Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts

Monday, July 6, 2015

Quote of the Week - Kevin Cochran


“People of any faith, when they’re strong in their faith, they would choose to live out their faith over keeping their job,” Cochran said. “But that should not even be a dilemma for any American in this country.”

Kevin Cochran was fired as the Atlanta Fire Chief after gay activists attacked him for a book he wrote titled Who Told You You Were Naked?



“In the United States of America, we are guaranteed the freedom to live without fear of being terminated or experiencing any adverse action for the free expression of our beliefs and thoughts,” Cochran said. “It was an injustice against me on that basis.”




Tuesday, January 21, 2014

MLK Murder Conspiracy Trial




After four weeks of testimony and over 70 witnesses in a civil trial in Memphis, Tennessee, twelve jurors reached a unanimous verdict on December 8, 1999 after about an hour of deliberations that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. In a press statement held the following day in Atlanta, Mrs. Coretta Scott King welcomed the verdict, saying , “There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations.

Read it all here.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Two questions for Eric Holder


Here are two questions for Eric Holder:


1.  Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch because there'd been a rash of break-in at that housing development.  So, how many break-ins were reported after the Zimmerman-Martin confrontation?

2.  Our attorney general is protected by an armed security team.  Should an attacker come toward the attorney general, should his security team shout, "Come on, Eric, let's run for it!" -- or does he want them to stand their ground and shoot?

From here.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Messy Second Term: Incompetence, Ignorance or Indifference?


Too much golf and too many White House parties (on the tax payer's dime) may be affecting the President's focus.  He shows signs of slacking, maybe from indifference.


By Dan Balz

After answering questions Monday morning about two of the controversies that have undermined his administration, President Obama flew off to New York to raise money for the Democratic Party. There, before partisan donors, he reflected on his second term and said he will continue to reach out to Republicans. “I sure want to do some governing,” he explained.

Obama’s words suggest that he believes there is a way to compartmentalize the business of his second term: legislative and other business here, scandals over there. But things are too messy for that right now. A politician who has counted good luck as part of his skill set will need all the breaks he can muster to pull off that bit of political jujitsu.

Even in the best of times, Obama’s outreach to Republicans produced little in return — and these are no longer close to the best of times. The question is whether the barely civil relationship between the White House and the opposition party has been irreparably damaged. A related question is how much the controversies will weaken Obama’s standing with the public. Together, the answers will decide how effectively he can govern.

It is too early to draw any broad conclusions about the long-term damage to Obama’s presidency from the news that the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups and that the Justice Department collected two months of phone records from Associated Press reporters and editors. But in the moment, these controversies — along with the ongoing congressional investigation of the attacks in Benghazi, Libya — have created major challenges for the administration.

The president and his advisers have tried to insulate the White House from the actions of the IRS and the Justice Department, claiming ignorance. The IRS, officials argued Friday, is quasi-independent. It took the president three days to express his outrage at the agency’s actions. As for the Justice Department’s leak investigation, White House officials said Monday night that it was a department decision that was not forwarded to the president.

Those are temporary responses that probably will not be sufficient over time. The White House may have known nothing about either, but both are now the president’s problem. And both reflect questions about the administration that predate the revelations of the past few days.

Read it all here.

Monday, May 13, 2013

What does US accomplish by Guantanamo force feeding?


Of the 166 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, about 100 are on a hunger strike. About 20 are being force-fed, according to the New York Times. About 40 medical staff have arrived to ensure that the detainees are fed.

The men want their cases heard before a court. Many of them have been at Guantanamo for 12 years without being charged.

What are the medical ethics of force-feeding? It seems to violate the norms of informed consent and refusing burdensome treatment. The American Medical Association sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on April 25. It quoted the 1975 Tokyo Declaration of the World Medical Association which takes an umambiguous stand on the issue: "Where a prisoner refuses nourishment and is considered by the physician as capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgment concerning the consequences of such a voluntary refusal of nourishment, he or she shall not be fed artificially".

It is not clear how many doctors, if any, are involved in the force-feeding.

However, President Obama has ignored the niceties of medical ethics for the hunger strikers. He simply told the media, "I don't want these individuals to die." Politically it is impossible to release the detainees; legally it is hard to try them. So they remain in limbo, frustrated and angry.

The military has not released much information about the force-feeding regimen. But in The Daily Beast, infectious diseases expert Kent Sepkowitz, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, makes it sound excruciating:

"Without question, it is the most painful procedure doctors routinely inflict on conscious patients. The nose--as anyone knows who ever has received a stinger from an errant baseball--has countless pain fibers. Some patients may scream and gasp as the tube is introduced; the tear ducts well up and overflow; the urge to sneeze or cough or vomit is often uncontrollable... The procedure is, in a word, barbaric. And that's when we are trying to be nice."

However, he also is unsure what is to be done.

"In this debate individual doctors are stuck at a crossroads of unusual complexity. Sworn to alleviate pain and prevent death where possible, we also are sworn to respect the wishes of the individual. For us, there is no simple way out. Though sharing some similarities, the situation is distinct from respecting the wishes of a patient dying from an untreatable illness--starvation has a remedy."

From here.


Monday, April 22, 2013

Musharraf Arrested in Pakistan


ISLAMABAD, April 19: Former president retired Gen Pervez Musharraf was finally arrested on Friday in judges’ detention case and was shifted to the Police Line Headquarters from his Chak Shahzad farmhouse. Interestingly, the former military dictator has been detained at a place which is opposite a graveyard where unidentified bodies of people killed during Lal Masjid operation had been buried.




The general who is the first former army chief and head of state to be arrested has been kept at the Officers’ Mess and given the suite of Inspector General of Police. Sources said Gen Musharraf who was wearing a light brown Shalwar Kamiz looked depressed.

“He was not happy over the room given to him and his feelings were visible on his face,” they said, although policemen, including officers, were treating him as if he was still the country’s president.

The sources said the retired general had been assured that he would be shifted to his residence or a better place after some legal proceedings.

Read it all here.


Saturday, April 13, 2013

Justice Dept Launches LGBT Emphasis


The United States Department of Justice has launched a “Special Emphasis Program” to recruit and provide professional development to gay and transgender employees according to an internal memo obtained by PJ Media. The institutionalization of the Special Emphasis Program will ensure an “annual LGBT special observance event in June, outreach and awareness events, and professional development seminars (for LGBT employees).” Apparently the sequester was no obstacle to implementing this program.

