Men Don’t March for the Natural Law

We have won the argument over marriage. We have won 34 statewide elections where traditional marriage was on the ballot. We did this even though the polls showed us losing most of them, perhaps all of them, prior to the vote. We won even in liberal states like California. We won even during Democratic primaries like Missouri. Our opponents persuaded the people in a measly three states to vote with them on faux marriage. We have won the debate, at least for now.

We have largely won on religious freedom also. Religious freedom is the law of the land federally and in 32 states. A look at recent polls shows that even on this seemingly divisive issue, we have still convinced a majority of Americans that the Christian baker should not be forced to serve a faux marriage that violates his religious freedom.

Yet, our votes are overturned by a combination of black-robed elites, craven corporations who have turned on their customers, the mainstream media, and cowardly GOP politicians.

We are about to have faux marriage imposed upon us by what Judge Bork called “The Olympians.” Though we have done everything we were supposed to do in a democratic republic, though we went to Public Square and convinced our fellow citizens, though we have done all this still we are on the cusp of losing not just marriage but religious freedom.

The people are with us. The people are convinced. Yet we are about to lose. So the question is this, how do we move the people to something more than agreement? How do we move them to action for action is what we need right now?

At times like these I think of Richard Viguerie. I think also of Professor Robert George of Princeton. Robert George knows how to argue, how to convince. He and his collaborators, Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis, are exquisitely good at this. One cannot say enough good things about Robert George and his collaborators.

Richard Viguerie knows something—I won’t say better because it’s not—different. He knows how to move men not simply to change their minds, because he doesn’t try to do that. Rather, he moves the already decided to act.

Richard Viguerie is one of the giants of the conservative political movement. He stands with William F. Buckley and Phyllis Schlafly and Paul Weyrich and any great political leader you could name from the past 50 years. You may not know his name. Though still quite active, he is in the late autumn of his years.

Viguerie is the father of political direct mail. Direct mail is the technique of asking strangers for money through the mail. It is not as easy as many people think. Many people who run organizations think they can write the letter and voila the money pours in. In fact, direct mail is a technique, part art part science. And you can lose your shirt if you don’t know the techniques. But the people who know the techniques are masters at moving the people to action.

What direct mail guys know is that people will not act unless there is an emergency that has made them angry or fearful. Nothing else works. Some who have to sign direct mail letters cringe at the language. I have. In direct mail, though, you must ring the fire bell and I have never known a time when the fire bell needs ringing more than now.

Everyone, friend or foe, is in awe of Sherif Girgis. Working on a PhD in philosophy from Princeton and a law degree from Yale at the same time, his friend Ryan Anderson said he is the finest mind of his generation. He recently said, “I know ethics can be hard; I like my disputations subtle and careful. I fairly dread confrontation and take no great joy in hot debate. But we also need to hear the truth in the plainest terms.”

Without a doubt there are places where this kind of argumentation is desperately needed. Girgis, quite bravely and with great danger to his academic future, debates professors in Ivy League schools about man-woman marriage. And he beats them regularly not only with his arguments but with his manner. Professors with lifetime tenure are not nearly so brave as Girgis. And one hopes he is a vanguard that will restore higher education from the Visigoths.

Except in some academic settings, though, I don’t believe this is the time for “subtle and careful disputations.” Now is more the time for hot debate. Now is the time for Richard Viguerie and his tribe, those who can move the convinced into the streets, into the glass boxes on Park Avenue to pound on the doors of CEOs, into the state houses and into Congress, to pound on those doors, too. Time to let the elites know the proletarians are not happy.

So many of our arguments are now taken from experts; our experts, good experts. Who can’t cite the latest social science data that Brad Wilcox of the University of Virginia or Patrick Fagan of Family Research Council have drawn from some national survey? Who hasn’t become conversant in the criteria for an academically rigorous study? Well, everyone inside the Washington DC policy bubble can. But can others? And do these studies convince, especially when each of our studies is met with ten from the other side?

Some will mistakenly think I want Sherif Girgis or Brad Wilcox to give up their academic lives or for Ryan Anderson to give up his job at Heritage for the hustings of activism. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want them and their allies to increase exponentially. Who would have preferred that St. Thomas Aquinas become an activist? Only Satan. But the question is this: Will the people, who are already on our side, march for fine distinctions? Will they march for “subtle and careful disputations?” Will they march for the natural law?

These arguments must continue and not just in academic settings, but also on television and in the public square. Ryan Anderson said in the Washington Post this week, “I count it as a success if I can at least get someone to say, ‘I disagree with you, but I don’t think you are crazy or full of animus. I think you’re wrong, but I understand why you believe what you believe.’” This is really terrific, most especially in the important settings where he debates, and such victories have contributed greatly to our advances so far, but it is a far cry from getting our side to march, which is where I think we are now.

We need generals who will lead us using the language that will move us from agreement to conviction and—more important now than ever—to action.

Who are the generals? What is the language? These are the questions.

Austin Ruse

By

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Center for Family & Human Rights), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute focusing on international legal and social policy. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of C-FAM.

  • St JD George

    The erosion comes when the discussion is only framed around the image of loving couples and the myth of raising healthy children. Minds are lost when they are not attached to souls who understand God’s love and his natural law regarding the purpose of sex. We know well that problem is not just pervasive in that community. Would more vivid, graphic and horrific images of the practices be effective in turning stomaches like those of dismembered human babies to force minds to confront the uncomfortable realities? All morality can not nor should not be legislated, this is a timeless battle to win over lost souls and sheep who have lost their way and are apart from their Good Shepherd. Strong, vocal, articulate and persuasive leaders are certainly welcome, but we all can be leaders in our own right by being unflinching servants for Christ.

  • Anne Hendershott

    Great article Austin – You are right, we are in a war and we need to behave like we are in a war by destroying the opposition. We can do that by telling the truth…. We need to remind people exactly what this fraud is doing to our society–perhaps more articles about the gay (“married”) couple who traveled to Russia to buy a baby and then sexually abused that child for the next decade – shopping the child around to any other gay men who would pay them for the privilege. They lived on the profits from the pornographic videos they made of this child. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/the-story-behind-russians-gay-adoption-ban
    Perhaps it is time to start writing about the bisexual pilot (he was called “Tomato Andy” by his peers – a gay slur) who crashed the Germanwings plane into the French Alps killing 150 people. The U.K. papers – including the Daily Mail reported that he was compulsively trawling gay porn websites in the days before he crashed that plane. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3018160/Killer-pilot-Andreas-Lubitz-treated-suicidal-tendencies-years-Alps-crash-trawling-gay-porn-websites-doomed-flight-prosecutors-reveal.html No one read that in U. S. papers of course. We need to begin fighting to win this war–by becoming willing to print the Truth in the media.

    • Austin Ruse

      Wow…never knew about Tomato Andy. was that reported anywhere in the US?

      • Anne Hendershott

        Of course not – His peers called him tomato andy because he was a flight attendant – they called him a “trolly dolly” also. Only the UK press published all of that – and the German press – but nothing here. The tomato andy slur is a slur because a tomato is a fruit not a vegetable (according to the Daily Mail)

        • And what is your point? If true, your argument suggests that this guy was isolated and stigmatized because of his sexual orientation. And who who bear the responsibility for that? Maybe he was Catholic and … Do you understand the peril of your assertion?

          • Seamrog

            Because his deviant sexual behavior was not welcomed by all who had contact with him is no excuse for a man to kill 150 people.

            Do you see the sick irony in your point here?

          • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

            David, the Daily Mail is a tabloid with a history of getting things wrong. If by some miracle this gossipy rag actually got a fact correct, I don’t think any sane, logical person would assume the story said anything about the proclivities of gays. The implication that “gays crash planes” is so patently absurd. It would be like saying all Catholic priests are pedophiles because of the behavior of a small percentage.

        • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

          The UK tabloids published all of that, and they picked it up from a German tabloid, which obtained it from some dubious source. The Daily Mail is a tabloid akin to the National Enquirer that relies on cheap sensationalism and dubious ethics to sell newspapers. We need to be careful of malicious gossip and slander (the stuff of tabloids such as the Daily Mail.)

    • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

      The American press only published a small photo of the man on vacation, with the Golden Gate Bridge in the background. However, for someone who knows European culture, the photo was quite telling. When a young European male vacations in San Francisco, it generally means only one thing. I didn’t bother looking up the articles in European sources, but when I heard his fiancée had broken off with him, the rest of the story was clear. Homosexuality used to prevent a person from obtaining military and national security jobs, and for good reason. It is a clear sign of emotional instability. Homosexuality and depression are never far apart.

      • Anne Hendershott

        Can you imagine trying to get funding today to do research on the link between homosexuality and depression, or homosexuality and mental illness? This pilot was clearly mentally ill but no one will hear about the link to homosexuality. Even though–as you said–the link was strong in the past–even though the American Psychological Association refused to acknowledge it when they removed homosexuality from the DSM after years of lobbying by the gay community. It was a political act – one that was done without any “new” research facts. The APA just caved into pressure – as they continue to do today.

        • DeaconEdPeitler

          It was the APA – the American Psychiatric Association – that removed the diagnosis. This means they were physicians. But, you are absolutely correct – it was all politics and not medicine. Just like abortion has nothing to do with practice of medicine but is all about politics.

          • Some years ago, I developed an intractable dermatitis. My doctor tried a series of things and then referred me to a dermatologist-who asked me if I’d consider immunosuppressants that were usually prescribed for organ transplant patients. Since it seemed like using a sledgehammer to put a picture nail in the wall, I returned to my GP-who advised me how many branches of medicine (oncology, cardiology, etc) dealt with very measureable and objective phenomona and treat root causes and others like dermatology had little in the way of objective tests and often treat only symptoms.

            He said “theirs is a bit of a dark art”.

            Compared to dermatology, psychiatry is shamanism.

        • This “APA yielding to pressure“ is popular mythology in some circles. The DSM was changed because of a mountain of published and peer reviewed research.

          Moreover, while it is ebbing gay people are at greater risk for depression and other mental illnesses than the general population. The difference is not because people are gay. It is because gay people live in a society that stigmatizes sexual minorities.

          I don’t know if that pilot was gay or bisexual or straight. Nor does anyone care. Trying to associate his flight conduct with sexual orientation only serves to confirm just how far from the mainstream some people are. What? Shall we find out the sexual orientation of all pilots and then pull the tickets from the gays? That would be unabashed bigotry — as is your enterprise to associate the two things.

          • Austin Ruse

            Oh David.you simply have no idea what you are talking about. A mountain of peer reviewed research change the APA? You have never read the history. What a huge and satisfying belly-laugh.

            • Craig Roberts

              Alcoholics are obviously (research shows!) “more screwed up than normal people, in terms of mental and physical health” but pointing that out does nothing to change them. Trying to win a spiritual battle with temporal reasoning is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

              • Austin Ruse

                I am responding to the previous point, Craig. The point is that there was not a mountain of peer reviewed evidence that led the psychological establishment to take homosexuality out of the diagnostic manual, as Slowly Boiled Frog said. In fact, those who act out homosexually are deeply troubled still. Taking it out of the manual has sentenced many of them to a lifetime of pain, heart-ache, disease and even death. So, who is helping?

                • Craig Roberts

                  Your point about the harm done when an entire field of medical treatment and research concede defeat and stop acting on the facts is well taken. My only point was that psychologists are ill-prepared to deal with the issue regardless of the data. The Church needs to courageously declare that it is willing and able to help people with SSA. This would take people of faith that have struggled with these issues to come forward and testify that there is hope. Alcoholics tend to listen to former alcoholics that have shown that they can remain sober rather than experts that say ‘your lifestyle will kill you’.

                  • Austin Ruse

                    Which is precisely why the Church has approved an amazing apostolate called Courage!

                    • Rich C.

                      Gay people probably laugh at that.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Just as some drunks laugh at AA. But just as AAis full of those wanting to stop the booze, Courage is full of those weary of the habit of homosexuality.

          • GG

            Thanks for the propaganda.

          • DeaconEdPeitler

            Except that the psychiatrist who was very instrumental in getting the diagnosis removed and who held a very high position in the APA (including being personal friends with the president of APA at the time) was a practicing homosexual.

            • That’s incorrect Ed. The psychiatrist most responsible was Robert Spitz. Spritz came up with a gay cure which he eventually recanted.

              • DeaconEdPeitler

                What you cite is of recent history. I am referring to removing homosexuality from the DSM. This happened in the 70’s. I could name the psychiatrists but I won’t but this is easily retrievable.

          • bonaventure

            (…) It is because gay people live in a society that stigmatizes sexual minorities

            Last time I checked the among (1) regular gullible people, and (2) the world of media and politic, “gays” are not stigmatized but rather elevated to the divine heights of superhuman heroism.

            Homosexuals do not commit suicide because they are “stigmatized,” but because they are — from their inane daily acts to their most disordered sexual choices — totally morally depraved.

            • Joseph

              The societal opprobrium of same-sex activity and relationships is a very recent phenomenon (mid 2000-2010 is when things seem to have shifted). I think you’d have better information by looking at the incidence of depression, suicide attempts, and completed suicides are among same-sex attracted people born in 2010-2015 who will grow up in a society that largely approves of same-sex relationships. I’d look at data 10 years from now and probably track it for 20 years. I think only then could you say that is it not societal ‘stigma’ that drives people to suicide, and only then if the rates are lower in the next era vs. the last 20-30 years.

              DavidHart – it’s Robert Spitzer not Spitz.

              • No, persecution has existed historically across the board for all kinds of people and the reactions do not match up. Homosexuality may become normalized in the immediate future but it won’t change the fact that it is a “biological as well as a metaphysical absurdity”. That is where the problem lay, It doesn’t lay with societal perception.

                • Joseph

                  I am saying that in a society where it is socially acceptable to have same-sex relationships and where this acceptance is visible and present throughout the person’s development, that any differences in rates of depression and suicide between same-sex attracted and opposite-sex attracted individuals would reflect something inherent about same-sex attraction and not about societal stigma.

                  • I understand you better now. Thank you. I agree with you that it would reflect something inherent about same-sex attraction. I suppose we were saying the same thing. I’m sorry for the misunderstanding.

          • orientstar

            Quite right – why let the truth interfere with a good story. I think I might be quoting Hilary!

          • My wife is a doctor, my brother a theoretical physicist, my uncle a chemist and myself well, I teach…I can assure, the pressure is on.

          • David

            Are you David Bently Hart?

      • mitch64

        “However, for someone who knows European culture, the photo was quite telling. When a young European male vacations in San Francisco, it generally means only one thing”

        He wants to see Fisherman’s Wharf??? Your are saying that with your knowledge or “European Culture” (not that there are very distinct culture from one European country to another and even within European cities,” young male ” European’s” all come to SF to get their gay on…(and to start on to their path to killing hundreds of people…) The ONLY reason to visit one of the world’s most beautiful city is not the architecture, the history, the art, the food, even the bad tourist traps..is to get immersed in “gaydom”???

        • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

          Don’t put words in my mouth. I said nothing about SF as a “path to killing,” nor imply that no one but homosexuals visits the city. But yes, when a young male is vacationing in SF, he is usually (i.e. generally) there for exactly that, checking out the Mecca of gay cruising. There are indeed many other reasons to visit SF (as I know, since I used to live there myself) and one sees tourists of all ages and from all over. But young, single males? Come on, you are not as stupid as you pretend.

          • mitch64

            Not putting words in your mouth..that was the link with Anne’s post you picked up on. My point to you and Anne was that “generalization” in a post can make your point for the choir , but on closer inspection does not hold up. And I know you’re both much more intelligence then that

            Since you lived in SF ..lucky guy by the by ..must know it’s not just a gay Mecca..(Europe has a lot of those..)but a free spirited place and there are a lot of straight girls there too..straight bohemian free spirited girls that will never know the guys name or care. Which is my point..straight guys go there to get busy too! So come now your not as stupid or archaic as you pretend.

            • Rich C.

              SF sounds like Herpesville, USA

              • mitch64

                Take a look at the HIV rates..not to mention crack abuse in supposedly God fearing conservative Indiana..the worlds a scary place…if you do it in the shadows behind a trailer..or in the middle of Castro Street.

      • Bradley, er I mean Chelsea Manning….

      • Rich C.

        So it’s all the homos’ fault.

        • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

          Crashing the plane in a fit of narcissistic depression? Oh no, it’s not the pilot’s fault. It’s the fault of everyone else, all of us who made him feel so bad about his totally normal and healthy same sex attraction. Some hateful person probably refused to bake him a cake.

          • Rich C.

            You wouldn’t even mention it if it was a straight dude.

          • The sad thing is, you are probably right on the money with that one.

          • Mike Nadeau

            That’s more like it.

    • Siwash

      It would be interesting to put together a book of chapter profiles of the main gay leaders. . . their personal stories, which in many instances, appear tawdry and disgusting, and raising questions about their advocacy.

      • retona4

        And violate what Jesus taught?

        • Asmondius

          Jesus taught that marriage is the union of man to woman.
          .
          Heed it well.

        • bonaventure

          How would writing the truth violate what Jesus taught?

    • MHB

      I am one of those people in the trenches, trying to advocate for the truth to be told in our diocesan offices. For three years now, I’ve attempted to get my diocese to purchase and distribute the position paper,

      http://cathmed.org/resources/position-papers/homosexuality-and-hope
      to no avail. It is published in pamphlet form by the Catholic Medical Association. It has information that most people are unaware of and need to know. Please, Anne, if you are unfamiliar with this piece, read it and use it!

      • Paddy

        Catholics…Christians…need to take to the streets, pegida style, to win the morality wars. We won’t. We lose. We may be grateful to buy a prayer rug when the Marxists are done with us…as our bishops snooze.

    • Oh please. Gay marriage is not a war. I’ll remind you that Massachusetts still has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. Your opposition to gay marriage is based on a religious objection. There is nothing wrong with that. It’s the hyperbole – not the religiosity of your objection – that has doomed your cause.

      • Austin Ruse

        DAvid, it is based on science and social science and on the Bible. They cannot disagree.

      • Asmondius

        It’s actually based upon common sense and any rudimentary knowledge of the human race.

        • Right because if gays get married then those are people who won’t form heterosexual unions and reproduce. We are doomed!

          Please.

          • Asmondius

            They can’t get married, that requires a male and a female. They can only provide a sad, embarrassing imitation – think of it as a gender related minstrel show.
            .
            Two middle-aged white guys calling each other ‘hubby’ are not equal to their own parents.

            • That is comparable to saying that two divorced people cannot marry because they do not meet the Church’s requirements.

              Do try to keep up. The issue is civil marriage. The purpose of civil marriage is to create a marital estate. Civil marriage exists when licensed by the state. Religious approval is irrelevant.

              • GG

                Huh? Can a man “marry” a horse? Simple because the word civil is plastered on cannot change reality.

