that a later decision could invalidate all those marriages.

One hopes that this is the beginning of a trend in reversing Judge Walker, whose rulings in this case can best be described as what happens when judicial activism meets the dictatorship of relativism.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Not So Fast…

  • Judge Walker’s performance in this case would warrant impeachment if we were living in a just world. His bias in this case has been clear from the beginning and totally shameless.


  • Was this actually surprising? Wasn’t everyone expecting a stay? I was half expecting Judge Walker to stay his own decision.

  • I was half expecting Judge Walker to stay his own decision.


  • I was, but I was hoping Walker would be impartial enough to grant the stay himself. I hadn’t been paying attention to the trial, but I think Don is right: this is a really poor performance by a judge, and I sincerely hope Christians who handle abortion trials learn from Walker’s example of how not to behave.

  • Isn’t it awesome how the people of the state can decide the matter, but its really up to a judge or a panel of judges to decide what’s good for them.

  • I’m really curious about how the law schools will spin this. There was so much effort spent “debunking the myth” that Left-leaning judges are “activist.” Some decisions though have got to be hard to re-cast. This is probably one of them.

  • I’m really curious about how the law schools will spin this. There was so much effort spent “debunking the myth” that Left-leaning judges are “activist.”

    Actually, that’s not been my experience. The current spin (and I got it today in the opening class for Con Law II, which is about the Bill of Rights) is that all judges today are activist, not just liberals. Basically, when Scalia (their favorite target) or any conservative attacks activism, they’re being hypocrites and point to the gun rights decisions, among others.

  • when Scalia (their favorite target) or any conservative attacks activism, they’re being hypocrites and point to the gun rights decisions, among others.

    Judge A thinks the phrase “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, in a brief article which concerns that subject and the utility of the militia, refers to a personal right. Judge B fancies the phrase, “deny any person the equal protection of the laws” in an omnibus amendment granting freed slaves citizenship and cleaning up some other business from the civil war, requires county clerks to issue marriage licenses to pairs of dudes no matter what the various elected officials and general referenda say. Both are equally ‘activist’ to your classmates in Con Law II. Emphasis on ‘con’.

  • Good Morning Mr. Denton,

    1st – I hope your law school years are good and fruitful. Good luck and God bless.

    2nd – The narratives keep ranging back to what the Constitution IS – the whole Originalist vs. Living Constitutionalist debate. Since you are in law school, I’ll remind you that the Constitution is whatever your prof says it is. Work with their narrative and your grades will reflect your wisdom. (That is something I often found hard to do and my grades reflected that pig-headedness.)

  • In my experience, liberals embrace judicial activism. I think that’s a much more intellectually honest position than claiming that originalists are equally activist.

  • In my experience, liberals embrace judicial activism. I think that’s a much more intellectually honest position

    The notion that the phrases “The Judicial power shall extend to all cases under this Constitution” and “deny any person the equal protection of the laws” give you a roving mandate to arbitrarily annul any social policy you care to can be called many things. “Intellectually honest” is not one of them.

  • RR,

    How about a gravatar pic for your handle?