See the document here.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Legal Equality or Marriage Redefined?


Raphael Sanzio
Marriage of the Virgin
Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan
Alice C. Linsley


The United States of America is facing the question of marriage, that is, whether the traditional definition will stand or whether "marriage" is a term that also can be applied to same-sex couples. The original amicus brief before the US Supreme Court, with its supporting documentation, can be found here.

Some are calling this the "trials of marriage." We should consider instead that "marriage is on trial."

Why the big push to call same-sex partnerships "marriage" in the United States?  The answer is clear: activism on many levels supported by a great deal of money.

Other countries call this same-sex civil "partnership" and this is legally equal to marriage between a man and a woman. So the issue is not equality before the law, but redefining marriage.

Norway has had "registered partnerships" since 1993.

Sweden has called them "registered partnerships" since 1994.

Hungary and Iceland have had "registered partnerships" since 1996.

France has called them “civil solidarity pacts” since 1999.

In Denmark “registered partnerships” were first recognized in 1998 as an alternative to marriage and an option for heterosexual couples. Adoption by homosexual couples was approved in 2000.

The Netherlands, Finland and Germany have had "registered partnerships" since 2001.

In the USA same-sex partnerships are recognized in nine states and the District of Columbia. It has been argued that the Federal government should apply federal "marriage" benefits uniformly, but the states decide what constitutes a civil union or marriage. It is clear that other countries do not uniformly recognize same-sex partnerships either. Argentina has had "partnership registration" since 2003 only in Buenos Aires city and Rio Negro province. Likewise, Australia implemented "cohabitation rights" in 1994 in the Capitol Territory, and in 1999 in New South Wales, and in 2001 in Victoria.

In Spain, despite the Socialist Party push to grant equal status to same-sex partnerships through the "Law of amendment of the Civil Code in the matter of Marriage," homosexual partnerships are not recognized by the Church and are limited to some states. The law is intentionally ambiguous. Zapatero remembers how the Spanish Republic, a coalition of Leftist groups, attempted to impose a new morality on Catholic Spain in 1936 and cast that nation into a bloody civil war.

Switzerland has permitted homosexuals to form "civil partnerships" since 2005.

Liechtenstein has had "registered partnerships" since 2002.

New Zealand passed a "civil union" bill in 2005.

It should be noted that none of these nations has chosen to call homosexual partnerships "marriage." The world consensus is that marriage is a unique institution between a man and a woman. The argument against DOMA involves the binary framework that is universally and empirically observed in the order of Nature. A lawyer has argued that the human race has "evolved" beyond this. The Justices do not appear to be convinced by this because they recognize that this overthrows the basis of empiricism.

Many countries that permit homosexual civil partnerships do not permit homosexual couples to adopt children. Justice Scalia rightly raised the concern for children in his questioning.

Same-sex partnerships can never be marriages. The essential property of marriage is the binary set of male-female. That said, there will continue to be challenges to the withholding of federal benefits from US citizens who are recognized as legal partners by the 9 states and DC. In Wednesday's hearing the challenge to DOMA failed to demonstrate federal government interest in this, except for Obama's politically-motivated advocacy against DOMA. The Judges will probably decide that special recognition of and uniform application of same-sex partnerships cannot come from the federal government without violation of the historic right of the states.


Related reading: Homosex not universally accepted; Civil Partnership Does Not a Marriage Make; SCOTUS Considers Gay "Marriage"; The Shaky Science Behind Same-Sex Marriage; Today's Savage Mind

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Louisiana Benedictines Win Coffin Case


A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that monks at St. Joseph Abbey near Covington should be allowedto sell handmade caskets from their monastery, despite opposition from Louisiana's funeral home directors who claimed a sole right to sell caskets in the state. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision to strike down a state law limiting casket sales to licensed members of the funeral industry.

The decision marks a victory for the Benedictine monastery, which has struggled for several years for the right to sell simple, wooden caskets built by monks in a woodshop to fund their medical and education needs. In 2007, the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors ordered the abbey to cease sales after a funeral home owner filed a formal complaint.

"We're just really thankful we can continue, because it means a lot to people," said St. Joseph Abbey's Abbot Justin Brown on Wednesday. "Every couple of weeks or so, I get a letter or a note or a phone call from people who have had our casket for a loved one, and they all are just so grateful and appreciative. It made them feel so good that they knew these caskets were made with love and prayer."

St. Joseph Abbey's lawyers said while the Fifth Circuit ruled against the Louisiana law, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a similar law limiting casket sales in Oklahoma in 2004. The divided opinion now leaves an opening for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh-in, if the Louisiana board decides to appeal, lawyers said.

Read it all here.


Friday, January 25, 2013

Obama violated constitution, bypassed Senate to fill Labor vacancies


President Obama violated the constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel.

Read the report here.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Anglican Communion Institute: The Presiding Bishop's Wrong Actions


November 27, 2012


To the Bishops of the Episcopal Church:


Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,


This is a painful letter. It is painful because it concerns un-canonical (and perhaps even unlawful) actions on the part of our Presiding Bishop and her associates. These actions, detailed in the attached appendix and summarized in the bullet points below, have already undermined the good order and spiritual health of our church. We write to you our Bishops because of your responsibility for that good order. We write as Presbyters who have in one way or another faithfully served our church for over half a century. We pray that, despite the painful nature of the story we place before you, you will listen to what we have to say with a clear and open mind.

We urge you, therefore, to take careful note of the following points that are more fully spelled out in our appendix. We urge you further to take the necessary steps to restore the good order of our church.
 
Three years ago, the Presiding Bishop began an extraordinary and unconstitutional intervention in the internal affairs of the Diocese of South Carolina. She hired a South Carolina lawyer, Thomas Tisdale, who held himself out as “South Carolina counsel for The Episcopal Church” and appeared to be gathering evidence for a disciplinary case against Bishop Lawrence. That is not our judgment in hindsight; it was Bishop Lawrence’s understanding at the time: “the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor, if not the Presiding Bishop herself, is seeking to build a case against the Ecclesiastical Authorities of the Diocese.”
 