              • Asmondius

                Well, two divorced people CAN be married in the Church if the correct circumstances are met.
                .
                You see, the only means you have of making marriage legitimate for homosexuals is to downgrade it into a simplistic civil function not much different than a fishing license.

                • JohnE_o

                  That’s all that it is in the arena of civil law.

                  Which is what the court decisions are about.

                  • Asmondius

                    Court decisions can be incorrect, can be reversed and overturned.

                    • Siwash

                      This is a vital political truth. . . one which must be repeated, in order to wash away the sedative that “it’s done and over.” We can remedy these evils.

                    • Asmondius

                      You can observe the current situation regarding abortion as a good example. Although the Supreme Court sadly decided that abortion was generally legal, the legality is being whittled down each year as various legislatures continue to confine and restrict that practice.

              • The purpose of civil marriage is to create a marital estate between two dissimilarly situated individuals, in order to protect the unique exposures of each (women can be abandoned when pregnant, men can be cuckholded into supporting a child fathered by another man) as well as the children of that union who are completely exposed.

                Two dudes are the same and can’t produce children. It’s not only impossible, it’s stupid.

                Much like your furious and futile trolling.

                • Julia Soler

                  Marital estates are supposed to operate the way you describe for heterosexual couples with kids, whether those children are biological or adopted. Gay couples often have the same concerns. Often one partner focuses on home and child(ren) and the other focuses on making money. It is sometimes the most efficient way to do things. An example is Dan Savage and his husband, Terry. They adopted the newborn, BJ–whose bio mother chose them as adoptive parents–after several straight couples declined because she had drunk before she realized she was (unintentionally) pregnant. ( The bio father and his father, when told of the child’s existence, were unable to take care of him but wrote they were grateful Daniel and Terry gave him a good home.). Dan Savage makes money as an advice columnist and speaker. Terry does pottery and was the stay-at-home parent; he contributed to the marital estate and would have some protection if the marriage broke up.

                  Thus the spouse who raises children, nearly always the woman, is more willing to: 1) have more children, and 2) spend more time with them, even at the expense of career.

                  Even couples, straight or gay, without kids may divide household tasks into remunerative–and hence usually career-building–and not remunertive, but helping the other spouse make money. When the marriage breaks up, the spouse who contributed labor but not money is left with far less earning power. Divorce settlements can take that into account. Even childless marriages, whatever the genders involved, are of interest to the state because they provide persons with security and the ability to plan financially for the long term. Also caregivers to sick and disabled.

                  • Well that was tedious and illogical.

                    • Julia Soler

                      Not as tedious as the focus on the shape of one’s private parts as determinative of whom one loves. Nor as illogical as claiming the brain is less important than the genitals when it comes to sexual orientation.

                    • You seem confused. People do a lot of things with their private parts that isn’t love.

              • There is no such thing as Gay Marriage either religiously or civilly. If it is “made so by caprice” by either institution, it is done so against all reason and logic; it is done so unjustly. Please look to the work of Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P.George. Their book: “What is Marriage” should prove instructive.

                However, should you rather discuss the matter, I shall put myself at your disposal.

                I would also like you, in turn, to justify any claims you may have regarding the matter as we go along; that is to say, if you choose to have this discussion with me.

                • I have seen at least a dozen versions of this idiotic argument. Same-sex marriage exists because states issue marriage licenses to those thus wed. the betrothed have the same legal rights, benefits and responsibilities as any other married couple and those affect their children, if any. If, for example, one spouse has a defined benefit pension plan, the other spouse will be a continuing beneficiary.

                  The opinions of the Church and its spokesmen are entirely irrelevant to the matter. You are free to believe that same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. You are entitled to your opinion. It is unlikely that the Church will ever solemnize same-sex marriages. That, too, is irrelevant to the issue of civil marriage.

                  • The argument need not rest on anything remotely religious. Is it not so that anyone can say what they like, claim what they like, think what they like et al? Error can be enshrined in law and the very world can be turned on its head. However, (and this is the point) if the validity of any claim is to be taken seriously, ought we not to subject “said claim” to a vigorous cross examination? The fallacy of SSM can be demonstrated with the aid of reason and logic alone without an appeal to religious authority. This has already been successfully accomplished. Moreover, Is it not true that the best theory (to use a corollary from the scientific disciplines) is that which takes into account the most data? I would appeal to your reason. I would very much like to challenge the veracity of LGBT claims on the subject.

                    There is a book that does the job well enough: What is Marriage by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T.Anderson and Robert P George. However, if you would like me to provide you with the arguments, I would be more than happy to. However, there is one caveat: provide me, in turn, with the argumentation that must necessarily hold up any point you would put forward on the subject with certainty.

                    Let me know.

            • retona4

              Think of it as you just admitted to being a homophobe.

              • Asmondius

                Ho hum – ‘homophobe’, nationalist, patriot, Jew…..

      • St JD George

        26. Present homosexuality,degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
        24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
        25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
        38. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand.
        39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose these goals.

        • Alexandra

          Would you please explain to me this list, I mean, where did you get it from?

          • St JD George

            Many will note that I have referenced these before which is why I was being pithy in this one, sorry. Google (or get the book and read it) Cleon Skousen, The Naked Communist. In the 50’s he published a list of the 45 goals for overthrowing the west from within. All 45 are alarming, and no. 27 and 28 are particularly.

            27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

            28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

            • Alexandra

              Thanks.

              • St JD George

                Nothing by men should be read without a critical eye, and I noticed many have tried to discredit him as a product of his culture, which I can see played a role in his upbringing. Having said that, I see no credible critique, just attempts to slander. Pure Alinsky discipleship. Whether they are or not, it’s hard not to go down the list and see how many can be checked off having been implemented successfully. Almost like he was a prophet. I think the effects are irrefutable as well.

      • Steven Jonathan

        David Hart- admittedly slowly boiling frog- The truth is never doomed. The facts against such a false notions as “gay marriage” can be demonstrated biologically on an empirical level, on the natural law level by philosophy and on a theological level. If you convince everyone in the world that it is “normal” to have “same-sex relations” it changes nothing of the truth. You speak from the culture of death, we speak from the culture of life. We tell you the truth that you may live, you tell us lies that we may die. This is all only a sign of the decay of our civilization, nothing more. The APA has no more authority over truth then does a gardener, in fact sadly, probably less.

      • Neomania.

      • Because homosexuality contradicts the truths of biology, it wages war on reason.

        Thankfully, God perennially defends scientific truth and eternally provides grace sufficient to save us from irrational tendencies.

        • Your erudition in the science of biology comes from where exactly? Science teaches us that sexual orientation is a continuum with heterosexual and homosexual at the extreme ends. What confounds reason is attempting to conform science to ancient texts written by people who knew very little about the natural world that they lived in.

          To suggest that God intervenes to promote ignorance is absurd (although I am beginning to understand how Copernicus felt). Moreover, it depends upon which religion you happen to be an adherent of. Apparently God has a different agenda depending upon one’s faith.

          • The development and continued existence of the animal kingdom rests on heterosexuality being a behavioral norm, not an “extreme” as you suggest. Though abnormal behavior does occur wherever physical defect or adverse environmental conditions exist, sexual reproduction adheres to the laws written into creation by it’s author, God.

            That inspired religious texts imprecisely portray details about the created world does not lessen God’s responsibility for its intelligibility, and for enabling scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo, and countless other believers and non-believers throughout the milenia, to discover the truths about its nature.

    • mitch64

      I’m not understanding your point, what would that prove and what TRUTH would that present? Are you trying to say that ALL gay people would adopt and baby and then make some kind of porn with the kid, that all gay people who become pilots will crash a plane…(hmm, there would be quite a bit more planes on the ground then…) All gay people are insane? Or just that you like repeating gay slurs?

      Should we then list all the crimes straight people commit such as…

      http://www.syracuse.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/04/oswego_man_charged_with_raping_multiple_children_has_history_of_child_abuse.html

      or

      http://www.chron.com/houston/article/Houston-s-most-wanted-child-abuse-fugitives-6201674.php#photo-7823007

      There are more but I only could read the first two before I couldn’t read anymore. So perhaps we should say that all straight couples/people are involved rape and child abuse? Of course not, that would be ridiculous..these people are evil people who just happen to be straight and their behavior is their own, not any one else’s correct?

      • bonaventure

        All gay people are insane?

        Yes.

        Homosexuality is a form of insanity, mental and sexual, although I prefer the term depravity. Not to mention that it is physically unsafe (+65% of ALL new HIV infections are homosexual males, who make up +/-2% of the population… which speaks volumes on their insanity/depravity).

        • mitch64

          Oh bonaventure..your honest with your total “blinders on” way and that..while I think YOUR nuts too..I can respect.

          • bonaventure

            Please respond to the CDC’s numbers.

            • orientstar

              He never di reply did he?

              • mitch64

                Because I have a life…sorry out enjoying the beautiful weather.

                Why I would never deny or make excuses for gay men’s sexual behavior..but if you use that an indicator of “insanity and depravity,” we need to take a look the study below:

                The info taken from “Science Daily,”

                Differences in sexual behaviours do not fully explain why the US HIV epidemic
                affects gay men so much more than straight men and women, claims
                research published ahead of print in the journal Sexually Transmitted
                Infections.

                In 2005, over half of new HIV infections diagnosed in the US were
                among gay men, and up to one in five gay men living in cities is thought
                to be HIV positive.

                Yet two large population surveys showed that most gay men had similar
                numbers of unprotected sexual partners per year as straight men and
                women.

                US researchers applied a series of carefully calculated equations in
                different scenarios to study the rate at which HIV infection has spread
                among gay men and straight men and women.

                They used figures taken from two national surveys to estimate how
                many sex partners gay men and straight men and women have, and what
                proportion of gay men have insertive or receptive anal sex, or both.

                They then set these figures against accepted estimates of how easily
                HIV is transmitted by vaginal and anal sex to calculate the size of the
                HIV epidemic in gay men and straight men and women.

                So why I agree with you, that anyone who would have unprotected sex in this day and age would be nuts….that is not solely the provence of gay men and their increased HIV infection rate says more about HOW the disease is spread then this outrageous promiscuous behavior in comparison to straight people.

      • You should look into how many homosexuals were, when children, exposed to pornographic material, raped, groped…

        • mitch64

          Then tell me instead of just throwing out a general statement. I wasn’t my partner wasn’t I don’t know of any who were..General statements but all that seems to be needed here..I am not disputing that it has happened…but were but is there a connection? What about people that were abused and are still straight?

          • It’s not a general statement. I was encouraging you to look at the material available on the subject. There is plenty of it in support of the position that “little boys abused my men” does indeed pervert sexuality in this way (it doesn’t mean it always has to, mind you). It’s easy to find; you certainly don’t need me to do your homework for you. Furthermore, pederasty is one of the chief topics of concern and regret among LGBT people. I know this (personally) because of my own relationships and of those of my friends and acquaintances and (academically) because of the material available on the subject. Heck, there’s even an organisation which promotes Man/Boy love called NAMBLA. You don’t need me or anyone else to draw the line between these two dots to get the picture. It’s been documented and experienced by too many young men.

            • mitch64

              Joe..once again a general statement thrown out with no back up..You presented the topic you provide the evidence..I won’t do the work for you..

              NAMBLA is a bunch of freaks..Does it even exist anymore. And MY experience and relationships are different. Goes to show..netherworld is a big place and not as simplistic as we would wish sometime.

              • I suppose you have a point. I should present the documentation. Can I get back to you some point early next week? I’m in Sevilla and its Feria!

                Does NAMBLA not exist anymore? Hmmm.

                You are right. I will grant that the netherworld it a big place and it certainly is not as simplistic as some of us would have it. I don’t mean to paint it as such.

                God bless,

                • mitch64

                  Feria in Seville..a great time..have fun!

    • Seamrog

      I wonder if the pilot he locked out of the cabin, or the flight attendants who were on that flight were the people who called him tomato.

      “You don’t accept me for who I am, and ridicule me, so I am going to savagely murder you.”

      The homosexualists who frequent this site to ridicule Catholics and who don’t accept them for their beliefs seem to be oddly understanding and tacitly approving of violent behavior when it is done in reaction to Christians….they can’t seem to follow their logic to it’s end.

    • But were the US MSM to broadcast this information about the maniacal pilot, their perverse conclusion would be that he committed the atrocity to avenge bigotry..

    • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

      One needs to be very careful of malicious slander. The Daily Mail is a British tabloid equivalent to the National Enquirer. Many of its stories are false. This particular story started with a German tabloid. Tabloids pick up gossip and rumors from one another, so the same story, true or not, can be published and re-published by multiple tabloid newspapers. The story about gay men sexually abusing their adopted child is a very sad one, but bear in mind that the “typical” child molester is in a traditional marriage, is ostensibly heterosexual, and is religious (like Jerry Sandusky.) However one feels about SSM, we need to avoid sinning against charity by attempting to besmirch an entire minority group based on the alleged behavior of some of its members.

  • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

    Excellent article. Keep up the good work, Mr. Ruse.

  • DeaconEdPeitler

    I agree. We must be outspoken. One month after the killing of the school children at that Newtown CT elementary school, I acknowledged the horror of that act and the taking of innocent, defenseless lives of those 21 schoolchilden. But I reminded everyone in the Sunday homily I gave at two Masses – a homily entitled “Every Day is Newtown in America” – that the taking of innocent and defenseless lives happens in America to the tune of 3,700 lives per day = every single day for the past 40 years.

    These children, closer in age to those killed at Newtown than they are to the adults reading this, have no place to hide as did the children who were able to survive the Newtown massacre. And similar to the safe environment one assumes a school classroom to be, there should be no safer place for a baby than his or her mother’s womb. And just like Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, physicians who are supposed to be healers, ply the weapons of their trade – a scalpel or suction device – to end the lives of the defenseless.

    My point in mentioning this is that only one person bothered to e-mail me to register her objection to the comparison and said she distracted herself from listening to my words (like a child who places fingers in his ears to drown out the voice of a disciplining parent) by “reading the scriptures of the day while I was speaking,” As for the rest of the people at church for those two Masses, they responded with loud and long applause after the homily – not for me but for the truth of what we all know. It does take courage to speak out as humbly and best we can but there are many out there who are looking to those who will lead when it comes to the moral issues of our day.

    • Asmondius

      Bravo

    • LarryCicero

      The same day the school children in Newtown were shot, school children in China were slashed with a knife. Both of these acts had at least one thing in common- mental illness. The priest at our local parish argued for common sense gun control laws. I asked if he’d heard about the incident in China (he hadn’t) and told him he should have argued for awareness of mental disorders and not gun control, that people should be able to defend themselves. Next week he doubled down, saying he’d been taken to task last week and would argue for total gun elimination. When the moral leaders lack common sense, it takes courage to humbly confront them. Changing hearts is not so easy.

      • St JD George

        I’m sure we all wish we lived in the Garden of Eden before the forbidden fruit was eaten, but we don’t, and now we live with the consequences including with the serpent.

        • Rich C.

          Talking snakes? Really?

          • St JD George

            In whatever form that can possess your imagination, and distract your attention from him, yes really.

            • Paddy

              Darn right. Unless we take to the streets in support of the natural l;aw…all is lost for the next 300 years, at best.

      • Its funny how some priests lack any vigor in arguing for things that are incontrovertible; but suddenly find their will to preach for things that aren’t matters of faith or morals but matters of prudential decisions.

        • Paddy

          Those priests are invariably registered in the corrupt Marxist Democratic Party Machine, you know. Just look at the enrollment forms.

        • LarryCicero

          I was left wondering if an army took him to task or if mine was a lone comment. How many filed past just saying “Good morning Father.” Liberalism is a mental disorder.

      • hombre111

        Changing is not so easy. Changing your heart about gun control is the truly difficult part. Your pastor must be a patient man. Let’s see…11,000 homicides last year, 20,000 suicides, and almost 200,000 people left brain damaged, crippled, hospitalized, and traumatized forever. Recent research shows that the ANNUAL cost for guns is $269,000,000,000. This takes in lost wages, cost of law enforcement, immediate medical costs, lifelong medical costs, and, for many, a permanent loss of income. This amounts to $700 for every man, woman, and child in America, year after year. These statistics had to be gained indirectly, because the Republicans, as the lackeys of the NRA, have once again forbidden the government agencies responsible from keeping track of such things. As you said, it is a lack of common sense.

        • LarryCicero

          Thanks for your reply Father. You prove my point.

        • St JD George

          Funny how those who would mock never acknowledge that the instances of worse mass slaughter of human life have been committed by totalitarian regimes who disarmed their citizenry to round up dissenters that stood in their way. Maybe if all worshiped Christ we could be a little more at peace, but we don’t, and today in this world if you do so openly you risk persecution. I pray I’ll never have to, but if I have the opportunity to defend I won’t lay either. If you can’t then don’t carry and be at peace, but don’t mock others who aren’t afraid as you.

          • hombre111

            Whether or not mass killing has occurred in other places is irrelevant We live in a democracy, with no totalitarian tyrant in sight. As members of a democracy, we either believe or cower before the propaganda of the NRA, and manage never to think about the true cost of our idol worship of guns. If you support the current gun epidemic, you are on par with people who support choice. Both lead to wholesale slaughter.

            • St JD George

              I respectfully disagree. I also understand it’s a complex and deeply polarized issue as well and many are not comfortable with the idea that evil exists in the world. We do seem to be moving away from the ideals of a republic and towards the mob rule of democracy I’ll grant you. Not a single gun control law proposed would have prevented any of the mass shootings that made the headlines. I think there is more hope in leading others to Christ than state sponsored confiscation and control.

              • hombre111

                No existing gun control law would have stopped the mass shooting. Amen. The cat was already out of the bag. The NRA had made sure any looney-tune can get his rapid fire gun with the big clip. But that is beside the point. With more than 300,000,000 guns now loose on the country, it is much too late to talk about gun control. Now all we can do is observe the astonishing human and economic price.

                “American exceptionalism” means that America is incapable of learning from other nations, whose societies are not torn apart by the very expensive and very bloody harvest reaped by the runaway guns Americans love and consider as sacred as God. History will say that America, with its monumental defense budgets, endless wars, and bloody violence at home, killed itself.

                As for you, Mr. Editor, this old man will ignore your effort at distraction, and stick to the point. But thanks anyway. :>)

                • St JD George

                  The 1st and 2nd sit side by side and are the first in the Bill of Rights so it can’t be argued that they aren’t related, but I’ll grant you there is a period and a carriage return separating the two if that’s distracting.