Mr. Tisdale indicated he intended to scrutinize the internal administration of the Diocese on an ongoing basis for the Presiding Bishop, including reviewing recent ordinations, the actions of the Standing Committee, convention resolutions and especially the property arrangements of the Diocese’s parishes.
 
The Presiding Bishop advised the Executive Council at the outset of Mr. Tisdale’s activities in the Diocese that she had hired him so that those who wish “to stay Episcopalians there have some representation on behalf of the larger church.” She thereby lent her office and legal counsel to the small number of internal dissenters, numbering no more than 10-15%, who opposed Bishop Lawrence and the Diocese. This group subsequently made four or possibly five presentations to various bodies within TEC seeking to have Bishop Lawrence investigated for abandonment and action taken against the Diocese. Their fifth attempt was successful, but only at the cost of the entire Diocese. 

The dissenters seeking to remove Bishop Lawrence communicated several times with church bodies, mostly through a lawyer who is a fellow parishioner of Mr. Tisdale’s and is a legal advisor with him to the interim steering committee he organized at the Presiding Bishop’s request. 

The actions of church bodies over the last three years have been disgraceful and at times farcical. At the dissenters’ request, a standing committee of the Executive Council considered canons passed by the Diocese and opined that they were null and void without ever informing the Diocese they were considering the issue. The Council immediately informed the lawyer for the dissenters of this action, but did not communicate it to the Diocese until asked to do so much later by the lawyer. The Church Center then clumsily added “cc’s” in a different type font and mailed the Diocese a letter that had been sent two and a half months earlier to the lawyer. This suggests the purpose of the Executive Council’s actions was not the orderly administration of the church’s affairs but assisting the dissenters in making their legal case against Bishop Lawrence.
 
Mr. Tisdale was apparently asked by the Presiding Bishop “a few months ago” to form a “transition group” before the Disciplinary Board had even acted and before Bishop Lawrence was even aware that it was once again reviewing abandonment charges against him. This committee had been largely formed and was waiting to be announced when the abandonment certification was made public. The initial announcements of the interim structure were made immediately: “an Interim Bishop will be appointed by the Presiding Bishop”; “a transition team has been put in place by the Presiding Bishop.” There is also evidence that some steps were taken to plan for civil litigation during the period before the Disciplinary Board had even acted.
 
Bishop Lawrence first learned of the most recent abandonment proceeding on October 15, when the Presiding Bishop informed him that he had been certified and would be restricted. Later that day the diocesan chancellor received by email unsigned copies of the certification and restriction. To this day, Bishop Lawrence has never been served with notice as required by TEC’s canons of either document. Accordingly, the 60 day period under the abandonment canon has not yet begun and if the canons were being followed no restriction may ever have been in effect—although on this point the relationship between the abandonment canon and the broader Title IV of which it is a part is one the church does not seem to comprehend.
 
Although TEC takes the position that the Diocese has not withdrawn, its representatives nonetheless claim that there is no ecclesiastical authority in the TEC diocese. But Bishop Lawrence has not been removed as bishop by TEC and the resignation or removal of directors of South Carolina corporations (the Standing Committee’s legal role) requires that specific procedures provided in the state statute or corporate bylaws be followed. None has been. When the TEC faction held a “clergy day” on November 15, the presentation was made by Mr. Tisdale, the Presiding Bishop’s lawyer. He referred questions about remarriage and licensing to Bishop vonRosenberg, but these are matters for the diocesan bishop. Although they are trying to skirt the canons formally, the reality is that the Presiding Bishop, through her lawyer and the committee he organized, is now running a TEC diocese in South Carolina without any canonical authorization.
 
Bishop Lawrence’s pastoral response to a very challenging legal environment in South Carolina kept the Diocese “intact and in TEC.” Only a single parish withdrew from the Diocese until the Disciplinary Board for Bishops certified that Bishop Lawrence’s pastoral actions constituted abandonment of the church. That indefensible decision caused the entire Diocese to withdraw along with the overwhelming majority of the parishes.


What should we make of these facts?


We disagree with those among you who think the Presiding Bishop and her agents have done no wrong.


Read it all here.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Irena Sendler: Memory Eternal!



In MEMORIAM - 63 YEARS LATER   

Irena Sendler was up for the Nobel Peace Prize. She was not selected.

President Obama won for his work as a community organizer for ACORN. Al Gore won for a slide show on Global Warming.



In May 2008, a 98 year-old Polish lady named Irena Sendler died. During WWII, she got permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist but she had an ulterior motive. She knew of the Nazi's plans for the Jews.

Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried and, in the back of her truck, she had a burlap sack for the larger children.

She had a dog in the back of the truck that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto. The soldiers wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered the noise of the children.

She managed to smuggle out and save 2,500 children before she was caught; the Nazis broke both her legs and her arms and beat her severely.

Irena kept a record of the names of all the children that she smuggled out which she kept in a glass jar buried under a tree in her back yard.

After the War, she tried to locate any parents that had survived and reunited the families. Most, of course, had been gassed but she helped those children to be placed into foster family homes or adopted.

In 2007, Irena was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize but was not selected. Al Gore won - for a slide show on Global Warming.

Read it all here.


Pray for the nations and all peoples as we slip further into darkness.



Monday, July 23, 2012

ObamaCare Counting on Citizens Obeying the Law


President Obama swore an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, but he has not done so. His health reform counts on Americans doing what he has failed to do. Assuming he is re-elected, he may be banking on income from penalties.


National Review Online
Publication Date: July 16, 2012

Last month's Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare left champions of that law breathing a sigh of relief, while its opponents—a majority of the public—were left frustrated. It seemed at first glance as though the chief justice's tortured opinion had saved the individual mandate, and with it the broader statute. But Obamacare's champions should take a closer look at what the Court left them with, because on their own terms, the law is now set to collapse.

Those who argued that the individual mandate was the linchpin of Obamacare's new health-financing architecture believed it would sustain that system by averting a so-called insurance death spiral. Obamacare effectively outlaws risk-based health insurance: It requires insurers to take all comers, even those who were previously uninsured, and when an uninsured person seeks to enroll, the insurer cannot take that person's health status into account when setting the premium. Under such rules, younger and healthier Americans would have very strong incentives to remain uninsured until they started to incur major medical expenses. Why buy insurance when you're healthy if you can get it for the same price later when you get sick? But of course, if healthy people don't buy coverage, insurers won't have the funds to pay benefits for the sick. They would have to raise premiums, which would only drive more healthy people out of the system, and a vicious cycle would emerge.

So how do you get healthy people to buy coverage when you have outlawed the economic incentives of traditional insurance? For Obamacare's designers, the answer was simple: outlaw the decision not to buy coverage too. The law created a legal obligation—in the words of section 5000A of the statute, "a requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage"—demanding that basically every American "shall, for each month beginning after 2013, ensure" that he and all his dependents have health coverage.

This mandate was backed up with a penalty, but the penalty was acknowledged by all to be low (far lower than the cost of health insurance for most people), and the law made it very difficult to enforce. So a rational person would simply pay the penalty instead of buying overpriced insurance, and pocket the money thus saved.

And yet the sponsors of Obamacare have contended that the law would bring about something close to universal enrollment in insurance anyway—because, the argument goes, Americans tend to fall in line with a perceived legal obligation, even when it is plainly against their self-interest to do so. We do what the law requires because it is lawful, without always pausing to calculate. It was the mandate, not just the penalty, that would avert disaster and bring people in.

This argument was always very dubious, but it was absolutely crucial to the case for Obamacare. And it was essential to the all-important CBO score of the bill. Instead of modeling behavior based on self-interest, as is the normal practice in micro-simulation, the CBO took a page from the school of "behavioral economics" and assumed that large numbers of young and relatively healthy Americans would sign up for Obamacare's insurance plans, thus holding down premiums for everyone else. Without this assumption, the CBO would have had to project far higher premium and subsidy costs (and therefore deficits too), and a far higher number of uninsured under Obamacare.

The CBO clearly understood the mandate to consist of the federal government ordering people to buy coverage. In a 2010 paper explaining its assessment of the mandate, the agency said the law meant that "nearly every resident of the United States will be required to have health insurance coverage." That paper also makes clear that the CBO understood the mandate and the penalty as two distinct if related components of the law, each with its own effect on public behavior, and that the fact of the mandate as a legal requirement was very important. The effects of the mandate would not just be a matter of math but would be influenced by people's inclination to be honest and "their desire to comply with the law" ordering them to buy coverage.

This understanding of the mandate, held by the CBO and by most of Obamacare's defenders, has been shattered by the Supreme Court's ruling. In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts plainly said that "the Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command." It could be constitutional only if it was understood to simply levy a tax on the uninsured, Roberts argued, and so that is all that it can be understood to do.

Essentially, the Court struck down the mandate while retaining the penalty. So those champions of Obamacare who relied on behavioral economics to argue that the law's individual mandate could be sufficient to avert an insurance death spiral must now contend with the fact that the Court has closed off that argument.

In the wake of the Roberts decision, participation in Obamacare's insurance scheme is optional. Rather than a requirement to buy coverage backed with a penalty for violators, the law now offers Americans two equally lawful and legitimate options: buy expensive insurance (which Obamacare will make all the more expensive), or pay a modest (and still largely unenforceable) tax and just buy insurance for the same price later if you need it. Presented as a choice, not a command, this provision will invite a straightforward comparison, and for many Americans the choice it would pose would be a very easy one.

Obamacare was always going to lead to a disastrous meltdown of America's health-insurance system, but in the wake of the Court's decision, many of its former defenders should acknowledge this fact too. If you argued that the mandate was the linchpin of the system, and that it would work despite its low and unenforceable penalty because Americans are a law-abiding people, you should now see that the mandate as you understood it no longer exists. The CBO should certainly acknowledge this in its new score of the law's effects on federal spending and the uninsured, due out later this month.

Of course, this doesn't really make Obamacare optional, because although the law can no longer order consumers to buy what insurers are selling, it still strictly defines what insurers may sell. People would therefore only have a choice between Obamacare and nothing. Many will prefer nothing, but that's hardly a great set of options to choose from.

Obamacare is optional in a different, more important way, however. The November election will serve as a referendum on the law, which can be repealed in 2013 with new political leadership. The Supreme Court's decision has made the case for repeal even stronger.


James C. Capretta is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Yuval Levin is the Hertog Fellow at the Center and the editor of National Affairs.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Priest Murdered by the Mafia is Beatified


Edward Pentin 
Don Pino Puglisi


On July 3rd, just days after the Vatican announced that Pope Benedict XVI would beatify the Sicilian anti-Mafia priest Don Pino Puglisi, it became clear not everyone was happy with the decision. Police discovered a bomb in the form of a gas cylinder outside the entrance of a Centre in Palermo founded by the late priest.

“It’s a gesture that makes us realize that we must continue along this path, that we still have to learn all the messages and teaching of Blessed Puglisi,” said the Centre’s president, Maurizio Artale.

Giuseppe "Pino" Puglisi was a Roman Catholic priest who chose to serve in San Gaetano parish in Palermo’s poor neighbourhood of Brancaccio – his birthplace, also known to be a Mafia stronghold. Don Pino had been parish priest there for three years when, on September 15, 1993 – his 56th birthday – he was gunned down outside his home.

The day had been fairly routine: he had celebrated two weddings, went to a couple of meetings, met parents of soon-to-be baptized infants, and then attended a small birthday party thrown by his friends. But on returning home at 8:20 in the evening, a gunman shot the priest in the head soon after he got out of his car.

Don Pino was taken unconscious to a local hospital, but surgeons were unable to revive him. Local Mafia bosses, brothers Filippo and Giuseppe Graviano, were later found guilty of ordering the murder and received life sentences in 1998. One of the hired killers reportedly told the police that Don Pino had said, "I was expecting you", on seeing the gunmen approaching.

The murder of Don Pino took place at a time when the Sicilian Mafia was facing challenges from all sides. It had gained considerable influence under the corrupt Christian Democratic governments from the 1950s until the early 1990s when it bribed politicians, judges and officials.

But its influence was beginning to wane, and organized crime was becoming targeted by the “Maxi-Trials” – anti-Mafia proceedings led by magistrates Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino. Both magistrates paid dearly for their heroic work: Falcone, his wife and three body guards were killed in a massive bomb attack in May 1992. Paolo Borsellino replaced him, but he and five bodyguards were killed in a car bomb just two months later. Their murders came as the Mafia were setting off bombs throughout Italy and especially in Sicily.