                  Guns don’t kill people though Hombre, they are objects – useful tools in one hand, and capable of harm in another. It’s what people do with them that makes the difference. I use mine to kill varmints on my property. In Israel Palestinians run their cars into crowds of people to kill and destroy. Should cars be banned in Israel? You do know that more people die in car accidents than by guns – should we outlaw cars in America? I could just as easily argue that if we all were infused with the Holy Spirit then there would be no need what so ever, but we aren’t, yet. My stomach turns as well with the daily carnage that results from the hopelessness in our mostly urban centers. Sadly only the very rare and mostly suburban events get media attention. Those deaths, though tragic, pale by orders of magnitude in comparison to the slaughter of defenseless innocents by totalitarian socialist/communist regimes, particularly in just the last century. I doubt that having been armed would have made a difference in the ultimate outcome confronting the followers “of peace”, but I’m sure the Archbishop of Mosul had second thoughts about his sheep being mowed down and helpless. Who do you wish to learn from, pacifist Europe? In another century it won’t even exist with all the churches destroyed or replaced with minarets. Think that their strict disarming of citizens has led to a lack of gun crime. Think again. Criminals love it when you don’t shoot back. No thanks.

                  • hombre111

                    The structure of the argument, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is a logical fallacy listed in studies on logic. A similar argument would be, “Illegal drugs don’t afflict society, people using illegal drugs afflict society.” So, we should make meth available on every corner, trusting that all will be well.

                    In my state, death by the gun outnumbers death by the car, and this is happening in a growing number of states.

                    But anyway, control of guns is a vain enterprise. The NRA has won and we will endure the consequences. Good luck to us.

                    • St JD George

                      Now that that’s conceded, let’s get on with the business of reaching people and not demonizing pieces of machined metal. Maybe someday we can live in a world where Satan doesn’t have his tentacles around the ankles and throats of people telling them to “pull the trigger”. Don’t hate Hombre, teach the good news with love of the gospel and be wise to the ways of the world.

                    • St JD George

                      I’m ambivalent about the NRA, but admit it that you are a little bit jealous. Don’t you wish there was an organization that was as effective in achieving success as it in promoting the 1st amendment in this country? Instead we seem to mostly cower and acquiesce to what ever parameters the increasingly hostile state is willing to allow us to operate under. I love Christ’s church but I’ll admit I’m drawn towards strength, with mercy, and my blood does not run lukewarm.

                    • St JD George

                      Unless you desire to become like a martyr, don’t follow the path of father Fernando Meza Luna who was shot dead during a robbery a month ago.

                      A Colombian pastor was fatally shot in an attempted robbery in the city of Sincelejo on Saturday.

                      Father Fernando Meza Luna, pastor of the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima, was severely wounded in the incident and immediately taken to a medical clinic, but he died from his injury, Fides news agency reports. It is unclear where he was when the robbery took place.

                      His death has prompted parishioners to demand increased security in Sincelejo, where armed violence is common. A local chief of police confirmed that Father Fernando had been robbed two months earlier, when his mobile phone was taken.

                      The Bishop-emeritus of Sincelejo, Orlando Corrales, has publically mourned the priest’s death.

                      “With pain and sadness at the death of Fr. Fernando, I ask all priests to pray for him and for his family,” he said on Sunday.

                      “I am deeply saddened by his death, and I hope it can be a source of greater unity among priests. Now that we are close to Easter, I invite everyone to raise their voices, asking for respect for life. I express my spiritual closeness in prayer.”

                      A funeral was held in the Cathedral in Sincelejo on Monday evening.

                      Though the motivation for the robbery and shooting is unknown, Colombia is currently ranked 35th on the World Watch List, which records countries around the world where Christians face persecution.

                      According to Christian advoacy group Open Doors, believers are often the victims of organised corruption by criminal groups in Colombia. Those who are outspoken about their faith are the most common targets, but numerous Christians have been displaced as a result of hostility from communities which consider them a threat to the preservation of indigenous culture and traditions.

                    • St JD George

                      The two have something in common … both are an exercise in free will but poor choices due to Satan’s influence over their souls. I don’t wish to see Meth dealers on every corner because it has no useful purpose, only destructive. What would be the point of that?

                    • St JD George

                      I am very responsible in how I care for and secure my guns, as I gather you are, and I accept that it is possible things could go south in a confrontation – which I pray I’m never in of course. I would never be at peace with myself if I or a loved one were murdered and I didn’t at least do something to fight back and try to prevent. The thought of being a lamb led to slaughter quite frankly makes me want to vomit. Christ died for our sins, but I don’t think he wants us lay down our lives senselessly as a pacifist. When Satan no longer is in this world maybe we can enjoy a cold beer and talk about the bad old days and how good things are.

                    • St JD George

                      I know I’m not going to change how you view things Hombre, and you I’m sure are at peace with the opposite. I’m only trying to share that there may more than one way to view the situation. I view them as a piece of machined metal quite useful in the right hands, and acknowledge that in the wrong hands they can do harm. At the end of the day they don’t leap out of the gun closet and start shooting by themselves, somebody with intent has to operate them. I am much more eager to engage with you though knowing of your experience hunting and are not like that silly man who drove around in a tank for a photo op in 1988. That image still haunts me. Right up there with John Kerry faux hunting in 2004. And yes, Cheney’s quail hunt disaster was pretty bad too.

                    • hombre111

                      When I saw Dukakis in the tank, I knew he had lost the election. Problem is, to decide a man would make a lousy president just because he looked like a dork in a tanker’s helmet is illogical to the extreme. And John Kerry? Seems to me that America, with its love of war, should have compared oranges to oranges. John Kerry was in actual combat, a decorated veteran who had been under fire in a swift boat. And Bush? Joined the National Guard to get out of combat, spent some of his time drunk, and nobody could account for where he was during part of his service. The actual warrior verses the pretend guy.

                      Bush lived up to his past and recklessly got us into a war on false pretenses, a war which cost thousands of American casualties and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties, multiple trillions of dollars and the respect of the world, a war whose consequences still reverberate in a Middle East shattered to pieces.

                      In other words, it is not foolish images that haunt me, but the reality that followed. As for Cheney? On a drunken binge in a hunting club. His minions made sure time went by before the authorities could check on his alcohol consumption. My favorite story about Cheney the outdoorsman is when he killed multiple dozens of tame ducks and pheasants at another “hunting club,” so he could brag about serving a meal of game to hls rich guests. As a real hunter, when I learned about this, I felt sick. I bet he didn’t pluck a feather or reach in and pull out some guts.

                    • St JD George

                      We have been graced with some really great leaders lately haven’t we. It’s almost as if God is punishing us for some reason, I guess.
                      Wish we were closer and you could teach me about hunting, and I could work on you to convince you that guns don’t kill people, people do. I don’t have a hunting heritage. Everyone in family is afraid of guns.

                    • hombre111

                      To me, the best part about hunting big game is “hunting camp,” where I would get together with my partners just to enjoy friendship around a campfire. Another good thing about big game hunting is the way it requires the best use of all your senses and all your skills. For those first few hours on opening day, you are never more alive. It is actually not necessary to bring down an animal. In fact, as I got older, I was relieved when I didn’t, because that was when all the work would begin, and I mean work. Unless you have horses, or somebody with horses, or can get your vehicle or atv up close, you have to cut up the animal and bring it out on your back.

                      In order to call yourself an outdoorsman, you have to be out in every kind of weather, facing every kind of situation. It can be quite dangerous and you have to be in good shape. If you are hunting in the woods, four steps and you and your partner are often separated, out of hearing and out of sight. Toward the end, we used 2-way radios. But even then, you basically walk alone in the silence. You have to carry survival equipment in a pack that could keep you alive overnight in weather way below freezing. Another thing that helped me toward the end was a GPS, so you can get back safely to your truck.

                      Because I like to elk hunt, that means going to mountain states and into real wilderness. Again, thank God for good partners, because I am not a good planner. We could never afford to hire hunting guides, so we had to figure it out on our own.

                    • St JD George

                      I understood everything you said Hombre and am envious, including the need to not take down. I don’t have that opportunity and so have to live it out only watching the outdoor network, which only leaves me wanting. I have a colleague who is 74 and headed down to TX to hunt pigs next week (on a ranch, not exactly wild) and I told him I want to go with him sometime.

                    • St JD George

                      Darn it all, they just keep coming. Another good reason, to ward off unwanted pests.

                      The union looking to organize workers at Boeing’s South Carolina plant has put its plans in a holding pattern, claiming workers are so opposed to signing up that they chased labor leaders off their porches at gunpoint.

                      The North Charleston plant, which opened in the right-to-work state four years ago and builds fuselages for 747s and 787s, employs about 7,500 workers. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers had been trying to build support for a vote this week on unionizing 3,175 production and maintenance workers, but called off the vote days before it was to happen.

                      “If it happened, they didn’t call the police.”

                      – Charleston, S.C., police spokesman

                      “After speaking with Boeing workers who we were previously unable to reach, we’ve determined now is not the right time for an election,” union organizer Mike Evans said in a statement. “An atmosphere of threats, harassment and unprecedented political interference has intimidated workers to the point we don’t believe a free and fair election is possible.”

                      The union filed an unfair labor practice with the National Labor Relations Board in which it alleged that “two organizers were threatened at gunpoint and others reported hostile and near-violent confrontations,” according to a union press release.

                      Boeing officials and elected leaders in the right-to-work state were dubious of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers’ claims of threats from employees, but said the union’s retreat does show employees don’t want to sign up.

                      Related ImageExpand / Contract

                      Officials for Boeing say that the IAM’s allegations are “frivolous.” (Reuters)

                      “I can only speak to the union’s claims as a whole,” Doug Alder, a spokesman for Boeing said in a statement to FoxNews.com. “The IAM’s allegations are frivolous and our team is continuing to focus on building the highest-quality airplanes in the world.”

                      A Charleston police spokesman said there have been no reports of organizers having guns pulled on them in the city.

                      “We haven’t heard of any such reports,” the spokesman. “If it happened, they didn’t call the police.”

                      A spokesman for the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office also said there had been no reports of gunpoint threats directed at union workers.

                      “I am unaware of this type of incident occurring in the unincorporated area of Charleston County,” he said.

                      Calls for comment to North Charleston police department were not returned.

                      South Carolina is one of 25 states with right-to-work laws, meaning workers at a unionized plant do not have to join the organization in order to work there. The Seattle-based Boeing built its plant in South Carolina after several battles with unions at its Washington plant.

                      According to a recent report by The Post and Courier of Charleston, Boeing Co. stated that the South Carolina plant’s production and maintenance workers make an average of $20.59 an hour, which equals out to over $42,000 a year for a 40-hour work week. They also told the newspaper that there is a 1.9 percent pay increase scheduled for this fall.

                      South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has been an outspoken critic of unions in her state, and helped lure the company with a $450 million package of tax incentives.

                      “We have a reputation internationally for being a state that doesn’t want unions, because we don’t need unions,” she said in January during her State of the Union address. “I have every confidence that the Boeing workers in Charleston will see this play for exactly what it is and reject this union power grab.”

                    • hombre111

                      As usual, the lazy journalist did not do some basic homework and got it wrong. My state is a right to work state, which means that people who do not belong to a union have to pay dues to the union, even though the union has bargained for the wages and benefits they enjoy. People cannot resist a free ride and, without adequate financial support, the union collapses.

                      You are too young to remember when Americans saw a prosperity they will never see again. After the war, America’s factories were humming. Unions had bargained for good wages and good benefits. As production rose, so did wages. The union wage lifted other boats; white-collar workers, who despised blue collar workers, also enjoyed good wages and benefits because their employers did not want them to even think about unionizing.

                      As a result, a man, on his single wage, could support a family, buy a house, buy a new car once in a while, go on vacations, send his kids to college, and have some savings. Mine was the last generation to witness and enjoy this prosperity. Workers still remembered the desperation of the Republican caused Great Depression and, by and large, were Democrats.

                      Came the seventies, and employers figured out how to get the upper hand over their employees: Right to Work. Young blue collar workers were furious because they could not just step into the good wages enjoyed by older workers. They had to work their way up. Those who had not joined unions enjoyed the benefits, but they did not want to pay any dues. They all seemed to think that good wages and good benefits came because of some natural law.

                      The South had always been anti-union, of course, and that is where Right to Work started. But it soon got to my state. I watched my nephews vote for the measure, even though I warned them that they were cutting off their own noses. Sure enough, within a year the unions were collapsing and my state joined the march to the bottom. The workers in my family were mostly carpenters, and carpenters today are earning more or less the same dollar wage they earned in the seventies, which means their real incomes are less than one third what they were, when you take inflation into consideration.

                      Other factors entered in. Unions were notoriously segregated, even in the north and, with the Civil Rights Movement, Hard Hats thought they were being betrayed because blacks would work beside them. The formerly solidly Democrat South became the solidly Republican South. Nixon accomplished this with his “Southern Strategy.” Reagan continued the strategy, using all the right code words, and a large part of labor went with him.
                      Women entered the workplace around that time and, by the relentless caclulus of capitalism, it took two wage-earners to feed a family, which steadily lost its benefits. Conservative economic theories, like “trickle-down,” became dominant. As their purchasing power diminished, the middle class tried to maintain its rate of consumption by borrowing on the value of their houses, and by maxing out their credit cards. The collapse in 2008 brought all this to the fore. Most families are still earning less than they did in 2008.

                      Wages went flat and stay flat. Considering inflation, they have actually gone down. I see this situation as more or less permanent. Walmart was the first to understand the power of the global economy, and more or less forced its suppliers to move their operations to China, further undercutting U.S. wages. Now, with the global economy, American workers are competing with workers in Mexico and Southeast Asia, where the governments work to keep wages down. And so the U.S. worker has further and further to fall, who knows how far? Nobody feels the pain of this more than white male workers, who sense they have lost their share of the American dream. Outraged, they can’t seem to blame anybody but Obama and, accumulating their guns, have become part of the core of the Republican Party. “New Dems” like Clinton have become fond of Wall Street and have not worked very hard to help blue collar workers.

                      I have minimal sympathy with the growing American underclass. In many ways, they choose to swallow the cool-aid, taking solace in their guns, racist politics, old time religion, and sexual irresponsibility. Contrary to conservative propaganda, it is not the liberals, but those at the bottom of the financial ladder who co-habit and harvest fatherless children. History will comment on this as it studies the long American march into oblivion.

                    • St JD George

                      My wife was part of the labor negotiating team for one of the largest high tech manufacturing companies in the country, years ago. She summed up the hours, days and weeks of sitting across the table thusly “I don’t have any shared destiny with this company, I’m here to get as much as I can and if you fold I’ll just go back to pig farming. That was a actual quote by the lead negotiator. I lived in an area once too where there was a mix of new home construction. I was shocked to read and hear the stories of job site sabotage destroying property during the night at the non Union sites. Nobody ever caught either oddly enough.
                      I’m not into bashing though, and I respect those who invest heavily in their people to give them the skills and training. I’m not into labels but would be what you call white collar and my best friends here in OH belong to IEW, through church. Labels mean nothing to me, except faithful and non believer.
                      Our country is in a world of hurt right now there is no doubt and both parties seem clueless. I can’t believe we have run up a $20T debt, closer to $300T including unfounded liabilities, and have an occupant in the WH who is so fond of the false prophet from Mecce. Bitter clingers indeed. I accept that it is God’s will that will be done in the end and try not to focus on events I have no control over in the mystical city of DC on the Potomac. What I can do is be faithful to God and my family, my church and my community. OH is not right to work as you know, and the town I live in has been hit hard.

                    • St JD George

                      I poke a little, but I’m more sympathetic than I let on. Where I struggle is fighting the entitlement mentality and divisiveness. And now more importantly the crises of faith in our Lord. It makes no sense to ship a finished product half way around the world that should or could be made at home.

                    • hombre111

                      I would be interested in a comparison with labor in the U.S. and labor in Europe, where people have a much deeper idea of the common good and community. My brother worked in several industries and his comment was, “they want loyalty from me but have no loyalty toward me.” My deceased brother-in-law’s devotion to the capitalist system was total, but every time he got close to a vested interest in a pension with some company, he was laid off. They have some other term for that, these days.

                      It occurred to me as I was driving back from Mass at one of our missions this morning (two missions this weekend, total of 200 miles, three Masses so far, one to go) that another disaster is just looming there and we don’t have the moral or political way to its solution. Research says that 58% of Americans will have nothing but Social Security for their retirement. Why aren’t they saving? Is it just the grasshopper/ant story? Not in my state. People just don’t have the money. They live from pay-check to pay-check. But the grasshopper/ant tale is also true in part it is because we are all faithful members of the consumer society, and saving is not in our DNA. Anyway, not so long from now, there will be all those seniors who can barely survive. In the old days, they were sent to the “poor farms.” That was the reason for Social Security.

                      When I was pastor in a logging community in the mountains, I saw first hand how poor some seniors actually are. At a funeral dinner, the conversation was about where to find free health care. These people mostly owned their homes, but they barely had enough to keep going.

                    • St JD George

                      God bless you for your devotion to the church and Christ Hombre. If you don’t mind my asking, what state are you in? There once was a time families and communities mostly took care of one another, but we aren’t going back in time, and not every one was fortunate. I can agree that a society of individuals not bound by a sense of common purpose and faith in God is doomed to fail, and it seems to me we have never been more divided than we are today.

                    • St JD George

                      Might be a dork, after all he fumbled trying to say how he would defend his wife from an attacker and sounded like one. I might not get to heaven, but I know what I would do, even if I had regrets later. We know now that our presidency really only hangs by the thread of one good sound bite or gotcha moment, or a bumper sticker with empty platitudes, so no longer shocking. I will stop the seas from rising and heal our planet. Sounds like Moses parting the Red Sea – must have a complex.

                    • St JD George

                      Saw this today and had to laugh. Other example of what’s good for me is not good for thee. If their doing the people’s will why would they want them? Here’s a good control proposal – I get to pick who can and who can’t. Sorry in advance because I know you … stongly dislike … (don’t want to use the word hate) the letter “R” like a Red flag to a bull, and this bill was in response to (supposedly) and article features two.

                      by AWR HAWKINS22 Apr 201540

                      Although Washington DC’s strict gun control requirements make it “illegal for most people to carry a firearm under Washington, D.C.’s strict gun laws,” Capitol Police say it is allowable for members of Congress to keep guns in their offices and to transport them as well, “as long as they are unloaded.”

                      According to Yahoo News, Capitol Police spokeswoman Kimberly Schneider said:

                      Members of Congress may maintain firearms within the confines of their office, and they and any employee or agent of any member of Congress may transport within the Capitol Grounds firearms unloaded and securely wrapped.

                      But Schneider also made clear that no one “shall carry any firearm inside the chamber or on the floor of either House, in any lobby or cloakroom adjacent thereto, in the galleries of either House or in the Marble Room of the Senate or Rayburn Room of the House unless assigned or approved by the two Sergeants of Arms for maintenance of adequate security.”

                      This announcement comes one week after Representative Ken Buck (R-CO-4th Dist.) tweeted a photo of he and Representative Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.-4th Dist.) holding an “assault rifle” under an American flag in Buck’s office on Capitol Hill.

                      Buck spoke to the hullabaloo over having the gun by pointing out that the gun is inoperable; the bolt carrier assembly is removed and the rifle has a trigger lock on it. He added, “Putting a trigger lock on an inoperable gun is like putting a chastity belt on a eunuch.”