But while these killings incensed the population, it was the murder of a Catholic priest that crossed the line and caused the greatest outcry. A group of Sicilian priests pleaded for Pope John Paul II to attend Don Pino’s funeral, but although that wasn’t possible (he had a previous engagement to attend to in Tuscany), he made a visit to Sicily the following year. During that trip, the pontiff praised Don Pino as a "courageous exponent of the Gospel”, said his death was not in vain, and warned that silence and passivity about the Mafia was tantamount to complicity.

Born to a working class family in Brancaccio on September 15, 1937, Don Pino’s father was a shoemaker, his mother a dressmaker. He began training for the priesthood at the age of 16, and following ordination in 1960, he served in various parishes, including one struck by a bloody vendetta. He then spent much of his time teaching religious education in schools, became a vice-rector of a seminary, and served in other run-down parishes in Palermo. He returned to Brancaccio to be parish priest of San Gaetano in 1990, despite being offered less rough Palermo parishes.

Once there, he routinely and fearlessly spoke out against the Mafia who controlled the area, and opened a shelter for underprivileged children. He tried to change his parishioners' mentality which, like much of Sicily even today, is conditioned by fear, passivity and omerta, an imposed silence. He was particularly forthright in his preaching, calling on his flock to give leads to authorities about the Mafia's activities. He refused money from them for traditional feastday celebrations, and would not allow Mafia "men of honour" to march at the head of religious processions.

But his efforts focused on justice, solidarity and rehabilitation, and were primarily directed at the young, whom he saw as the key to eventually freeing the region from the grip of organised crime. He took disadvantaged children off the streets and discouraged them from dropping out of school and becoming embroiled in a life of theft, drug dealing and selling contraband cigarettes. He implored them to take responsibility for their own lives, and founded the centre in Palermo to help them.

“Get rid of that which leads you down the wrong path,” he would tell them, while his favourite rhetorical question was: “And what if somebody did something?” -- meaning, perhaps, “You don’t have to follow suit.”

In his inevitable exchanges with the Mafia, he refused to award a construction contract to a firm they proposed to save the crumbling roof of the parish’s 18thcentury church. Seeing his exemplary life, his parishioners likewise put up resistance, and were similarly targeted, receiving death threats or vandalism to their houses.

Writing in Commonweal in 2002, Lawrence S. Cunningham described Don Pino's basic intuition of the Mafia’s ideology as “radically pagan and profoundly anti-Christian” and that his struggle “was a kind of exorcism in the name of the Gospel.” He even wrote a parody of the Mafia, devising a special Our Father for them. It reads:

O godfather to me and my family, You are a man of honor and worth. Your name must be respected. Everyone must obey you. Everyone must do what you say for this is the law of those who do not wish to die. You give us bread, work; who wrongs you, pays. Do not pardon; it is an infamy. Those who speak are spies. I put my trust in you, godfather. Free me from the police and the law.

Indeed, Don Pino was well known for his sense of humour, and at times even made light of the lack of support from the Church hierarchy. He was ordained by Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini from Palermo, who was said to regard communism as a greater threat than the Mafia and once even questioned the latter's very existence. According to the National Catholic Reporter, when asked by a journalist, "What is the Mafia?" the cardinal flippantly replied: "So far as I know, it could be a brand of detergent."

Don Pino saw it as necessary to challenge such attitudes, but to do it sensitively. "We can, we must criticize the Church when we feel it doesn't respond to our expectations, because it's absolutely right to seek to improve it," he said, jokingly adding: "But we should always criticize it like a mother, never a mother-in-law!"

The cause for Don Pino’s beatification and canonization opened in 1999 and has been expected for some time. As someone the Pope decreed had been killed in odium fidei (out of hatred of the faith), he will be declared a martyr and no miracle is required on account of his intercession.

During the homily of his last Mass, said for children about to receive Holy Communion for the first time, he used words which summed up his untiring efforts to defend human dignity in the face of violence – a stand that would lead him to facing that same violence, and paying the ultimate price.

“We have said: we want to create a different world,” he remarked. “Let us strive then to create a climate of honesty, of righteousness, of justice, which means the fulfilment of what pleases God.”


Edward Pentin is a journalist based in Rome.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

What "ObamaCare" Promises


This is the list of promises from the White House.  President Obama plans to get re-elected based on these promises and it is no surprise that the reforms are set for another election cycle. Just think of the puppet strings he will pull to make good on these. Or will it even matter by then?



The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law (Pub. L. No. 111-148) on March 23, 2010. The law makes specific reference to assisted suicide in only one section. It does not explicitly prohibit assisted suicide participation, promotion or encouragement.  Instead, it contains a “prohibition against discrimination on assisted suicide,” stating that individuals or institutional health care entities may not be subject to discrimination if they do not provide items or services for the purpose of assisted suicide (Sec. 1553).  Such wording seems to imply that assisted suicide is acceptable and expected, although not something in which health care providers must be involved.

In a July 7, 2010 recess appointment, President Obama named Dr. Donald Berwick to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.  Berwick’s past statements have led to extreme controversy.  Among them was one in a 2008 article in which he wrote:

“Rational common interests and rational individual interests are in conflict….The stakes are high. Indeed, the Holy Grail of universal coverage in the United States may remain out of reach unless, through rational collective action overriding some individual self-interest, we can reduce per capita costs.”

Under ObamaCare, a single committee – the United States Preventative Task Force – is empowered to evaluate preventive health services and decide which will be covered by health-insurance plans.


Related reading: What Americans Should Do After the Supreme Court's Ruling on ObamaCare; Medical Insurance for Christians; US Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Individual Mandate as a tax. Full text of decision (6/28/12); This is a Test: Do You Know This Man?



Friday, June 29, 2012

No Justice for Murdered Border Patrolman



Congress voted to hold Eric Holder in contempt for not providing documents essential to Congressional investigation into the murder of Brian Terry on December 15, 2010. However, the Justice Department has declared that Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to withhold information from Congress about Fast and Furious does not constitute a crime and he won’t be prosecuted for contempt of Congress. As Holder oversees the Justice Department, this was expected.

It appears that there will be no justice for Brian Terry and no closure for his family. How sad.