                    • St JD George

                      I won’t reprint the whole article, you can go search if it piques your interest. I saw a story this morning about a group who were protesting IKEA stores and blamed them for causing a sharp rise in divorce rates because couples couldn’t handle the stress of assembling their products, or shopping there because of too many choices I guess. Should we ban all IKEA’s because they are an evil business bent on destroying marriage and accept that people don’t really have free will to resist shopping there or to overcome their ineptness in conflict resolution? IKEA doesn’t want to destroy marriages Hombre, and guns don’t kill people either … the people on the other end who pull the trigger with bad intent do.

                    • hombre111

                      Guns don’t kill people, people do. But in civilized societies like Canada, England, the Netherlands, and the other countries of Europe, which control guns, the crime rate in general is a fraction of the American crime rate, and the homicide rate in the Netherlands is less than a fraction. Face it. We are a country addicted to violence and the gun acts as both sacred totem and instrument of execution. As I have said, the NRA has won. 300+million guns cannot be removed from our society. A $269,000,000,000 annual cost for gun violence is an invisible cost to most, but I am sure the gun nuts would say it is an acceptable cost. I have put this in a dollar figure, based on a research article by Mother Jones, because dollars are what Americans respect most. The human cost is almost irrelevant, as the Sandy Hook shooting shows. I thought the sight of dead little ones and their anguished parents would cause Congress to at least do something, but it didn’t, but, as usual, NRA damage control won the day. .

                    • St JD George

                      You should read ColdStanding’s reply to me on another subject yesterday. He lives in Canada and had quite a different slant than you about what’s going on there. I also lived in Italy and have traveled Palermo, Naples and other regions throughout the South. There are lots of bullet holes or chips in stone in the buildings from shootings. Yeah, they think nothing of putting bullets in babies either. They don’t have the NRA and guns have been around long before the NRA even came into existence. I get it that you hate the NRA and conservatives who don’t wish to be innocent victims. If only you didn’t hate so much you might find more to love. Mother Jones, really?

                    • St JD George

                      Did it ever stop to occur to you that the violence is not because of the guns, but because too few people have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ? Maybe when we conquer that problem the other will take care of itself. Let’s agree to put all our energies into that.

                    • St JD George

                      I know you don’t like to follow links, so I won’t, and I won’t paste the whole story and just summarize. Just read about two stories about people assaulting other people with a beer bottle to the head over who was the better basketball player, LeBron James or Michael Jordan in State College, PA, and another over whether the Android is better than Apple’s IPhone in Tulsa, OK. Should we ban beer bottles because people can’t show restraint in their exercise of free will?

                      By the way, you sound almost exactly like my Dad who is near 90 now and I love him very much.

                • LarryCicero

                  The de-Christianization of America is not Obama’s fault. America was exceptional because it was Christian. Our government was based upon the Natural Law expressed in the Declaration. President Lincoln referred to the Constitution and the Union as the “silver frame” made for the “golden apples” which is the Declaration; The frame was made for the picture, not the picture for the frame. Obama does not reflect on Proverbs. He is a reflection of today’s citizenry.
                  It is the fault of preachers like you, who worship the false idol of government, and goverment control of guns, not self-control, and government “charity” which is compulsion not self-giving, and government approval of abortion and gay marriage which are abominations. American exceptionalism is based in moral righteousness of its citizens. Our moral leaders have failed, failed to pull the trigger and shoot down evil. When De Toqueville looked at America, he found it’s greatness in the churches- in the pews and pulpits.

                  • hombre111

                    Our country was founded on natural law according to John Locke, which is quite different from the Catholic perspective of Natural Law. Philosophers write about this. You are probably correct about Obama being a reflection of today’s citizenry, or at least the progressive element. When De Toqueville looked at America, he remarked on its most significant trait: individualism. He had to coin the term. And both parties are a reflection of different aspects of the individualism that is contributing to our demise as a nation.

                • St JD George
                  • hombre111

                    I don’t do links. Too risky. Spell it out yourself.

                    • St JD George

                      Priest in Ann Arbor tells parishioners to believe in God, but arm themselves for protection in a hostile world.

      • Rich C.

        How many kids did the nutcase in China manage to kill with a knife. I bet it would have been a lot more with a gun.

        • St JD George

          Yes it’s true. Under Mao’s reign of terror it’s reported that nearly 45 million dissenters to his regime were murdered in cold blood. I can imagine there would have been a lot less if the citizenry weren’t disarmed and had the ability to defend themselves. If only the citizens had more knives.

          • hombre111

            Don’t have to cite Mao. Just look at our country. I wrote about this somewhere on Crisis. Final analysis in money, which most impresses Americans: Our guns and their violent use costs America around $269,000,000,000 every year, or $700 for every man, woman, and child.

            • St JD George

              Do you live in a safe area? Are police nearby? Ever held a gun? What is about them that frightens you? Would you try and defend yourself or a loved one if you were attacked? I always think about Michael Dukakis in these conversations – someone who would just stand there and look stupefied.

              • hombre111

                Oh, brother. Didn’t I say I live in a Red State? Guns are our heritage. B.B guns. A pellet gun. Dreams about a .22. A 16 gauge shotgun was my first real weapon, and I mowed down the critters. First came rabbits, then pheasants, ducks, and geese. My armory has expanded. I now have seven guns, having sold two: A .22 pistol, a .38/.357, a .41 magnum, a .22 rifle, a 30-30, a .270, and a 30-06. I have killed my share of elk and deer. I am a fair off-hand shooter on the target range.

                The simple fact is, I enjoy guns but do not worship them. I am not paranoid. I do not think the dictatorship is right around the corner. But I am appalled by the enormous human and financial cost endured by a gun-loving nation. I concede that the gun nuts have won, and America is doomed to continue the insanity. But I won’t have any part in it. I denounce and deplore it the same way I would denounce and deplore abortion.

                • St JD George

                  Sounds like some great experiences, would have liked to have shared in some of those with you. I have to admit I don’t have that heritage. Glad to hear you have competency in handling and a mature understanding that they are a useful tool, I feel better.
                  You do realize that No. 44 exasurbated the problem don’t you? Gun sales doubled over night when he started his assault.

                  • hombre111

                    Sales jumped as soon as a black man became president. He never started an assault on guns. He did ask America to consider curbing the high capacity magazines that were used by mass shooters. Seemed reasonable to me, but gun-nuts are not reasonable. Right now, I have to limit my target shooting with inexpensive .22’s, because they disappear as soon as they are put on the shelf. The paranoia marches on. If you want to see something strange, go to a gun show.

                    • St JD George

                      Hombre, if we drew a Venn diagram representing us we’d find an area in the middle where the circles overlap, hopefully filled in with a bold color for the love our Lord. Outside that, we have different world views. I don’t see color, but I see one who sees everything through the lens of color. I see one who defends the right to destroy Christ’s Holy Innocents as a choice, who defends the immorality of SSM, who claims to be Christian yet openly mocks people of faith – except the likes of the big faux Al on MSNBC, who openly embraces the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization and has contempt for Israel, who is hell bent on implementing his unpopular policies which the majority of American people are opposed to though is supposed to represent all, who runs the most nontransparent administration in US history, who has run up more debt than all of his predecessors combined, and so on and so on. The only color I see is red, and that’s only because my blood pressure is up.

                    • St JD George

                      Ann Arbor Catholic Priest Edward Fride recently sent a letter to his parishioners, warning them that the right solution to rising crime is not only to believe in God but also to carry a concealed handgun.

                      Moreover, Fride told parishioners they could “attend classes at Christ the King parish to earn a Concealed Pistol License (CPL).”

                      According to the Detroit Free Press, Fride wrote:

                      It is very common for Christians to simply assume that they live in Mayberry, trusting that because they know the Lord Jesus, everything will always be fine and nothing bad can happen to them and their families.

                      How to balance faith, reality, prudence, and trust is one of those critical questions that we struggle with all our lives. Pretending we are in Mayberry, while we are clearly not, can have very negative consequences for ourselves and those we love, especially those we have a responsibility to protect. If we are not in Mayberry, is there a real threat?

                      Fride then answered his own question by affirming that threats exist and that the rising crime rat, together with a “significant reduction in the availability of an armed police response” in Ann Arbor, suggests parishioners should have a gun and should carry it for self-defense.

                      Fride’s letter bore the heading, “Yes, it appears that ‘We’re Not in Mayberry Anymore, Toto!’”

                      Fride expressed fear over the safety of children at Father Gabriel Richard High School in Ann Arbor and elsewhere. He cited an incident where would-be shooters were recently interdicted just before carrying out their heinous acts, saying, “Had the shooters got in, we would have had our own Columbine.”

                      He also cited his concerns about the horrible attacks unarmed female parishioners could face from criminals.

                      Fride wrote: “Several people have said to me, ‘I’m afraid of guns.’ My response to one woman was, ‘Well, how do you feel about rape?”’

                      Upon learning of the letter, Lansing Catholic Bishop Earl Boyea said he “has never given permission for anyone to carry a concealed weapon in a church or school in the Diocese of Lansing.” Moreover, he believes “CPL classes are inappropriate activities to be held on Church property.”

                      Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins.

                    • hombre111

                      I heard about this on EWTN, while I was listening to a program run by a man from that parish. His boast is, he has the New York Times in one hand, and the Catechism in the other. As someone who is basically conservative, he gave the best answer.

                      First of all, concealed gun classes in a church facility is simply beyond the spirit of Jesus. Go somewhere else. Secondly, shootouts the priest fears are really rare. Even some police never fire their gun in their entire lifetime. Secondly, when you bring a gun into your house, the chances are high that you (per suicide) or a member of your family (per suicide, accident, or deliberate murder) will die by that gun. The chances are very small that you will use it to defend yourself or the people you love. Guns cause more hurt than help.

                      In my own little corner of the world, we have had several children killed by guns they found and were playing with. I am talking about this year. We have also had several women murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. And our suicide rate is sky high, higher than death by automobile.

                      The only person who might need to get a gun and learn how to shoot it is a woman with an angry husband or boyfriend, who is abusing her. When she takes out a restraining order or files for divorce, her life is in deadly danger. So, I would tell her to get a gun small enough to handle well. But she would have to know how to shoot it, be willing to shoot it, and be prepared to accept the legal consequences. If she merely tries to threaten the guy, he would take the gun away from her and she would almost certainly be killed. A sheriff told me that her first shot could be up in the air or into the ground. But if the guy keeps coming, then it is center of body-mass, as fast as you can pull the trigger.

                      Once, a long time ago, I tried to cave in a man’s head with an iron bar, because it seemed the only way to save the life of another man. The man ducked and ran and, still in a killing mood, I followed him down the street, screaming and swinging. If I had killed him with the first swing, I would have regrets but my conscience would be clear. If I had killed him with the next swing, it would have been murder. When I look back at that moment, which happened in slow motion, I tremble.

                    • St JD George

                      Radio or TV? I’ll have to follow up, I am a little curious given that it’s a touch unorthodox.

                    • hombre111

                      EWTN is Mother Angelica’s network, and I could not imagine anything more “orthodox.” The radio host usually irritates me with his very conservative view. Here, he simply makes sense.

                    • St JD George

                      I gravitate towards it more and more as I find less and less of interest to watch on TV. That’s funny because I was listening to Cardinal Dolan in the car the other day and I find nothing conservative, or coherent, about him. Seems like a generally affable guy though.

                    • hombre111

                      If I lived in his Archdiocese, I would enjoy the guy. Any bishop or priest acting or speaking in public has to follow the company line. I do. I have my own thoughts though.

                    • St JD George

                      On Monday, a would-be robber put a knife to the throat of a 74-year-old Fort Worth, Texas, grandma — and the grandma responded by pointing a gun at the robber’s face and telling him to “back off.”
                      Good for her.

                      The attempted robbery ended at that point.

                      According to NBC 5, Jewell Turner was sitting in her vehicle outside a doctor’s office when the someone tapped on her window, indicating he needed directions. She rolled down the window and said the man just small-talked and asked for directions, then pulled a knife and put it to her throat.

                      Turner said the man said, “I don’t want to hurt you, but I want your money. And I will hurt you if I have to.”

                      At that point Turner says she thought about reaching for her deceased husband’s knife — which was in the vehicle — but then remembered that she had her pistol with her. This is how she described the events that unfolded next: “I seen the gun laying there. And I figured that would work better than the knife. I just reached down, got the gun and turned around and pointed it to his face. And I told him, I said, ‘You back off, or I’ll blow your head off.’”

                      Turner said the man’s “eyes got big” and he backed away, then “took off walking down the street like nothing happened.”

                      Turner gave police a description of the attacker, whom she described as 25 years old at most with “pale skin and sandy blonde hair.” She said, “I just hope they find him before he hurts somebody, or somebody hurts him.”

                      Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins.
                      Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

                    • hombre111

                      Good for her. But I still don’t think the moral of the story is a gun in every pocket or purse. People in Canada and Europe, with a much lower crime rate and imprisonment rate look at us with wonder. The moral of the story might be, next time, roll your window down only a couple of inches.

                    • St JD George

                      That’s funny, because I look at them and wonder and having lived there wonder why we’re trying to rush to follow their lead. Crime is there and on the uptick, somewhat with a clash of cultures theme you’ve probably noticed, and like our “gun free zones” here they love to go in and shoot fish in a barrel because they don’t shoot back, in many places not even the police. They may be finding Jesus again here soon in distress, but for the most part they’ve been turning their back on him for awhile now with a higher rate of church closings, etc., than here. What do you love about it over there so much for? Do you love pacifism?
                      Truth be known, I don’t hate anybody … at least not until they give me a good reason to, personally and not categorically. I would love to live in a world with rainbows and unicorns, where there was no Satan, and everyone loved Jesus Christ. That exists in heaven, but not on earth.

                    • St JD George

                      You do realize I hope Hombre that I’m as sick of the senseless carnage as you, I think. I’m equally as sick at the faux outrage that the publicity hounds who see race in everything and who appear or protest at the selective bi-color events of their choosing, while largely ignoring the 100x worse problem when the colors aren’t conveniently different to fit their agenda. What’s really sad though is that it need not be, the state has stripped them of their dignity, sense of family, and aided them in misplacing their faith in God for the state most of all. Do I wish they had no guns to shoot at each other with no value for life – of course I do. In this age if you go in and try to preach the gospel you are as likely to be arrested and labeled a bigot, a hater. That makes me more, or equally, sad.

                    • St JD George

                      Just a thought. Trust me, the totalitarianism spirit is deep and runs just below the surface of detection.

                    • hombre111

                      Sad reminder of past horrors. But in order for tyranny to take over, it seems to me that you have to have certain elements present. I follow the socio/psychology of Brian Hall, an Episcopal priest. Tyranny requires a situation where the key issues have become security and survival, and the world is a terrifying mystery over which we have no control. Germany and Russia both fit this description in the 20’s and 30’s of the last century. Germany is an especially good example. First, it lost the war and was forced to accept a treaty which allowed the French and British to dismantle her industries, leaving her economically powerless. Second, the Great Depression made things even worse. People were starving. Third, there was the threat of Russian communism spreading to Germany. Fourth, moderates were unable to rescue Germany from its plight. It was in this poisonous atmosphere that Hitler emerged. Fifth, scapegoats were handy: the Jews and the communists.

                      I can see America driving itself into this condition, with its commitment to permanent war, the growing gap between the rich and the poor, the Red State/Blue State divide, and the looming impact of global warming. There could also be the possibility of a nuclear exchange, or a natural disaster, such as the explosion of the Yellowstone volcano. Probably in the lifetime of your children, America will split between Red States and Blue States. Liberals will be the scapegoats. I can see Red States accepting a dictator before Blue States, because of their black or white thinking.

                    • St JD George

                      Somebody once said that history repeats itself. When I read history, I get that, and I get that we aren’t re-living the 20’s and 30’s. Might have to go back to the crusades for relevancy to the vector we’re on. When (ok, if) the red and blue chips fall, what will be the purple bridge between the left and (NE) right coasts – there’s a big hole in the middle. With all the CO2 it should be good for growing where I’m at, my plants eat that stuff up and grow big and tall, and with the recent turn down in the frigid cold weather these recent winters I could use a change back to a longer growing season. I track asteroid’s for a hobby, and I marvel at how close we come a catastrophe the likes of which nobody can imagine. Maybe God has a plan to divert the path of one at the time of his choosing when he’s seen enough foolishness. Not to worry, time is his.
                      There may be plenty of finger pointing to engage in pointing out faults, but I won’t sit on the half of the room who boisterously celebrates the killing of children (protecting it as a choice), who openly advocates immorality in the form of normalizing SSM, or who pridefully boos the reference to God at the national convention. Sorry, not my crowd. As I said earlier, I may not agree with all the NRA does, but at least their defending the 2nd amendment. I’m still looking for the voices who are as effective in defending the 1st amendment, the one that’s actually more important.

                • St JD George

                  Looks like you need to add cross-bows to your list of things to purge.

                  by JOHN HAYWARD21 Apr 20159

                  The Sydney Morning Herald reports on a strange and horrible story from Spain, where “a 13-year-old boy armed with a crossbow and knife killed a teacher and wounded four others at his school in Barcelona on Monday before being subdued.” It is the first murder of a teacher at school in Spain in decades.

                  The attack took place shortly after classes began at the Joan Fuster high school in Barcelona, which the Herald describes as having “about 500 students and 40 teachers” in a “middle class neighborhood.” The attacker had reportedly “spoken of killing all his teachers last week, and had a list of names, but his classmates had dismissed his comments as a joke,” because those who knew him thought he was unlikely to commit a violent act, even though he was fond of military dress and weapons, sometimes attending class in fatigue pants. A fellow student described him to CBS News as “kind of a loner,” and said, “other students would pick on him.”

                  The exact reasons for the boy’s rampage are not clear, although he might have been prompted by the 16th anniversary of the infamous Columbine High School massacre. The L.A. Times notes that a crossbow attack on a school was depicted in a 2003 novel called We Need to Talk About Kevin and its 2011 film adaptation. Also, police thwarted a 2012 bomb attack on a Spanish university that was timed to coincide with the Columbine anniversary.

                  A student eyewitness quoted by the New York Post said the attack began when the boy was chastised by the teacher of his first morning class for arriving late; he produced his crossbow and took a shot at her head, then attacked her daughter, who was also a student in the class. Another student quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald said her teacher was attacked in the hallway while investigating screams from the first classroom. The attacker then located a specific classmate he evidently had problems with, stabbing him in the chest with a knife. The UK Times said the attack ended when a teacher talked the teenager into surrendering and then “enveloped him in a hug.”

                  The slain teacher is said to have been a substitute who was teaching social studies, with only a week on the job, according to the L.A. Times. Police have not specified if the mortal wound was delivered by crossbow or knife (the Times describes the second weapon as a “machete.”) However, the witnesses quoted by the New York Post said the slain teacher had been “shot,” implying the crossbow was the murder weapon.

                  Two other teachers and two students were wounded. Their injuries are not life-threatening. The second injured student was reportedly stabbed while pleading with the attacker to stop.

                  The attacker was taken for psychiatric examination and will likely be remanded to the custody of regional child protection services, as children younger than 14 are not held legally responsible for their actions in Spain. His identity is also protected by law. The CBS report says he was muttering “strange and incoherent things” when taken into custody. A source within the Spanish Justice Ministry told the Associated Press he thought the boy would most likely be sent to a mental institution.

                  Spain already has “crossbow control laws,” according to the L.A. Times: “In Spain, a crossbow is classified in the lowest, safest category of firearms, but a license is still required to buy one. However, some websites on which they are sold do not require customers to submit a scanned copy of that license, only an identification card, Spanish media reported.” The New York Post describes the weapon as a “makeshift” crossbow, so it might not have been purchased from a shop or an Internet dealer.

      • Jacqueleen

        How about the big Pharma companies that distribute these drugs that have such horrible side effects which in many cases are not made known to the patient and also that are not always approved for consumption by the public. These greedy companies are to blame….and are getting away with their evil tricks with not even a slap on the wrist. Go figure!

        • LarryCicero

          What do you suggest? Do we treat the psychotic with anti-psychotics or do we outlaw the drugs, and/or make it impossible to pay for research and development that help control mental illness, and lock up the mentally ill until they come to their senses? I really don’t think the drug companies were culpable here, but maybe I am unaware of all the facts. Was the shooter on or off his meds and who is responsible for seeing to it that one takes prescribed meds? Maybe the doctor who didn’t lock him up should be liable. Why did the shooter go to a gun-free zone? Maybe those who make schools gun-free zones should be held liable. The 9-11 hijackers took control of jets with box cutters. Do hold those manufacturers of box cutters liable for nearly 3000 deaths? Do common sense gun laws include just confiscation or should they include deterrence and prevention? Common sense suggests not to give a gun to a psychotic person. Common sense suggests to trust the sane person to use proper judgement in self defense. Maybe we should hold the preachers liable for not getting the meassage out to love your neighbor. :>)

          • Jacqueleen

            You are ranting…….When side effects cause a person to snap…i.e., to become violent to the point of murder….I would say that the Pharma companies are definitely responsible for letting drugs like this out to the market. More research is needed and there are drugs that can be given that do not have the same violent side effects…Prozac is one such drug that has horrible side effects and many people are on this drug.

            When aids came out the powerful and wealthy gay community made sure that research was done to find a cure and if not a cure then at least a drug to prolong their lives.

            Unfortunately, the mentally ill are not in that financial category nor are their families…so, they get the trial drugs…they become the guinea pigs.

            The Pharmaceutical companies are part of the rich ruling class of thugs that are dictating along with the rich bankers and Corporate CEO’s of other large companies, the way the world is going and depopulation is high on the list and they don’t care who gets IT! Time to wake up Mr. Cicero. We live in end times when right is wrong/wrong is right and good is bad/bad is good!.

            • LarryCicero

              Careful there Ms. Jacqueleen, you are firting with envy (rich ruling class thugs). Drug companies help a multitude of people with illnesses including mental illnesses. When will they find a drug to cure gayness?

              • Jacqueleen

                you are firting with envy (rich ruling class thugs). You are making judgmental accusations. Money is the root of all evil and that explains the description of rich ruling class of thugs. Moreover, most are atheists who have no compassion for life except their own.
                Your ignorance is showing relative to mental illness. These poor souls are not helped. They are stoned! Made numb! You are talking through forked tongue…..now talking about drugs in general while the issue is drugs for mental illness killing spontaneously the innocent.

                As for a cure for gayness, His Name is Jesus Christ.

                • LarryCicero

                  “Your ignorance is showing relative to mental illness.” The mind is an organ, and like a liver can work improperly, especially when under extreme stress- like when someone “snaps.” Maybe you don’t know anyone who has been helped by these drugs and if so, then that would be ignorance( a lack of knowledge) on your part. Your envy extends beyond drug companies, bankers, CEO’s to the “rich ruling class.” The tongue reveals that which is in the heart. Try to get things right. It is the love of money which is the root of all evil. May God bless you.

                  • Jacqueleen

                    Accusations, judging, assumptions, twisting facts….all demonic activity…you had better look into a mirror and confession should be on the list of to do’s.

    • BXVI

      Bravo, Deacon. Alas, you would not receive that response everywhere in this land. I have no idea where you live but I assume it is not San Francisco, or Chicago, or New York, or Boston, or…..

      • Rich C.

        Boston rocks. You probably live in hicksville.

    • hombre111

      To mimic the words of Jesus: “Abortion you will always have with you, and you can hammer abortion whenever it is fitting.” With all due respect, beloved deacon, your sermon was a ham handed rant in a moment of tremendous tragedy. For a time, at least, you needed to grieve with the parents and the rest of America. Your words, like the words of Judas, were completely out of place. You boasted about the clever way you turned apples into oranges. I have little patience with preachers who turn every discussion about a moral outrage into a lecture about the evils of abortion. It is the default position of American conservatives blind or indifferent to other moral issues.

      • orientstar

        Having lived for 13+ years in the US (in five states) plus two years in Canada – I have never heard a sermon condemning abortion in a Catholic Church. So I am not sure how much of a default position it really is.

        • hombre111

          I have rarely preached an entire sermon on abortion, but I often mention it in passing when I am naming great evils.

          • Rich C.

            Sounds boring.

          • St JD George

            I understand, many are uncomfortable discussing the practice of infanticide, the dismemberment of fetuses with beating hearts still in the womb, the suffocation of babies who had the misfortune of being born. Who in their right mind would want to talk about that. I can only imagine what their cries sound like to heaven, and the tears shed for the lack of humanity.

            • hombre111

              You summarized it in 26 words. When I mentioned abortion in the middle of a sermon a few months ago during Advent, pondering Mary waiting for the birth of her child, I said roughly the same thing, but it took me about a paragraph. I paused. The church was totally silent. I figured I had made my point and went on.

          • Paddy

            55,000,000 is worth noting.

            • hombre111

              Amen. I keep track of that tragic figure and often quote it when I cite abortion as the great evil of our time.

    • rjclarkson

      Deacon, You and your ilk have plagued Holy Mother Church since its beginning. The first group hated were the gentiles. It was only after St. Paul went to Jerusalem to have it out with St. Peter and other leaders that the Church became catholic (universal). Almost from day one, the arguments for ethnic and ideological divides began. It is not practical to cover the hundreds of other examples from Church history. A couple will do.
      This week is marked by our remembrance of the seventieth anniversary of the American liberation of the German and Polish death camps. Perhaps you are a denier of the Holocaust. Your writing raises a question about the rights of non-believers or of those whose conscience raises questions about current teachings; birth control for example. The evidence that the Catholic Church was in great part responsible for the centuries of persecution of the Jews is legion. It was only in 1959 that Saint-Pope John XXIII ordered that the phrase “judaicam perfidiam” be removed from Catholic prayers. We all remember this most holy Pope turning to Jewish leaders appearing before him and stating : “I am Joseph , your brother .” More recently, Saint-Pope John-Paul II told the faithful that the Jewish people were “our elder brothers “. Earlier in the Church’s history , Pope Benedict XIV in his encyclical to the Polish bishops A QUO Primum stated : “Neither your property nor your privileges are [to be] hired to Jews: furthermore, you do no business with them and you neither lend them money nor borrow from them.” Pope Benedict goes on to cite statements from Popes Nicholas IV, Paul IV, Pius V, Gregory VIII and Clement VIII forbidding Christians from living in the same cities with Jews. And one wonders why the Poles were so willing to turn their gaze away from what was happening in the concentration camps. Even in this country, such prejudice did not disappear until the 1960’s . I grew up in Florida and Jews were not allowed to stay in the fancy hotels on Miami Beach until President Lyndon Johnson embarrassed Congress into passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act including its Public Accommodation Section. I feel sure that if you had been a congressman at the time, you, under your freedom of religion beliefs, would have upheld a businessman’s right to refuse to allow kikes (Jews), niggers (blacks), queers ( gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered ) , abortionists, etc., etc. from any business establishment. You would do this because you love Jesus so much !
      The second example I give involves the blacks , slavery and desegregation. The Church can be diplomatic and use language very carefully when it wants. Why did the Church beginning with Saint Paul delay for many centuries coming out against slavery. It did not come out strongly until Abraham Lincoln had freed the slaves in this country. Catholic theologians justified enslavement, segregation and anti-miscegenation laws for centuries based upon a reading of Genesis 9:22-27 (Noah cursed his son Ham, for seeing his nakedness and declared Ham would be his brothers’ slave ). I am old enough to remember the crowds of Catholics marching around the archbishop’s mansion in New Orleans when he finally desegregated all Catholic schools in the archdiocese. The placards carried by the protesters said the blacks (“niggers”) were descended from the tribe of Ham and the white kids should not have to go to school with them. What would your viewpoint have been at the time– considering your firmly held religious beliefs ?
      I have already used up a lot of time and space. I am a Catholic, have been in a personal relationship with another man for 45 years this August and come from a family of English Catholic recusants who have fought and suffered for our faith for more than a thousand years. In fact, it is why the family came to this country. One of my heroes is Blessed John Henry Newman. Read about the Cardinal and his beloved friend and lifelong companion, Fr. Ambrose St. John. Even today, they are easy to find and are still inseparable . They are buried in the same tomb without any separation between their bodies.

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        My goodness, you have some issues! Are you a writer for Chick Publications?

        • DeaconEdPeitler

          Of course, the homily was basically about man’s inhumanity to man and how pervasive sin is in a society whose conscience has been frightfully dulled. The homily was about man’s fallen nature and how much man is in need of repentance and God’s redeeming grace that was earned for us by the merits of Christ’s sacrifice. Unfortunately some either deny that man is fallen and sins and is in need of redeeming grace; others are pelagian in their thinking and believe that man can redeem himself. This is something that I know you Dr. Williams and some others here get. There are some who preach mercy but without repentance.

        • rjclarkson

          No, Dr. Williams I am not a writer for “Chick Publications”. I have never heard of it. I presume that it is an industry publication for those in the chicken and egg business. My inclination is to believe that you are the expert in laying eggs. Aristotle ( heard of him ?) has said that the weakest form of rhetorical argument is Argumentum Ad Hominem which I am sure you use often when it is the only thing you have left to hurl at an opposing idea. Adieu !

          • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

            rjclarkson, looking at your posts, it is clear that you have a lot of time on your hands, but perhaps not enough money for counseling and therapy. I’m afraid I can’t help you. I am a “doctor” only in the Latin sense of the word.

      • There is a chapter called “The Church opposes Same Sex Marriage Because of Bigotry: The Myth that there is no rational basis for limiting marriage to one man and one woman” taken from the book: The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church by Christopher Kaczor that you might find interesting. What makes it noteworthy is that there is no appeal to “sacred text” to support its claims. God bless.

    • Rich C.

      A mother’s womb has never been a safe place. Spontaneous abortions have always occurred. Further evidence your “loving god” doesn’t exist.

      • St JD George

        Miscarriages are a natural process, usually to terminate an unhealthy fetus. The willful act of killing a baby is a whole other issue, particularly when it’s just an inconvenience for the host mother.

  • Gail Finke

    Excellent, Austin. We need people on all fronts, and have them only on some. What does one do when the arguments — the good, clear, charitable, and indisputable arguments — are met with “Oh yeah? You igonorant, hateful bigots should be made to shut up!” When emotion trumps reason, we must have an alternative to MORE emotion and MORE unreason.

    A dustup carried on Ryan Anderson’s public Facebook page yesterday illustrates this. The (presumably very expensive) Friends School he attended through 12th grade posted a piece the Washington Post did on him, praising him as exemplifying a way to courteously and respectfully talk about “gay marriage,” a model for how people should do it, and a man respected by his foes as well as his allies. After a few hours the head of the school took it down because of outraged alumni and parents who said that it went against the school’s values of love, inclusion, and seeing God in everyone. They said the emotional well-being of the children at the school should be paramount (what that has to do with a post about an alumnus on a parent page was not explained) and that posting the article amount to the school endorsing him. The head of the school wrote a long piece about his decision, which came down to “sorry I hurt your feelings.”

    Emotion and will are currently the deciding factors in these disputes, and whoever has both the most emotion and the most will to do something about it wins. We need arguments and reason. But we also need a way to counter the emotion — and especially the will — that does not end up in our becoming reasonless totalitarians ourselves. As Chesterton said, men don’t fight for political systems or abstract ideas, they fight for what they love or against what they hate. How do we get people to see that what they love is at stake? Right now, the redefinition of reality people have claimed the high ground of loving more, and they somehow manage to convince people of that even as they are taking the low road of trying to crush, silence, and ruin those they oppose.

    • Siwash

      Excellent points. It’s been depressing to me to see how ugly words and threat of force have distorted politics.

      • MHB

        me too!!!!!!!!!!!! No civility.

  • The people have no power. We live in a corporatocracy in which judges and politicians are merely the bought and paid for shills of big corporations. The people are merely consumers, and still buy Intel chips and Apple phones. Since homosexuals and DINKs have more disposable income to be consumers, that is what they prefer we all be. It will not change without civil war.

    • Jason Wills

      Don’t know about civil war. But otherwise, good point.

      • I honestly don’t see any other way out. The corporations, for their own purposes, have polarized the population to the point of occasional violence. Any attempt to use the constitution to stop the process of polarization, falls into the black hole that is the court system.

        • Jason Wills

          I agree with your assessment of the current situation. It’s just that I don’t see how a civil war could be waged to change it.

          • By eventually, after much loss of life, replacing this government with a new one and a new constitution.

            • Jason Wills

              How exactly is that going to happen? It sounds like what you are calling for is a violent revolution.

              • The violent part is already starting- been going off and on for 11 years now, and is only going to get worse.

                It’s the revolution part that people are not ready for yet, and if the corporations can keep everybody on both sides occupied, might not happen at all. Or at least, not within our lifetimes. The fall of the Roman Empire took several centuries.

                • Jason Wills

                  Maybe the Islamists will take over, as they already are in much of Europe.

  • OBJ15

    This article misspells Sherif’s name. It’s Sherif Girgis, not Gergis.

    • Austin Ruse

      Will be fixed…

  • Siwash

    On these issues, Mr. Ruse, I think there will ALWAYS be intelligent people willing to fight for truth. The problem is being able to get into a position to speak into the Big Microphone to the public.

    It would be interesting if a Catholic college were to have a small polling institute and regularly poll the customers of specific corporations on the issues. So, for instance, one can confidently say “89% of Wal-Mart customers oppose gay marriage.”

    This would shut up the corporations quickly enough. And we have seen with gay “marriage” how the political use of corporate endorsements was taken by political leaders to be a general okay for the nuttiness.

    • retona4

      And we have seen that this site reeks of traditionalists.

      • Gail Finke

        “reeks of traditionalists” — HA HA HA HA HA. When you can’t make an argument, you can always insult people… which is partly what the original post was ABOUT.

        • retona4

          The fact that the witch got off without punishment?

          • GG

            She is not a witch at all. She is a faithful Catholic, not a pervert.

            • retona4

              She’s a bigot. Simple as that.

              • GG

                A bigot to an unprincipled person.

                • ColdStanding

                  GG put the troll down.

                • retona4

                  If I didn’t have principles, I wouldn’t want all the priests convicted of sexual abuse to be permanently excommunicated.

              • Asmondius

                bigot=hater=homophobe=yawn

                • retona4

                  So then bigotry is okay to you?

                  • Asmondius

                    The word no longer has meaning, due to its misuse by you and your cohorts.
                    .
                    I do not ‘so’, by the way. Apparently the only way you can win an argument is by speaking for both sides.

      • Asmondius

        If your parents were not traditionalists, you would not be here.

        • retona4

          They weren’t.

          • Asmondius

            You are the product of two men?

            • retona4

              My mom and dad divorced back in 2007. Does that answer your question?

              • Asmondius

                Then your parents were traditionalists (not referring to the divorce..

            • Rich C.

              You think men can have babies through buttsex?

              • Asmondius

                That is my question.

  • AcceptingReality

    Dyed in the wool lefties are out there, active, stirring up and spewing falsehood and venom! I was told recently by a friend (who is a friend when he can refrain from his inane socio-political comments) that I had to agree with gay marriage because it’s the law of the land now. And if I didn’t I should leave the country……never mind that gay marriage is not the law of the land now, people like him think it is. And they think those of us who disagree are intolerant and hateful bigots. They say so while they are expressing their hateful, intolerant, discriminatory attitude towards us. We all need courage and wisdom. We need to be willing to lose friends because that’s what will happen. Challenge them. Tell them they are misinformed.

    • retona4

      Says the traditionalist.

      • Asmondius

        Realist, actually.

        • retona4

          Realist, huh? A realist would see that the Latin Mass was centuries out of date and needed to be killed off.

          • Asmondius

            When the Latin Mass was the norm, a Catholic could travel anywhere in the world and attend Mass using the exact same responses.
            .
            Some people believe that Christianity is ‘centuries out of date’

            • retona4

              When the Latin Mass was the norm, most Catholics would have no idea what was actually being said. When the Latin Mass was the norm, all Catholics but the priest were left out.

              • Martha

                You are sadly misinformed, dear. My mother, who is in her 70s, recently started attending the TLM again, and knew all of the responses, and what they meant in English. I was impressed, considering she was only about 20 when the NO began. But then, that was back in those antiquated times when people actually knew the answer to the question, Why am I here? And memorized silly things like the Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity.

                It’s awfully difficult not to pick things up. All of my children can recite the Credo, Gloria, etc. simply from attending for a few years. Isn’t that how we learn the English prayers, as well? Repetition.

                • retona4

                  What she started attending was an invalid Mass officiated by a priest that should be defrocked.

                  • Martha

                    Are you Catholic? What a bizarre thing to say.

                • retona4

                  Tell me, were they attending an actual Mass or a Mass said by a heretic?

              • Asmondius

                That’s an old, tired myth only believed by non-Catholics. Every pew had missals with both Latin and the native tongue translation. After attending Mass for a while one came to know exactly what was being said, and in fact many people picked up some rudimentary Latin via attending Mass.

    • The law of the land: Blacks are 3/5 of whites, persons of Japanese ancestry can be rounded up into concentration camps… stupid, stupid statists, always bowing to the god state.