To add salt to the wound, Janet Napolitano has said that the Feds will not assist Arizona law officials in their attempts to deal with illegals in that state.


Related reading:  The Facts About Operation Fast and Furious; Follow the Ideology with Bill Whittle

Friday, June 22, 2012

Sudanese poet Abdelmoniem Rahma Condemned to Death



(WiPC/IFEX) - The Writers in Prison Committee (WiPC) of PEN International is extremely concerned about the condition and whereabouts of the Sudanese poet Abdelmoniem Rahma, who was arrested on 2 September 2011 in Blue Nile State, Sudan. He was reportedly tried in a military court in November and there have been alarming reports that he has since been sentenced to death. It is unclear, however, on what charges he has been convicted. He has been denied access to a lawyer and his family do not know his whereabouts. There are also credible reports that he has been tortured. The WiPC calls on the Sudanese authorities to release Rahma, to repeal the reported death sentence against him, to clarify on what grounds he has been convicted and to allow him access to legal counsel.

Abdelmoniem Rahma is well-known as a journalist, poet and activist. He co-founded the daily newspaper Ajras al-Hurriya (Bells of Freedom), which was shut down by the Sudanese authorities days before South Sudan's independence on 9 July 2011. He is also the former head of Sudana, an arts and literature organisation. During the 1980s he was a member of the Sudanese Writers' Union and between 2003 and 2005 Rahma headed the Arabic section of the Sudan Radio Service network in Nairobi. Rahma also developed a travelling theatre to promote peaceful dialogue among Sudan's diverse cultures.

Reports coming out of Sudan regarding Abdelmoniem Rahma are scant and difficult to verify. However, the belief held by his former colleagues that Rahma was targeted because of his affiliation with the political movement The Sudan People's Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) is convincing. Rahma was reportedly tried alongside 18 members of the SPLM-N in November 2011.

In March 2012, it was reported that the Attorney General's office had completed investigations on 132 detainees, including Rahma and that all had been accused of crimes against the state and espionage. However, lawyers following the case have not been given any details of the charges.


BACKGROUND:

On 1 September 2011 fighting broke out in Blue Nile State, bordering South Sudan, between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Sudan People's Liberation Army-North (SPLA-N). On 2 September, Sudanese President al-Bashir declared a state of emergency in Blue Nile and appointed a military governor to the state.

The fighting in Blue Nile followed tensions between Sudan's ruling National Congress Party (NCP) and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) over security arrangements in the border areas prior to South Sudan's independence on 9 July 2011. Following South Sudan's independence, the SPLM-North, which was previously part of the southern SPLM, was formed in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile.

Over 55,000 people have been displaced from Blue Nile State and have sought refuge in neighbouring Ethiopia and South Sudan. Independent observers and aid workers have been prevented from entering Blue Nile State since the fighting broke out.


RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Please send appeals:
- calling on the authorities to release Rahma
- calling on the authorities to repeal the death sentence if Rahma has been sentenced to death before a military court
- urging the authorities to ensure that Rahma is not subjected to torture or other ill-treatment
- calling on the authorities to grant Rahma immediate access to his family and lawyers, and to any medical treatment he might require following allegations of torture


APPEALS TO:

President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir
Office of the President
People's Palace PO Box 281
Khartoum, Sudan
Fax: 00249 183 782 541
Salutation: Your Excellency

Minister of Justice
Mohammed Bushara Dousa
Ministry of Justice, PO Box 302
Al Nil Avenue
Khartoum, Sudan
Fax: 00249 183 764 168
Salutation: Your Excellency

Please send appeals immediately. Check with PEN International if sending appeals after 14 August 2012.


For more information:

Writers in Prison Committee, PEN International
Brownlow House
50-51 High Holborn
London WC1V 6ER
United Kingdom
wipc (@) pen-international.org
Phone: +44 20 74050338
Fax: +44 20 74050339
http://www.pen-international.org

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Casket-Making Monks Await Court's Decision


Lousiana is one of only three states that restrict the sale of caskets to licensed funeral directors. The state has a history of protecting the funeral industry from competition at the expense of funeral consumers. See here for posts on LA regulators working to protect the funeral industry from the public.

On June 7, 21012, an attorney for the Benedictine monks of St. Joseph Abbey in St. Tammany Parish argued before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a 1932 Louisiana law requiring anyone selling a casket to be a licensed funeral director is unconstitutional and has no rationale other than "pure economic protectionism."

The monks, who make about 30 cypress caskets a month at their St. Joseph Abbey Woodworks, received a favorable ruling last year from U.S. District Court Judge Stanwood Duval, who struck down the Louisiana law, saying it created an unfair industry monopoly.

Scott Bullock, an attorney with the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, a nonprofit, public-interest law firm that is representing the monks, said the state law, which requires anyone selling a casket to have a funeral director's license, is "pure economic protectionism" that favors one private class and therefore is unconstitutional.

"It is irrational to require somebody to become a funeral director just to sell a box," Bullock said. "It is irrational to require somebody to give up two years of their life, install an embalming room and turn their abbey into a funeral establishment simply to sell a box. That's our fundamental point."

The 36 monks of the 121-year-old abbey decided a few years ago to sell caskets with simple white cloth interiors for $1,500 to $2,000 to support the abbey, which does not receive funding from the Roman Catholic Church.

About 50 to 60 of the caskets were sold, beginning in 2007, before the funeral board, acting on a complaint filed by a funeral home, subpoenaed the order in March and threatened fines. The monks tried to get an exemption from the regulations in 2008 and 2010, but legislators rejected the requests.

Abbot Justin Brown said making and selling caskets is in keeping with a 1,500-year tradition of self-support. "For centuries, Benedictine monks have been entrepreneurs," he said. The monks of St. Joseph Abbey farmed and harvested wood for years, a business that sustained heavy damage from Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, Brown said. The caskets drew public attention at funerals for monks and two Louisiana bishops, leading to requests to purchase them. In 2007, the monks converted part of the abbey into a woodworking shop. Three monks usually work on the caskets.

"All we want to do is sell these simple wood caskets to our friends and the public," Abbot Brown said.
A decision from the 5th Circuit is expected in three to six months.

"We're hopeful and prayerful," Abbot Justin said. "The emphasis is on prayerful."