  • LHJ

    We do not need generals we need privates,enlisted men and women. There are plenty of good leaders you named some,there is plenty of information and arguments and apologetics. The people like you who are working at it are doing a great job! We need to stop waiting for someone else to do something. We the people must act. May God change hearts and motivate people and give them an understanding of the urgency of the situation. In the Holy name of Jesus we pray. God bless you and your efforts.L

  • publiusnj

    If we don’t have the Generalissimo, we will never win. The Generalissimo is he who has always represented Western Culture: the Holy Roman Pontiff. If the current incumbent continues to dither and encourages his American bishops to continue to dither so as to avoid those pesky social issues he’d rather ignore, the Traditional Western Culture and Morality will continue to waste away. If he won’t stand up for traditional culture why should anyone take anybody who does stand up for it seriously? After all, is the Pope Catholic?

    • retona4

      After all, are you claiming to be a Sedevacantist heretic?

      • publiusnj

        Of course not. This Pope, though, is showing himself a very dangerous man. If Christ’s very clear RULE on no Remarriage after Divorce (restated most recently in Familiaris Consortio and CCC Section 1650) can be ignored, then anything goes. And to use his infamous dodge: who will the Pope be to judge?

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    Reminding us of how we ‘won’ on the ballot and that it means NOTHING ANYMORE certainly did not inspire me to ‘rally’ or march or invest any of what’s left of my life in this 24/7 Porno Freak Show of a country.

  • JohnE_o

    Mr. Ruse, I’m sure, understands that even if 100% of the population of a State votes for an unconstitutional law, that law is still unconstitutional.

    Mr. Ruse then goes on to emote against the judicial system without addressing the legal arguments that led those judges to make their rulings in which they found those laws unconstitutional.

    He then goes on to promote mob action which, no doubt, will lead to plenty of new work for, and contributions to, his own organization, but says not one word about the only sure method of defeating these rulings, which is to amend the Constitution to define marriage in the United States to be between one man and one woman.

    Beware of individuals who would whip up your emotions – especially when it is in their own self interest to do so. Instead, look logically and dispassionately at the arguments behind the issues. Think long and hard about what benefits accrue to the people who would try to rouse your mob instincts.

    • Austin Ruse

      Yes, and I am sure you know that even if the Supreme Court says something is constitutional does not necessarily make it so.

      • JohnE_o

        Take it up with Chief Justice John Marshall and Marbury v. Madison.

        As things stand now, the way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is to amend the Constitution and no amount of marching in the streets will change that.

        • Austin Ruse

          Take it up with Justice Taney…ever heard of Plessey? Golly, take it up with Kennedy..ever heard of Bowers?

          • JohnE_o

            As DavidHard alludes to above, those were decisions you cite restricted the civil rights of US citizens and were later reversed so as to expand the civil rights of US citizens.

            If you want to restrict the civil rights of US citizens, amend the Constitution.

            • Austin Ruse

              Your point was the decision of the Court are inviolate. False

              • JohnE_o

                My point was that marching in the streets will not overturn or influence a court decision – amending the Constitution is the way to secure what you seek.

                • Austin Ruse

                  Actually, marching in the streets helped the Court overturn Plessy with Brown. Sheesh. ever read the papers? What’s more, Bowers was overturned not by marching either. Yes, read the papers…It works both ways…and not having to amend anything.

                • GG

                  TV shows influence court decisions. They are open to influence like all the other sheep.

              • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                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 the 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)

            • Asmondius

              False. Homosexuals already have the same rights as everyone else.

          • You are correct to a point. The problem is that gay marriage is not Plessy and it’s not Dred Scott. (nor Brown v. Board of Education for that matter). A few gays getting hitched does not have the importance of the property rights of one human being over another or the doctrine of “separate but equal.”

            • Austin Ruse

              The gent’s point was that the decisions of the court are inviolate. That is false as will be shown by the overturning of Roe and likely whatever disaster the Court imposes on the country with phony marriage.

            • Austin Ruse

              Gay men and women already have the right to marry. In fact, according to the amicus brief of Doug Mainwaring et al, a huge percentage of them are already married…to WOMEN.

        • Asmondius

          False.

      • Actually (without splitting hairs) the opinions of the Court have the effect of arbitrating constitutionality. As the commenter below me correctly observes — a constitutional amendment is required to undo a bad SCOTUS decision. Even a change in the composition of the Court rarely results in a reversal and that will never happen with an issue like gay marriage. The Court has never stripped citizens of rights it previously granted — and never will.

        • Asmondius

          ‘a constitutional amendment is required to undo a bad SCOTUS decision. ‘
          .
          That is untrue. The Congress, with its power to enact new legislation, is more than capable of nullifying or overriding any Supreme Court decision.

    • GG

      Did you support slavery?

      • JohnE_o

        I was born in 1967 – by that time, it wasn’t an issue – because – as I repeat my thesis – the Constitution had been amended to forbid slavery in the US.

        • GG

          But, you would have supported it.

          • Austin Ruse

            Yes, he would have…likely he supports it today in the form of abortion. We are either people or property. He holds the property view.

            • GG

              Imagine him in Nazi Germany? Wow.

              • JohnE_o

                It is ever so pleasant to imagine that if one had lived in Nazi Germany or in the pre-Civil War US, then one certainly would have acted according to the moral behavior that seems clearly correct in hindsight, isn’t it?

                • GG

                  It is not pleasant but true. Many did reject the Nazis. Many did reject slavery. It first takes the ability to reason morally. That is in short supply. It is much easier to go with the herd.

          • JohnE_o

            Engaging in counterfactuals is always a risky business, but most likely – assuming I was neither a slave nor a slave owner – I would have taken the same attitude that I – as someone who does not experience same-sex attraction – hold towards SSM:

            It isn’t something that is going to affect my life either way, so I’ll watch and wait while it works it’s way through the court system.

            • GG

              Yea, so you would have supported it. Got it.

        • Asmondius

          Did Lincoln or abolitionists wait until then to act?

  • lifeknight

    St JD George: “Would more vivid, graphic and horrific images of the practices be effective in turning stomaches like those of dismembered human babies to force minds to confront the uncomfortable realities?”

    Like the unborn massacres, the thought of men using their excretory area for “sex” should make everyone nauseous. The lesbians are no better with their awful practices. I know how I was introduced to such perversions as a nurse in a large metropolitan emergency room—–
    The only word is DISGUSTING.

    With a cousin who is a practicing lesbian (banned from our home ages ago), the ONLY ammunition I can make my mother listen to is the perverse things I know that they do. Of course comments like, “They are “SO nice” and bring me candies,” soon overrides the evil that is inherent in their perversions.

    This is the problem: the Church of Nice has allowed the sheeple to pretend this is love.

    • St JD George

      I struggle with what the right tactic is too, and am plenty aware of what goes on from what I read and who I talk to, including friends also who were in the same profession and locations as you. The depravity is beyond nauseating. How does one save a soul lost in a world of sin like that? Truly it can only take the strength of someone like a Mother Theresa it would seem. Being nice is certainly important, but if that’s all one lives their life by then it’s like an opiate isn’t it, in a constant state of confusion and shallowness, and lacking in spiritual development.

  • Myshkin

    I am no longer convinced that America is a self-governing nation. We have the facade of democracy, but I fear that we have had a covert coup d’etat by the left, incrementally, over the last 40 or 50 years. Roe v. Wade should have been a wake-up call — when the Left got away with it, without massive civil unrest being fomented, they knew that they could do anything that they wanted, so long as it was done incrementally. This is not unlike a stratagem of the Devil himself, who has — by degrees — undermined all the old taboos, especially in the sexual arena. The Anglican Conference at Lambeth’s decision, in 1930, was a dire warning, if one were needed, of decay within the Western world that began — oh, yes, with original sin — but more assertively with the French Revolution, and progressing through the 1800’s with Darwinism and Nietzsche-ism.

    • lifeknight

      Excellent points. The Lambeth decision was the beginning of the end of a society that had a moral compass.

      • No, it was just a small step on a journey that began with Luther and Tudor. Just because we find it difficult to look back to far, doesn’t mean the devil wasn’t looking ahead in that past that evades us.

        • Myshkin

          Agreed. A lot of the chaos now swirling about in America is directly traceable to the Protest-ant revolution. No one submitting to authority, beginning with Luther.

  • Myshkin

    Continuing: I don’t think that there are any easy answers to the triumph of modernity in the legal arena. We are no longer self-governing, I think. Civil disobedience is what we are left with. It would help if the Bishops were to take up the gauntlet, go to the front lines, as occurred with the Civil Rights movement, and volunteer to be the first arrested. Massive protests, with hundreds of thousands of us in the streets, might garner attention; it would take at least of decade of this. But in the end, “they” can’t arrest all of us. But…. we need shepherds to lead the charge. Where are they?

    • Who said they’ll arrest you? They will simply overwhelm you and if that doesn’t work, there’s always the “final solution”.

      • Myshkin

        You are correct, of course. And — May God Rest His Soul, Card. George, who died today, warned that his successor will die in prison, and the successor after that martyred. I would hope that Cupich proves true, and will grow into a true man who will “man up” and fight for the Faith, instead of doing the “can’t we all get along” dance.

        • bonaventure

          Well… Cardinal George must have been thinking of real Catholic bishops (not necessarily in Chicago) when he warned that “successor will die in prison.”

          Because Cupich certainly isn’t going to prison for speaking against homosexuality. If anything, he’s going to adorn the Advocate’s front cover, with the caption “Bishop of the Year.”

  • Daniel P

    It depends on what we mean by “fine distinctions”. In some circles, the distinction between same-sex attraction and same-sex activity is still called a “fine distinction”. People with same-sex attraction have experienced a lot of harsh rhetoric from both sides from people who choose not to make this “fine distinction”.

    I’m all for fighting. But let’s be careful not to kill our allies with friendly fire.

    • Austin Ruse

      it is far from a fine distinction. It is the difference between spiritual life and death.

      • Daniel P

        I agree, Austin. But I think you ought to know this: When Christians loudly and insistently say that “people shouldn’t call themselves gay”, lots of people with same-sex attraction hear “it is morally wrong to have same-sex attraction”. And then when Christians talk about the problems we have because of “the gays”, these same people hear that they are a problem.

        The solution is charity on BOTH sides. Chaste same-sex attracted people have to realize that, even if they call themselves “gay”, their fellow Christians do not mean to lump them in with the aggressive factions of the gay rights movement. And ordinary Christians need to realize that — even if we may have certain valid objections to the uses of terminology — a person does not make themselves an enemy by calling themselves “gay”. And a person certainly doesn’t end up in bed with another person of the same sex just by using an adjective.

        • GG

          This is your hobby horse.

          • Daniel P

            Sure. If I can stand for one thing here, let me stand for charity between people who are seeking to follow Christ.

            • Martha

              My question is, why does one feel the need to attach the moniker ‘gay’ at all? If one is an alcoholic, even if they’ve been sober for years, must one bandy it about at all times? No, certainly not. Perhaps when one is offered a drink. Other than that, it is the person’s private struggle, and should not be made public.

              If the person feels offended when alcoholics are verbally abused, well, he shouldn’t. Alcoholism is not to be desired.

              • GG

                Yes, the problem is the “gay” syndrome is a separate category. It seeks constant attention and offers persecution complexes at every turn. It is tedious and demanding. They hope to wear down everyone.

              • Daniel P

                I don’t know why some chaste Christians feel inclined to call themselves gay. And I’m not saying they should call themselves gay. I’m just saying that — supposing they DO call themselves gay — we should be sure to let them know that we are all together as Christians, and that we love them and will work for their benefit.

                That sort of thing is undermined by vague complaining about “the gays”.

            • GG

              The problem is how charity gets defined. The scales are too tipped in the direction of arbitrary at this point.

              • Daniel P

                Here’s how I understand the injunction to charity: if a person is willing to endure the scorn, mockery, and hatred of wicked people, then that person deserves our charity, no matter what word they use to describe themselves.

        • Austin Ruse

          Wow…off topic…

        • When Christians loudly and insistently say that “people shouldn’t call themselves gay”, lots of people with same-sex attraction hear “it is morally wrong to have same-sex attraction”
          The they either don’t understand the etymology of “gay” or don’t want to confront their weakness.

          • Daniel P

            You may be right, DE — the etymology point is one major reason I don’t call myself “gay” or “bisexual”. So I’m perfectly happy with arguing that people not use those terms. My concern is that — when people make that argument — they clarify that they do not question the sincere devotion of people who are dedicated to chaste lives, even if they consider themselves “gay”.

    • bonaventure

      Homosexuals are not “our allies.” Maybe yours, but certainly not the Church’s, nor civilization’s. At the end of the day when all is said and done, homosexuals will have to either (1) convert radically, (2) join the ranks of civilization’s enemies, or — as is more likely — (3) return to the closet were they belong… that is, if they don’t belong in jail.

  • Ryan Anderson and Robby George have done more for the cause of marriage equality than has Dan Savage. Seriously.

    • GG

      By marriage equality you mean fake marriage.

      • JohnE_o

        It has the force of law in the States to which the law applies.

        It is not sacramental – that’s a different thing altogether.

        • GG

          An unjust law is no law at all.

          • Unjust to who? To you because it offends your religious beliefs?

            • Asmondius

              It doesn’t pass the smell test.

            • GG

              Unjust to anyone who grasps reason.

            • I don’t have to be religious to be offended by disordered behavior.

          • JohnE_o

            If you want to make the case that letting two guys marry is unjust in the same way that enslaving a man is unjust, then good luck with that.

            • GG

              The law is unjust in that it codifies a fiction. It would be like claiming square circles exist by law. It is insanity.

              • JohnE_o

                The law declares that a tomato is a vegetable for purposes of regulation and the Republic still stands.

                • GG

                  Vegetable or fruit it is the same category in essence. Circles are never in the square category and two men are never in the marriage category.

                  • JohnE_o

                    GG, it is clear that you care deeply about Thomistic distinctions.

                    Most Americans don’t and most likely never will.

                    Your task then becomes how to demonstrate that SSM will cause harm in a way that is convincing to the general public.

                    • GG

                      What you are saying is that truth does not matter. Sounds like tyranny. The distinctions are not some arbitrary system that some academics like. It is a matter of reality.

                    • JohnE_o

                      What I am saying is that your arguments will not be received by the US public and that you should consider reframing them if you want to achieve any of your goals.

                    • If you think that its going to be a matter of rhetoric, you are wrong.

            • Asmondius

              It’s simply state sanctioning of make-believe.

        • Asmondius

          ‘It has the force of law in the States to which the law applies.’
          .
          – Jefferson Davis

          • JohnE_o

            And, again, we get back to the point where you need to explain why two men civilly marrying is an injustice in the same way that slavery was.

            • Asmondius

              It is unnatural – just as slavery was.
              .
              Human beings are by nature free and independent, not meant to be possessed as objects.
              .
              Human beings are by nature a binary race designed for the union of two complementary sexes.

        • bonaventure

          Abortion also has force of law where it applies. Notwithstanding, it is still murder of the innocent.

          The Nuremberg Laws had force of law where they applied (German, 1934-1945). Notwithstanding, their definition of human life was still genocidal.

          Anti-private property laws had force of law where they applied (communism). Notwithstanding, their definition of economic realities were still lies which led to one of the greatest collapse of entire economies around the globe.

          Slavery laws had the force of law where they apply (such as some Muslim nations/tribes today) or applied (ex., U.S. before 1865). Notwithstanding, their definition of life was a lie, a contradiction of nature, biology, morality, and things true, beautiful, and good.

          • barbieahayes

            Great job, bonventure, as usual. We Catholics (and non) are each required to oppose unjust (or immoral) laws. To not do so is to take license with God’s laws. God’s laws trump civil ones. Alas, free will is given to all. The result of free will, Catholics (and non) is heaven or hell. It’s that stark! Blessings!

      • GaudeteMan

        Gay Marriage like Female Priest = Square Circle

    • Asmondius

      A nut and a bolt are complementary and unitive – together they form a strong union and can achieve accomplishments well beyond what either alone could provide.
      .
      With any other combination, you would have only two nuts or two loose screws.
      .
      There is no ‘equality’.

    • Austin Ruse

      David, Among all the bat-shit nutty things you say here and there and everywhere, this is the most…granted Savage is a huge liability to the cause of phony marriage, but Robby and Ryan and Sherif have helped phony marriage? Nutty 

      • The use of the phrase “phony marriage” is demagoguery and detracts from a real argument. But I digress.

        In his dissent in Windsor Justice Alito expressed concern that acceptance of same-sex marriage would cast those with opposing beliefs “in the role of bigots or superstitious fools.” I would argue that it depends upon the nature of the opposition.

        Ryan has crystallized the fact that same-sex marriage is opposed by people with a religious objection — in his case because Cardinal Ratzinger did not like it. Lately Ryan isn’t even trying to sell an objection to same-sex marriage. Rather, he seems to be focused on convincing people that he is not a bigot. Ryan is a puzzling creature to me.

        Robby has turned this issue into a for-profit enterprise. He and his partner, Cornell West, have been touring campuses and performing a rehearsed debate. More importantly his legal briefs have been extremely esoteric (they could be from the Upanishads). He has tortured logic in inconceivable ways to convince people that his objection is not based on religious belief. His dishonesty in doing so has been transparent. He is also prone to hyperbole. Even his letter to the Pope the other day was not deferentially straight forward.

        In oral argument Judge Posner asked one of the attorneys defending a state ban if he subscribed to Robert George’s theory that same-sex marriage has an effect on traditional marriage. The attorney replied, with a snicker, “of course not.”

        Outside of your bubble, Austin, these people are, well … weird. Indeed, Catholics support same-sex marriage in percentages greater than the general public.

        In the final analysis, as a retired CEO, I judge people on results — there’s no E for effort. Even you have to admit that, on that basis, they have been abject failures.

        • Austin Ruse

          What a larf. You convinced a total of…..wait for it….3 states to vote for faux marriage. We’ve convinced 34. Faux marriage will be imposed by elites over the objection of the voters. It will be built on sand.

  • cestusdei

    They MUST vilify those who disagree with them.

  • GaudeteMan

    The biggest challenge is indifference. The majority of the people are crazed about anything but what matters. How do we get people to be less interested in their son’s select soccer team or the next episode of Downton Abbey and more interested in the next teenage girl about to murder her baby with our tax dollars?

    • Martha

      Agreed. We live in a bizarre bubble of no relevance. Every time I see a teen with his/her nose stuck in their iPhone, I have to resist the urge to jackslap them.

      • retona4

        So you have the urge to ignore the Bible?

        • Martha

          Sometimes, yes. Fortunately, grace usually prevails. 😉 When it doesn’t, fallen sinners like me have recourse to the Sacrament of Penance.

          • If ever there was a right answer, that was it! Brilliant.

            • Martha

              🙂

      • Veritas

        “Spare the rod and spoil the child” is biblical.

      • JohnE_o

        What’s stopping you?