Sunday, June 10, 2012

Moving the Goalposts on DOMA


James S. Cole 


It does not bode well for the rule of law when the standards for determining whether a statute is constitutional change from case to case. Justices Kennedy, Souter, and O'Connor of the US Supreme Court once wrote, “Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.” (This line opened a plurality opinion in which they refused to overrule Roe v. Wadebecause, they said, for 19 years women had organized their lives around Roe. Why the babies that were aborted and would in the future be aborted could not be given a chance to organize their lives around the opposite outcome was not addressed.)

For over 50 years now, American federal courts have, in fits and starts, subjected statutes enacted by legislatures to a jurisprudence of doubt by moving the goal line that a government must cross in order to validate a statute when someone claims it violates the US Constitution. Not all judges have done so, but enough have to make it impractical to predict whether statutes affecting certain “hot button” issues are constitutional or not.

The May 31 opinion of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that invalidated one section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) illustrates this process at work. DOMA was enacted by Congress in 1996 in response to efforts in certain states to redefine marriage to include two persons of the same sex. Both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly for it. It is quite short as federal statutes go, just three sections, contained on one printed page. Section 1 names it. Section 2 says that no state must recognize the validity of any same-sex marriage that has been contracted in another state. Section 3 defines the words “marriage” and “spouse” for the purposes of federal benefits as including only marriages of one man and one woman.

The case that reached the First Circuit began when private plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA under the Equal Protection Clause. They claimed that federal social security, veterans, and government employee health benefits were denied to them as same-sex spouses, notwithstanding that they were legal spouses as marriage is defined in Massachusetts. Because they were as equally married in Massachusetts as other married couples, they claimed that the federal government was violating their equal rights. (Massachusetts also filed a lawsuit over Medicaid and same-sex marriage, but the First Circuit did not distinguish between its claim and those of the private plaintiffs, and no separate discussion of the Commonwealth's case is needed here.)

The federal district court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, and the government appealed. After filing its brief, the Obama Administration decided to abandon the defense of DOMA, an event that considerably delayed the appeal while the House of Representatives obtained attorneys to defend the law. The Administration did not merely bow out of the cases, however; it actually switched sides on the Equal Protection issue and filed a new brief agreeing with the plaintiffs.


Three standards for unconstitutional discrimination

The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the result reached by the trial court, but it felt constrained to invent a new standard for measuring violations of Equal Protection in order to do so. In Equal Protection jurisprudence, there are three different goal lines for statutes to cross in order to be upheld when plaintiffs assert unconstitutional discrimination, depending on the nature of the case.

One, “strict scrutiny,” is applied to laws that discriminate by suspect classes (eg, race, religion, citizenship, and ancestry) or discriminate in regard to fundamental rights, like the right to free speech. The 14th Amendment was intended to preclude such discrimination. Under the test, the government must show a compelling need for the law and also that the statute was carefully crafted to attain only the needed remedy. This goal line is very distant, and few statutes survive to cross it when tested by “strict scrutiny.”

A shorter goal line is presented to statutes that do not create “suspect classes” or impair “fundamental rights.” This standard is called the “rational basis test.” Under this test, a law is presumed to be constitutional unless no rational purpose can be advanced for the classification it creates or the classification created by the law has no rational relationship to achieving a legitimate governmental purpose (eg, a law requiring all persons named “Smith” to pay a sales tax.) Most laws can satisfy the “rational basis” test.

In regard to laws that classify by sex, however, the federal courts of the 1970s did not like either of these alternatives. They made up a middle tier of measurement called “intermediate scrutiny.” The goal line is set not so close as in the normal “rational basis” case, but not so distant and unreachable as in “strict scrutiny.” The idea was that sex could not always be a “suspect class,” because there were obviously some types of classification by sex that inherently made sense (eg, strength and endurance requirements for physically-intensive jobs). Thus “strict scrutiny” was not justifiable. Yet the Supreme Court felt that women had been held down by the law and needed extra help to overcome that discrimination. They could not help being born as women. Hence “intermediate scrutiny.”

To cross that goal line, the courts held that the government must prove that there is an important governmental interest at stake and that the means employed have a substantial relationship to the goal. Many law review articles have been written on whether these concepts actually have any meaningful content.

Intermediate scrutiny would have probably been used by the First Circuit in the DOMA case, but for an inconvenient precedent. The First Circuit had already ruled against using that standard in a case challenging the so-called “don't ask don't tell” policy toward homosexuals in the armed services. Under the Court's own procedures, a three-judge panel like the one hearing this appeal could not overrule a precedent already adopted in another case.


A new standard: “heightened scrutiny”

If intermediate scrutiny could not apply, even more was strict scrutiny out of the question. The only alternative left was the rational basis standard, but the Court could not bring itself to accept that, for as it candidly admitted, under that standard the private plaintiffs could not succeed. Homosexuals have been historically discriminated against for too long to allow that to happen, it appears. Therefore, the Court created a new measure, that of “heightened scrutiny.”

What “heightened scrutiny” means in practice is unclear, as its proponents seem to prefer. The Court said it did not want to create an “algorithm” -- that is, a discernible formula for use in the future. Rather, it described its task as “to require a closer than usual review based in part on discrepant impact among married couples and in part on the importance of state interests in regulating marriage.” To exercise “closer than usual review” is so loosely defined as not to make it application of a rule of law, but an exercise in rhetoric. In this case, it masked a policy choice, not a legal judgment.

As precedent for such a loose, unprincipled, standard, the Court plucked three Supreme Court cases from history that it interpreted as involving an “historically disadvantaged or unpopular” protesting group and a justification for the law that “seemed thin, unsupported or impermissible.”

One case involved a federal law on eligibility for food stamps that disqualified from the definition of “households” groups of unrelated individuals that lived together.US Dept. Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 US 528 (1973). The First Circuit quoted the case as saying the law over-reached by disqualifying many eligible people and was the product of a “bare Congressional desire to harm a politically-unpopular group.”

The second case presented a municipal ordinance that operated to deny a permit to operate a group home for mentally retarded people within a certain neighborhood. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 US 482 (1985). The First Circuit again quoted the Supreme Court as finding that the ordinance was based on “mere negative attitudes, or fear, unsubstantiated by factors which are more properly cognizable in a zoning proceeding.”