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    Λόγοσ ούδέν κινεί – Reason moves nothing – Aristotle

    It is not judgment as such that sets us in motion; but our judgment on how to get or do something we want. Hence St Augustine says “in acting we necessarily follow what gives us most pleasure” (On Epistle to Galatians section 49)

    For this reason, he insists that “Men are not willing to do what is right either because the fact that it is right is hidden from them, or because it does not please them… It is from the grace of God, which helps the wills of man, that that which was hidden becomes known, and that which did not please become sweet.” (On the Merits and Remission of Sins 2, 17, 26)

    Again, he says, ““If it be allowable to the poet to say “his own pleasure draws each man,” not need, but pleasure, not obligation but delight, how much more ought we to say that a man is drawn to Christ, who delights in the truth, who delights in happiness [delectatur beatitudine] who delights in justice, who delights in eternal life and all this is Christ?” (On John’s Gospel section 26.4) “The poet” is Vergil, Eclogues 2.65.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Right on piece. Excellent (and helpful) responses in comments section.

    Regarding how the story popped up here, the Editors should asign the Germanwings (moral) tragedy to someone. Could use a nice wrapping-up article on that sad (but indicative) affair. Send it off to someone who would make good use of it. Have been trolling the Catholic sites for such a piece. Nothing, so far.

    Thanks.

    • Anne Hendershott

      The only problem with that is that even the European media has dropped that story – there just is no one reporting on it. Unless we were able to actually travel to interview those who would know, we will never have the information we would need for an article. Right now it is only the UK Daily Mail that is carrying the story – and even they seem to be dropping it. No one has retracted it though. That is understandable because there is such pressure on writers from editors and publishers to keep this kind of information from surfacing. When Andrew Cunanan, the gay serial killer who went on a cross-country killing spree– a decade or more ago – killing young gay men (until he got to Miami and killed Gianni Versace), few were willing to identify him as gay until it became impossible to hide. This is part of the “jamming” strategy of the gay community proposed by the book, After the Ball – the blueprint for the conversion of straights to the gay cause. Jamming requires the gay community and their allies to label as a homophobe anyone who reports anything negative on any gay person–even a homicidal maniac like the Germanwings pilot – and Andrew Cunanan. During the Cunanan killing spree, one of the major news anchors described him as the “homicidal homosexual” on the nightly news – he had to apologize on air of course.

  • Timothy O’Donnell

    Terrific article!!! I’ve been asking similar questions especially within the Knights of Columbus. As a member and officer during the RFRA blitzkrieg in Indiana I found precious few brother Knights willing to stand tall.

    In fact the FB post on our State Kofc website of our priest defending Religious Liberty was summarily removed without notice because of “negative” comments it generated. Well duh. Of course the Catholic position is going to draw the LGBTQ mob like bees to honey.

    If negative comments caused the Kofc hierarchy to fold like a lawn chair, we are indeed short on courageous leaders.

    The Supreme Knight Carl Anderson is coming to the State convention next weekend. I hope he brings a message that will ignite the Order to valor and fight.

  • BXVI

    We need a million people to decend on DC like happened in France…as a start. But, alas, that is not going to happen; we’re finished politically. The Court will rule in June that Christianity, as understood for 2,000 years, is evil. Yes, that will be the irrefutable implication of the decision: the American government will declare that traditional Christian beliefs about homosexuality and mariage outside the bounds of permissible belief. Any opposition to homosexual marriage will be declared nothing more than irrational bigotry, which must be stamped out. And the massess will shrug, not realizing that the noise they just heard was the death knell for Western Civilization.

    • EB

      I agree with you about what will happen in June, especially since the majority opinion in the case striking down the Defense of Marriage Act already labeled us all as motivated by nothing but malice. So, unless there is a miracle of some kind, we already know what the outcome in June will be.
      But I also think there is more of a fundamental Christian underpinning left in this country than we sometimes think (or at least some kind of respect for religious freedom). I think that if they see priests and pastors and everyday people like themselves going to jail, and Christian institutions being closed down, there will be an uproar. But perhaps not before that.

  • Timothy Black

    where can you read their arguments?

    • Austin Ruse

      Whose arguments?

      • Timothy Black

        Girgis, Anderson, etc

        • Austin Ruse

          Google their names together Lots wil come up.

  • Thomas J. Hennigan

    “we were supposed to do in a democratic republic”. The problem is that the U.S. isno longer a democratic republic as there is practically a one party system and a compliant press.

    • Austin Ruse

      I would say we are not that because there is an official state religion that is enforced by the state and by the state’s collaborators: media, business etc.

  • Asbury Fox

    I disagree. The culture has been changing year by year and we are loosing. America is embracing gay marriage and the Homosexual lifestyle. Most of the bans on gay marriage were voted on before 2010. I live in California. In 2000, we banned same sex marriage with 61% of the vote. That was struck down by the courts, so prop 8 banning same sex marriage in the California constitution, barely passed with 52% of the vote in 2008. Today prop 8 wouldn’t pass. If gay marriage was up for a vote the majority would say yes. The last state to hold an election with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage failed to pass in Minnesota. Opinion is changing, and changing fast against traditional morality.

  • Crisis?? This is Chaos.

    Cutting children out of mothers by the tens of millions? Young women selling their eggs and leasing out their wombs? Surgically switching genders? Physician-enabled suicide? Licensing men to wed men and women to marry women? Harnessing state education to ensure that the next generation recognizes and defends its ‘right’ to all of the above?

    For humanity’s sake do our comrades in the Animal Kingdom cry out the truths of biology!

    It’s time for all people of good will and common sense to Occupy Civilization.

  • Paddy

    Catholics are sheep who won’t march for anything; their leaders are wolves. It’s sad. Watch Wuerl ignore Gov. O’Malley, a pro-abortion “catholic” guitar player. Cuomo strikes a palpable fear into Dolan, too. Perhaps a Protestant Minister like Franklin Graham can lead Catholics into America’s streets in defense of the natural law?

  • An Orthodox Christian

    Mr. Ruse speaks of victories, but how large of a margin are those “victories?” The numbers ebb and flow, and every year demographics and “public opinion” turn more and more in favor of same sex unions.
    The writing is on the wall, and it is our fault.
    There is no political solution for this issue. The answer is for Christians to live out our Faith individually, and be Christ to those around us. The culture has to be transformed, transfigured…and that will take a long time, one person, one neighborhood at a time. Be a light in the darkness…and don’t be afraid when persecution comes. America no longer belongs to us, if it ever did. The Republican Party will only pander to your cause as long as they can gain from it. Christians are becoming increasingly irrelevant as each election cycle continues.
    In my view, this is fine. Because a top down, political approach will not solve the problems of our country. America is ceasing to be a Christian culture. That is reflected in our laws and general society.
    We have become just another political faction, and in some instances an arm of the Republican Party. This is a blunder, and will not bring about the results we intend.
    The Gospel is the solution.

    • mitch64

      Mr. Ruse speaks of victories as a smokescreen and to bolster his own morale I would guess (and to keep beating the bushes for fundraising.) The voters that turned out to vote against same sex marriage were pushed to the polls because of a great deal of hard work, money and fear mongering. Which is fine, that is how the system works but Austin, who is in the front lines of all of this, knows that the victories did not come easy. All is fair in love and war and politics.

      However, those were the results in the past…but lets look at how things are changing for the future…The latest polls show that people 18-34 support SSM by 74-20 (oppose), people 34 to 49 favor by 54- 34, people 50-64- by 55 to 37 and the only age group where SSM looses is the 65 and over, and even there it is quite close with 45 approving and 46 opposed.

      So far from winning the anti SSM group is loosing, and will loose even more as the population (and voters) age. It is not loosing because of elitists or the media or any other boogeyman you can blame, but because as people come out and live their lives honestly more and more people find out their loved ones, family members, neighbors, co-workers are gay, and that they aren’t any more or less crazy then their straight counterparts.

      • ColdStanding

        “I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half.”

        – Jay Gould.

        Friends and family members are liars, crooks, adulterers, fornicators, sodomites, blasphemers, calumniators, boasters, traitors, backstabbers and on and on. All of these things are wrong. So very wrong. Wrong every time and at all times. No vote is going to change that. Not one of them is fair. Not one of them is permissible. They all lead to destruction.

        That’s honesty. Pretending that these things are OK because so very many have committed these acts is lying. You are lying. You need to repent. You will spend all eternity with the devils promising you that you are just about to be release from Hell. “Soon. Soon,” they will say.

        Nor will you, now that you’ve read this, be able to plead that you just didn’t know.

        I hope that you write a counter-post saying how thoroughly disgusted you are with this because that is how I reacted to your post.

        • mitch64

          Not disgusted in the least…You avoided answering anything specific and just threw in a going to hell thing. There was nothing to react to in your post as there was nothing there.

      • Austin Ruse

        I don’t raise money on the lgbt issue. Sorry. Guess again, mate!

        • mitch64

          Dear Friend of the Friday Fax,

          As you read this, two C-Fam staffers are on the ground in
          Africa; one in Kenya and one in Nigeria.
          They have traveled so far and into such dangerous situations
          in order to take our message to the African people:

          NO
          UN-STYLE FAMILY PLANNING
          NO
          GLOBAL RIGHT TO ABORTION

          NO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
          (snip)

          Will you go right now to http://www.c-fam.org/donate and give a
          sacrificial gift in the name of our two brave employees in harm’s way right now in Africa?

          Pray for them this week and go to http://www.c-fam.org/donate and make a sacrificial gift. Can you afford
          $100? $75? $50? Truly any amount will help defray these costly trips.

          Signed by no other then Austin Ruse.. So mate, why you may not just go out and have an all out “anti-gay marriage,” fundraiser….you do use the gay scare to raise money. Which would be ridiculous if you didn’t… how are you going to “scare.”up the money with your audience if you don’t? Just admit it.

          • Austin Ruse

            Three words in a 5oo word letter. Right. We write 40 fund- raising letters a year. I repeat. We don’t raise money on lgbt. Moreover, it’s a tiny part of our work.

            • mitch64

              Okay..so let’s revisit..you “do” actually raise money off this issue..by the by I think they have a lot more pressing problems then homos getting hitched..nice that this would be what you focus on..”There is an American at the door..Does he have food?No it looks like “marriage one man one woman buttons”???

              • Austin Ruse

                Not really, no. We raise 99.9% of our money on what the UN is doing on the life issues. Reality check, ideologue.

  • M.J.A.

    We DO have a Queen, in charge of the army of heaven and rules in every heart , that wants to be owned by Her and in turn , being given the awesome role and privilege , to ‘ own ‘ Her and all that is Hers , in Her !
    Who needs 72 virgins and similar fallen curse ridden appetites , when the truth and promises are far more tremendous !
    Is it the debt of those curses that keep us from recognizing the richness of our patrimony ..and keep us from calling on the generals that God has already given us .
    True historians tell us that George Washington was privileged to have had visitations and guidance of this Queen of Heaven , whose role , the enemy tried to counterfeit , in the false goddesses of Old Test. , thus causing fear and confusion about Her role, to this day , among our brethren .
    She is the enemy of our enemy ..as promised in the Old Testament ..and that war has mostly been against women and their role as child bearers , bearers of life …those in authority , have been debt ridden in this area by having been one in mind and heart , with the enemy , cursing themselves and those under them, with the support and ‘blessing ‘ given to acts against life .
    it is no surprise that there are now more demands , in the same realm, to negate the role of women ; true ,there might be women who too want to join in this battle against the true identity and role of women but primarily , it is those who seem to carry the curse of fear and hatred against women and their true role , who are the loud, aggressive demandees for more curses, for all involved- those who give into the demands or fall as victims of the curse and confusions !
    Mary , conceived without sin ..free from the effects of all curses that our forefathers had accumulated …God had foreseen a time such as ours and had cared enough to bless us with a Patroness who is powerful to break the curses ..that , top to bottom, hearts would know what is true richness in relationships , that have broken off all unholy soul ties ,
    to know and love whose one is and who one is blessed to call as own !
    Trusting in God , there is His army who call on heaven, for the curses to be broken that the hearts can be open to the truth !
    Our Holy Father and Pope Emer.Benedict , small part of the visible army that is there for The Kingdom too !

  • hombre111

    I had to chuckle at Austin’s bleat about “black-robed elites” who have ignored the will of the people. I think about the conservative crusade to elect Republican presidents who would appoint conservative judges who would overturn Roe vs. Wade and maintain tradition Christian mores about sex, family, and homosexuality.

    When will the Right to Life movement finally admit that it has been had? They helped elect the Republican presidents who appointed the conservative judges who are zealous about the protection of big business and our right to carry guns, but could care less about Roe vs. Wade. As for sex, family, and homosexuality? Beginning with Republican appointed judges in the lower courts, they turned Christian mores on its head.

    • Scott W.

      I hear anti-abortionists distrust of Republicans all the time. Try actually listening instead of playing gotcha all the time relying on pigeonholes.

      • hombre111

        The anti-abortionists supported Reagan and continue to support the Republicans who talk a good story but could not care less about the issues of pro-life. Face it. You have been had.

        • Scott W.

          Again, not listening.

  • Craig Roberts

    “You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.” Mat 24:6

    “This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel, says: “In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it.” Isa 30:15

    • ColdStanding

      The end times could just as easily be 1000 years from now as tomorrow, eh?

      Good Isaiah quote.

      • Craig Roberts

        The end times were around 2000 years ago. We’re all just trying to catch up with Christ.

  • s masty

    A fine piece, for what is at play here is the result of intellectual laziness and over simplification on the Right, accentuated by greedy, childish media. Short of implanting the genes of good people mentioned, no more likely remedy comes to mind.

  • reddog44

    Good argument Austin, you say it well. We do articulate and well-learned people who can represent us, and do so in a respectful way.
    By the way, I immensely enjoy your Friday Fax articles and the fight you are putting up.

  • Tom Healey

    I only read the first 30-40 comments, but it seems the conversation got derailed from Austin’s excellent post.. A bit of good news and a call to action.

  • James

    “We have won the argument over marriage. We have won 34
    statewide elections where traditional marriage was on the ballot. We did
    this even though the polls showed us losing most of them, perhaps all
    of them, prior to the vote. We won even in liberal states like
    California. We won even during Democratic primaries like Missouri. Our
    opponents persuaded the people in a measly three states to vote with
    them on faux marriage. We have won the debate, at least for now.”

    Richmond, 1865: “We are winning the war! Only two years ago our armies were taking the fight to the Yankees, occupying central Pennsylvania”

    The three states in question were the last three states to vote, which is pretty important. Look at support for gay marriage by age: Young people strongly support it, older people strongly oppose it. Every new election there will be more of those who support it and fewer of those who oppose it.

    The longer this debate goes on, the more people support gay marriage. The younger people are, the more likely they are to support gay marriage. You once had the numbers, but you lost the argument.

    • Austin Ruse

      Yawn, stretch, scratch. Same things were said about abortion. And look at us now.

    • The argument wasn’t lost. By your reasoning, any policy that “comes to be” through power in history ought to be considered as “the argument won”. How does that follow?

      All that is required is a moments reflection on your part to understand that issues like this have little or nothing to do with who happens to be “wielding the stick” at any given point in history. I have no doubt that you will get all that your lobby wishes to procure for you (and a whole lot more besides) and no doubt it will all fall to pieces once those holding up the “theater curtain of your illusions” have been exposed for what they are: monsters.

      • James

        So you are not a democrat either. Good to know.

        Which unwittingly defeats the argument of the OP.

        • I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. We do not need politics to demonstrate the merit of any one issue.

          • James

            Little-d democrat. One who believes in democracy. Not a member of the Democratic Party.

            • Nope, I don’t believe in democracy. It’s an interesting experiment but no. Is there a party called “philosophy”?…sorry, I’m just being funny but really, I dislike the whole muddle of politics. I would like to see honest men and women working towards the good. Just a dream I had…

            • I thumbed you up because you sir, afforded me the pleasure of a chuckle.

  • James

    This entire article is a not-so-subtle call for mob rule.

    • Austin Ruse

      Actually, it is a call for respect for a democratic republic rather than rule by elites.

      • James

        So if you continue to lose elections and your position continues to lose popular support, I assume you will accept the results then, right?

        • Austin Ruse

          popular support is best measured by elections. On that score we have won 34 and you have won 3. Your side couldn’t stand that so you took it to the courts who promptly overturned the will of the people. Will we accept those results? Did blacks accept Plessy? Have pro-lifers accepted Roe?

          • James

            Did the people accept Loving v. Virginia? Interracial marriage was more unpopular in 1967 than gay marriage is today.

            For that matter, did Southerners accept Brown v. Board of Education? Or was this how the courts “promptly overturned the will of the people”?

            In 30 years, the issue will be long forgotten because very few couples are gay and not that many of them are seeking marriage. Nor did gay marriage invent gay couples. They’ve always been around and they’ve always been gay.

            The lesbian couple next door who has been together for years can now file their taxes together, are each other’s next of kin, and can pass their inheritance tax free. Why should I care? Seriously. Why is this a problem? What is wrong with you people?

            Are you afraid that God is going to rain fire and brimstone on your cities? Do you think that is what God is like? Gay marriage has been legal for years and nobody has been smote yet.

            Do you think that heterosexuals will find being gay appealing? Because that’s not how sexuality works. The availability of legal marriage isn’t going to change anyone’s sexual orientation.

            Do you think that heterosexuals decide to get married or raise a family based on who can get a marriage licence from the clerk of court? Because I’ve never heard of this bearing into any couple’s decisions.

            • Austin Ruse

              Funny thing that gays avoid marriage in droves where ever it is legal of them.

              • James

                Then that makes gay marriage a non-issue for all but a small number of couples, doesn’t it? Why begrudge them a tax break?

                Oh, and funny thing how you didn’t answer a single one of my questions.

                • Austin Ruse

                  Actually it doesn’t because the proposal is to change the definition of marriage for the benefit of a tiny sliver of the 1.6%.

                  • James

                    You do know that straight couples can still get married, don’t you? And that nobody gets unmarried? Right?

                    It is a significant benefit for a small number of people. It harms no one. Most people will not have their lives impacted either way.

                    Why do you insist on denying this benefit to such a small number of people? Are you afraid of fire and brimstone? Do you that this will make heterosexuals want to be gay? Do explain. You still haven’t answered this question.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Should a man be able to marry his adult son? If not, why not?

                    • James

                      No. The likelihood of coercion to form a domestic partnership within a family is high enough so that such unions will likely be more harm than good. There is also a high likelihood of secondary negative effects within the family.

                      So why have you STILL not answered my questions?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      But love is love or some such thing, no?and we are talking about consenting adults. Who are you to judge?

                    • James

                      You’re still not answering my question. Why does it bother you if two men can get a marriage license and file a joint tax return?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      To suggest that marriage is about tax returns answers the question.

                      Why not allow an adult man marry his father?

                    • James

                      Concerns about family dynamics and coercion would make parent-child marriage unadvisable. But that is not the issue at hand. Quit trying to change the subject.

                      You know, I don’t think it bothers you at all. I think you are a mercenary. You take the money and you write the article. Conservative publications have more money than talent and we all have a mortgage to pay, don’t we? That’s why you can’t answer my simple question about what bothers you about two men getting a marriage license.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      That’s the best you can do? Family dynamics? Unadvisable? Really? Well, not good enough. Love is love!