Finally, the Court invoked Romer v. Evans, 517 US 620 (1996), which addressed an amendment to the Colorado constitution that forbade making homosexuals into a group that could invoke special protections of state and local civil rights laws. The US Supreme Court found that the amendment was an unprecedented “disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law.” Such a law, the Court thundered through Justice Kennedy, could be nothing other than the product of irrational hatred of homosexuals.

This is pretty thin gruel for creating a new level of “heightened scrutiny” in Equal Protection cases. All of these cases were decided under the rational basis test, and the conclusions focused on whether there was a rational connection with a legitimate state interest. (Whether or not they were decided correctly is beyond the scope of this article.)

It is worth noting that the First Circuit cited only cases in which the Supreme Court also characterized the motives of the government officials as biased and prejudiced. Although the First Circuit's opinion stated on its surface that the cases reflected “the case-specific nature of the discrepant treatment, the burden imposed, and the infirmities of the justifications offered,” the quotations that the First Circuit pulled from these cases focused not on these factors, but on the bias and irrational prejudice that the Supreme Court saw in them.

In so doing, the First Circuit departed from expounding law and entered the realm of rhetorical persuasion. The portion of its opinion that cited and quoted from Supreme Court cases appears to have been intended to associate such motives with DOMA. Perhaps the First Circuit aimed at framing the issues in the mind of Justice Kennedy, the author of Romer and widely considered the Court's “swing vote” on contentious issues.

The First Circuit judges attempt to preclude any such conclusion from being drawn. Near the end, the opinion specifically disclaimed finding that Congress had been actuated by irrational, base motives when it enacted DOMA: “In reaching our judgment, we do not rely upon the charge that DOMA's hidden but dominant purpose was hostility to homosexuality.” It remains open to question, therefore, why the only quotations from the three key Supreme Court cases relied upon for the “heightened scrutiny” given to DOMA were quotations focusing on irrational bias against the groups involved.


The federalism argument

The First Circuit also stressed federalism as a basis justifying “heightened scrutiny.” It said DOMA interfered with the rights of the State in domestic relations law by impairing federal benefits married folks should receive. Here, the First Circuit has the federalism argument exactly backward. What constitutional necessity can require the federal government to let state law dictate the eligibility of people for federal benefits? That is a gross impairment of federal sovereignty. Federalism cannot mean that states determine disbursements from the federal treasury if the federal government does not consent or that state laws force the federal government to give greater justifications for its monetary allocations than otherwise. McCullough v. Maryland, decided early in the history of the Republic, ought to rule out this type of federalism.

Moreover, federalism concerns are not as unique to Equal Protection cases as the First Circuit described. The Supreme Court pointed out in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez that any time a state law comes before the federal courts on an Equal Protection challenge, federalism concerns are raised. It would seem less important to take account of such concerns when federal statutes involving federal money are involved than when state statutes are involved, for state sovereignty is not impinged upon nearly as much by DOMA as by federal court judgments invalidating state statutes. Again, the First Circuit has federalism backwards.

After creating a new standard of “heightened scrutiny” for this case, the First Circuit found the justifications offered for section 3 of DOMA to fall short. Saving money was found to be of little weight, for an historically disadvantaged group like homosexuals, the Court claimed, cannot protect itself in the political process from making all the sacrifices that result in the savings.

Bolstering the institution of marriage as a justification was rejected on the ground that the record did not show that DOMA would increase any governmental benefits to heterosexual married couples. This is a non sequitur. The Court failed to acknowledge that an official endorsement of same-sex marriage by government will be perceived by the public as an official rejection of the traditional view of marriage. It is in precluding such an official rejection that heterosexual marriage is defended. Finally, the connection between rearing children in a traditional marriage and DOMA was found to be nonexistent, as none of the federal benefits at issue were connected with rearing children.

The result that the Court reached was an ad hoc rationalization of a policy preference, not application of the rule of law. The Court moved the goalposts, as it were, so that the government could not win, as it would have under the applicable rational basis standard of review. Federal courts should do better than that.


Source:  MercatorNet
James S. Cole graduated from Harvard Law School and practices law in St Louis, Missouri.


Monday, January 30, 2012

Gay Activists Muzzle Liberty, Conscience


Those advocating the radical social innovation, which they label “same-sex or gay marriage,” typically claim that they are fighting for freedom, championing a basic liberty. “Freedom to Marry” is indeed the name of a national organization devoted to the advocacy of same-sex marriage. Established in 2003 by civil-rights advocate Evan Wolfson and headquartered in New York City, this group takes “We All Deserve the Freedom to Marry” as its slogan. So effective has it promulgated this perspective that even former First Lady Laura Bush endorsed homosexuals’ right to marry as a matter of basic freedom when she appeared on the Larry King Show in May 2010.

But those who advocate homosexual marriage as a way of enlarging the American sphere of liberty are profoundly—and deceptively—misrepresenting their aims. Their real aim came to light in the public controversy over remarks attributed to Queen Sophia of Spain in criticizing her country’s invention in 2005 of a homosexual right to “marry.” “If those people [homosexuals] want to live together,” commented the Spanish monarch, “dress up as bride and groom and get married they can do so, but that should not be called marriage because it is not.” Widely reported by the media, the furor over these remarks forced representatives of the Queen to issue a statement claiming that the published remarks “do not exactly match the opinions expressed by Her Majesty the Queen” and apologizing for the “ill-feeling and upset” her comments had caused. The pressures compelling this semi-retraction and apology prompted one media commentator to ponder the “interesting question” of whether on the issue of homosexual marriage, the Queen still had “the right... to express her opinion like any other citizen.”

This commentator had glimpsed the fundamental aim of those advocating homosexual marriage: it is not at all about giving homosexuals a new freedom to participate in ceremonies that they regard as weddings. It is entirely about denying freedom of public speech to anyone who would criticize such ceremonies or the sexual behaviors such ceremonies legitimize. The muzzle that homosexual activists tried (largely successfully) to put on an outspoken monarch represents only the beginning. Homosexual activists in this country deeply desire to place first thousands, and then millions, of even tighter muzzles on all who disagree with them about the nature of homosexual behavior. They well understand that enactment of laws authorizing homosexual marriage will give them sweeping powers to bind those muzzles very tightly on their fellow citizens.

 
Read it all here.