                    • James

                      So you’re not denying the charge that you are a mercenary, then?

                      You don’t really believe any of what you write, do you?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      If love is love, then why can’t an adult marry his father? What is your limiting principle? What is your definition of marriage? Can it include that couple. After all, they need to file their tax returns, too! How about a throuple?

                    • James

                      Asked and answered about the father and son. I never argued “love is love”, so that’s a straw man.

                      As for the thruple, there is no precedent for a three way household arrangement, so institutions designed for two persons would not necessarily fit it. It would be a rare situation. I am not, however, in principal opposed to it. Why are you?

                      Why do you oppose these changes? What are YOUR principles? You refuse to answer this.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Asked and answered? Not really. Try again. What is your underlying principle that excludes two men from getting married. What is your underlying principle that excludes three men from getting married?

                    • James

                      I’m not answering your questions until you answer mine.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Marriage is a unique institution that provides the best chance for the flourishing of the fruit of marriage, which is children.

                    • James

                      So a man and a woman come into a clerk of court’s office. They have both been sterilized and agree that they will terminate any pregnancies that happen despite their efforts. They are open about this choice.

                      1. Do you consider this relationship to be a marriage? Why or why not?

                      2. If not, should they be given a marriage license by the clerk anyway? Why or why not?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Societies have never required marriages to be fecund. And the exception that you propose in no way changes the underlying principle which is that marriage is the best place for the flourishing of marriage’s fruit, which is children.

                    • James

                      So on what principle do you grant a marriage license to the deliberately sterilized couple, whose marriage will produce no”fruit”, but not the gay couple?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      As I said, exceptions don’t change the principle. Gay “sex” produces babies never. Ever. Sexual intercourse does. And that results in babies. Babies deserve their biological mom and dad and that coupling is their best chance for human flourishing

                    • James

                      Even assuming for the sake of argument that the state’s primary interest in marriage is children, I don’t understand how a deliberately sterilized couple who is excluding children from their relationship can be an exception but not a gay couple. The sterilized couples’ intercourse will not lead to children either. If the purpose of marriage is children, then on what principle does the state have an interest in a deliberately sterile couple, but not a gay couple?

                      The courts don’t understand this either, which is why they have rejected similar arguments in their rulings.

                      Second, sexual intercourse is only tangentially related to civil marriage. In most, if not all, jurisdictions, consummation is not required to have a valid marriage.

                      You seem to be arguing for a definition of “marriage” that is different from current laws on civil marriage. Do you believe that civil marriage laws pre-2004 (before gay marriage) were acceptable or were they in need of change? How so?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Yes, the primary interest of the state in marriage is the result of the marital act . The state doesn’t give a rip about your emotions or “honoring” your love etc.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Yes, the primary interest of the state in marriage is not your relationship, your emotions, or “honoring” your loveetc, but rather in the issue that comes forth in the marital act, an act that two men or two women cannot possibly have.

                    • James

                      So are you saying that the state’s interest is in sexual intercourse, even if the intercourse has deliberately been rendered incapable of generating children?

                      Because if the state’s interest is in children, then there is no purpose in marrying the sterilized couple either. Neither couple can have children. If this couple is an “exception”, then why not grant another exception to a same sex couple?

                      On what principle is a marriage license appropriate for a sterilized couple but not a same sex couple? Why treat them differently?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Quite simply because the state does not require either fertility or fecundity as a requirement for marriage but the state understands, as does basic science, that it is the marital act that produces children and the state has a strong interest in what’s best for the resulting children and therefore society. Two men can masturbate each other all their lives and never produce a child. That some couples are either accidentally or deliberately sterile does not change the underlying principle that it is through the marital act where children appear.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Additionally, the state does not require a fertility test to get married. The presumption is that sex causes babies. Go figure that. And nobody thinks that mutual masturbation does. Go figure that.

                    • James

                      Your not answering the question: What if we know for certain that a heterosexual couple can not and can never have babies? What if they publicly state they have no intention of ever having children? What is the state’s interest in this relationship? How is this different from a same sex couple?

                      To get biological, why does the state have a compelling interest in sexual intercourse that is KNOWN to be sterile that it does not have in mutual masturbation?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      The state takes no Interest in the intention of married couples, only in what usually happens, ie, sexual intercourse makes babies, which is something two men or two women cannot ever do.

                    • James

                      So if a man who marries post menopausal woman who has had a hysterectomy, the couple may be mistaken about their joint sterility??? Really???

                      Do explain how this couple could possibly make a baby. I’d LOVE to hear that.

                      Yet they can get married. If children are the purpose of marriage, then this couple is as biologically incapable of having children as the gay couple. What is the difference?

                      The problem with your position is that it depends on a legal fiction. You presume that grandmothers without wombs can get pregnant because it makes your logic work out, even though it is complete nonsense.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      The thing to understand is that babies are made by sexual intercourse and not by mutual masturbation, therefore, the state has an interest in the one and not the other even if not every couple capable of sexual intercourse is capable of having babies. The state simply has no interest in mutual masturbation, ever.

                    • James

                      Babies aren’t made by sexual intercourse with a woman without a uterus. I do hope you are aware of this.

                      Why does the state allow her to get married?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Asked and answered.

                    • James

                      What’s one more exception?

                    • LarryCicero

                      Can I marry my mother to get a tax break?

                • It’s not about getting a tax break. It’s about “equality” when in fact, the argument from equality fails. Let’s have a brief look at the claim:

                  Perhaps the most common argument used by same-sex marriage advocates is the marriage equality argument. They believe it is wrong to oppose equal rights for everyone,
                  including equal rights to marry whomever we love. Banning same-sex marriage opposes equal rights for everyone. Therefore, it is wrong to ban same-sex marriage.

                  Response: The major premise, in (parenthesis) below, is false: it is wrong to oppose equal rights for everyone including (equal rights to marry whomever we love). Some people love those
                  who are already married to someone else, or those who do not want to marry them, or their close blood relatives, or prepubescent children, or animals, or nonliving things. Denial of same-sex marriage does not undermine the equality before the law of people who desire it, any more than denial of bigamy,
                  polygamy, HAM (human and animal marriage) undermines the basic equality of the people who desire these kinds of unions to be declared marriages. To say that banning same-sex marriage opposes equal rights for everyone again proves too much, since we could just as well say banning polygamist marriage, self
                  marriage, human animal marriage, or human inanimate object marriage opposes equal rights for everyone. The principles invoked to justify same-sex marriage also justify kinds of marriages that virtually no one accepts, so these principles ought to be rejected.

                  The minor premise of the equality argument is also problematic; banning same-sex marriage opposes equal rights for everyone. What does equal rights really mean? Equality does not treat every person or every group in exactly the same way. Equality treats persons or groups that are the same in the same way but not persons or groups that are significantly different. For example, an air marshal can carry a gun on the plane, a regular citizens cannot. A 16-year-old can drive a car but a 10-year-old cannot. Such limitations are justly made despite rare exceptions
                  (example: the unusual 10-year-old who is more mature than the average 16-year-old; the regular citizen who is better suited to defend the innocent passengers on a plane than the air marshal.) The question is, are there any significant differences between same-sex couples and opposite sex couples that justify
                  treating them differently? Here we get into “What is Marriage” distinct from “What is it that we want to call marriage”. Ah, the arguments for accommodation abound. By all means, have your tax breaks. It’s the ideology that is proving difficult.

                  • James

                    So this is all about a word? You don’t care about substantive rights?

                    Social acceptance of gay relationships is not something that is in the domain of government. Legal recognition is. I am guessing that the former bothers you far more than the latter, and that legal recognition bothers you primarily because you believe it will lead to social acceptance. Is this correct?

                    • Acceptance can be predicated on any number of things: facts, assumption, error, propaganda and so on – nothing new here. Acceptance certainly does not determine whether something is “a Right” or not (for obvious reasons). I’ve recently had an opportunity to get into the minutiae of why this is so in a recent post. You are welcome to look through what I have written in my Disqus account or if you’d like me to, I can re-post what I had already said here.

                      I will agree with you that, properly speaking, “acceptance” is not the province of government. The problem arises when it is in the interests of government to insist upon what “one ought to accept”.

                      I should like to add that the acceptance of any kind of “life style” which shows itself to be both biologically and metaphysically absurd is will continue to be a cause for concern.

                      Plainly speaking, I’m not so bothered. Truth will out in the end.

                  • mitch64

                    Joe, totally agree that the “equal, ” thing does not really work here. What marriage is equal? Two guys or two women ARE different then a man and a woman, no question about that. How I deal with my partner most likely is different then how you deal with your wife, but then, how my home deals with issues can be different then another gay home, etc. No marriage is equal to another, some marriages choose to have no kids, some can’t have kids, some can pop out a million. Some marriages one or both partners cheat, some dont, etc, etc.

                    However, differences shouldn’t stop people from having equal “access,” to an opportunity. The equal thing is a catchy word to use, something to put on a button, a slogan that people can understand. But it as just as simplistic as “Its about the CHILDREN!” or “Its about religious freedom,”

                    I really think that the real thing to talk about, and the only thing that matters (not faith, not politics) is, will this have a positive impact on society? I personally think that it will, it will encourage monogamy (not that it has worked perfectly for straight people but…) encourage people to buy houses, condos, firm ties to a community to stabilize, (we homos are notorious for going in to neighborhoods and stabilizing them with goofy shops straight ladies like to shop at…I have no taste so I am not one of them) so it could benefit the economy, hopefully health wise it would benefit with a cut down on STI’s and yes, I know people are in hysterics here, but adopting children that would be sentenced to foster homes..(no body can complain about gay marriage until they have adopted a kid themselves to take them off the street…)These are things that need to be talked about as concrete issues.. I “think” it will benefit society but time will tell…and that is what I think is exactly what Austin and his ilk don’t want, to allow something like this and to be proved wrong. Call it a social experiment…maybe, but come up with something valid to stop the experiment from happening.

                    I have no problem with anyone saying that gay marriage is morally wrong because of their faith..but that should not impact civil law.

                    So yes, I agree that equality is a simplistic term but in our simplisticimperfect political system, where each side demonizes the other side its a good as any.

                    • Hey Mitch, this is going to be a two part post…seems I went a little long…thanks for the thoughtful post.

                      Comment: Joe, totally agree that the “equal, ” thing does not really work here. What marriage is equal? Two guys or two women ARE different then a man and a woman, no question about that.

                      Reply: What is important is the criteria which underpins “the marriage claim”. One is comprehensive while the other opens itself to “infinite malleability”. That is to say, the word marriage becomes a misnomer regardless of how closely “gay marriage” approximates the “conjugal view”. If you would like me to go
                      through some of the argumentation, I am willing to but there is an excellent book on the subject: “What is Marriage” by Girgis, Anderson and George. There are others of course, but this might appeal to you given the fact that it grounds its arguments in formal logic.

                      In short, there are substantial differences which have everything to do with “the nature of a thing in and of itself” and those differences which are cosmetic like: my apple is green and your apple is red. Distinctions of this kind are
                      meaningful. One is comprehensive while
                      the other depends upon a crude reductionism.

                      Comment: How I deal with my partner most likely is different than how you deal with your wife, but then, how my home deals with issues can be different then another gay home, etc. No marriage is equal to another, some marriages choose to have no kids, some can’t have kids, some can pop out a million. Some marriages one or both partners cheat, some don’t, etc, etc.

                      Reply: The kind of differences you are discussing above relate to the “my apple is red while your apple is green” category of difference which is something distinct from your initial two sentences at the top of the post which are substantively different.

                      Comment: However, differences shouldn’t stop people from having equal “access,” to an opportunity.

                      Reply: This is only ever “conditionally
                      true”. Equal access is exclusive to “those
                      categories” whose “ends” naturally “tend” to the access which this equality provides. Equality is not “an open door to all” proposition.

                      Comment: The equal thing is a catchy word to use, something to put on a button, a slogan that people can understand. But it as just as
                      simplistic as “Its about the CHILDREN!” or “Its about religious freedom,”

                      Reply: I do agree that it is rhetorical but what grounds the claims for “the argument from equality” do not hold. Now, claims like “religious freedom” and “it’s about the children” are used with equal rhetorical force but I would argue that if we were to set aside all flag waving, sign-holding and shouting one might find that such claims are not wholly dependent upon their rhetorical force. No doubt you feel the same away about the “argument from equality” but this is a point we can develop later on if you like.

                      Comment: I really think that the real thing to talk about, and the only thing that matters (not faith, not politics) is, will this have a positive impact on society?

                      Reply: I agree. Slippery slope arguments ought to be eschewed. We ought to appeal to “what we can know”.

                      Comment: I personally think that it will, it will encourage monogamy (not that it has worked perfectly for straight people but…) encourage people to buy houses, condos, firm ties to a community to stabilize, (we homos are notorious for going in to neighborhoods and stabilizing them with goofy shops straight ladies like to shop at…I have no taste so I am not one of them) so it could benefit the economy,

                      Reply: I wish that were the case. Much of the argument from equality hinges on such a take on SSM but I do not believe it will hold. There is that terrible expression: what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and the gander want marriage, for the most part, to be whatever ever best suits their “preference satisfiers”.

                      Comment: hopefully health wise it would benefit with a cut down on STI’s and yes, I know people are in hysterics here, but adopting children that would be sentenced to foster homes..(no body can complain about gay
                      marriage until they have adopted a kid themselves to take them off the street…)

                      Reply: We must appeal to the data for this one.

                      Comment: These are things that need to be talked about as concrete issues.. I “think” it will benefit society but time will tell…and that is what I think is exactly what Austin and his ilk don’t want, to allow something like this and to be proved wrong.

                      Reply: I agree, they do need to be talked about and I am admittedly surprised that you have taken the time to talk to me regarding this. It’s
                      also good to see that your comments are ad hominem attacks.

                      I can’t say that I agree with you though. The problem is the arguments that underpin
                      the claims.

                      Comment: Call it a social experiment…maybe, but come up with something valid to stop the experiment from happening. I have no problem with anyone saying that gay marriage is morally wrong because of their faith but
                      that should not impact civil law.

                      Reply: I’m re-posting from an earlier conversation. This is with regards to “what constitutes moral action” with regards to the sexual appetites that same sex attraction entails. (How is that for some polite word-smithery?) I will begin with a claim: The “homosexual act”is both a biological and metaphysical absurdity. Now, the supporting argument…

                      The nature of “any one thing” from an Aristotelian point of view is “the form or essence itinstantiates”.

                      Let us take the triangle as our example. It is of the essence, nature, or form of a triangle to have three perfectly straight sides. Notice that this remains true even if some particular
                      triangle does not have three perfectly straight sides and indeed even though every material instance of a triangle has some defect or other. The point is that these are defects, failures to conform to the “nature” or “essence” of triangularity; the fact that such defective triangles exist in the natural world and in accordance with the laws of physics doesn’t
                      make them any less unnatural in the relevant sense.

                      When we get to biological organs we have things whose “nature” or “essences” more
                      obviously involve certain final causes or purposes. So for example the “function” or “final cause” of eyeballs is to enable us to
                      see. But suppose someone’s eyeballs are defective in some way, making his vision
                      blurry. In that case, to wear eyeglasses isn’t contrary to the natural function of eyeballs; rather it quite obviously restores to the eyeballs their ability to carry out their natural function. On the other hand, bicycles don’t do this
                      but they do extend rather than conflict with the ability of the legs to carry out their natural function of allowing us to move about.

                      Finally, to round out this initial reply to some standard bad objections to natural law theory, while it is true that some defenders and critics of traditional sexual morality seem to
                      worry themselves endlessly about whether homosexuality has a genetic basis, the
                      question is actually largely irrelevant, and they shouldn’t waste their time. For it is quite obvious that the existence of a genetic basis for some trait does not by itself prove anything about whether it is “natural” in the
                      relevant sense. To take just one of many possible examples, that there is a
                      genetic basis for clubfoot doesn’t show that having club feet is “natural”. Quite obviously it is unnatural certainly in the Aristotelian sense of failure perfectly to conform to the “essence”
                      or “nature” of a thing. And no one who has a clubfoot would take offense at someone’s noting this obvious matter of fact, or find it convincing that the existence of a genetic basis for his affliction shows that it is something he should “embrace” and “celebrate”. Nor would it
                      be possible to suggest that God made him that way any more than God makes people to be born blind, deaf, armless, legless, prone to alcoholism or autistic. God obviously allows these things, for whatever reason; but it
                      doesn’t follow that he positively “wills” them, and it certainly doesn’t follow that they are “natural”. So, by the same token, the
                      possibility of the genetic basis for homosexual desire doesn’t by itself show that such desire is natural. Homsexual activists often breathlessly cite this or that alleged “finding” that such a basis exists; someday they might even cite something plausible. “Whatever dude” as the kids say. Even if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that there is such a basis
                      with respect to the question of then “naturalness” of homosexuality this would prove exactly zip.

                      Of course, that by itself does not show that homosexuality is immoral either. After all having a clubfoot is not immoral and neither is being born blind or with a predisposition for
                      alcoholism. These are simply afflictions for which the sufferer is not at fault and can only call forth our sympathy. On the other hand if someone born with normal feet wanted to give himself a club foot through surgery, we would find this at the very least irrational; and if someone concluded from having a
                      genetic predisposition for alcoholism that regularly drinking to excess would
                      be a worthwhile “lifestyle” for him to pursue, then we would regard him as sorely mistaken even if he could do this in a way that allowed him to hold down a job, keep his friends and family and avoid car accidents. Even amid
                      the depravity of modern civilization most people realize that the life of an alcoholic
                      is simply not a good thing, even if the alcoholic himself thinks it is and even if he “doesn’t hurt anybody” else. We know in our bones that there is something ignoble and unfitting about it. In the same way should it turn out
                      that the desire to molest children has a genetic basis, no one would conclude from this that sexual attraction toward children is a good thing even if the person who has it was able to satisfy his disgusting urges without actually
                      touching any children. We all know in our bones that someone obsessed with
                      masturbating to pictures of naked toddlers is sick and not living the way human
                      being ought to live even if he never leaves the darkness of his own room or his own soul.

                      Now I realize, of course, that many readers will acknowledge that we do in fact have these reactions but would nevertheless write them off as “mere reactions”. “Our tendency
                      to find something personally disgusting” they will sniff “doesn’t show that there is anything objectively wrong with it.” This is the sort
                      of stupidity masquerading-as-insight that absolutely pervades modern intellectual life, and it has the same source as so many other contemporary intellectual pathologies: in abandonment of the classical realism of the Greek and scholastic philosophers and especially of Aristotle’s doctrine of the four
                      causes. For we need to ask “why” there is universal, or near universal, reaction of disgust to certain behaviors and why certain traits
                      count is unnatural even though there is a genetic factor underlying them. And
                      when the “evolutionary psychologists”, “rational choice theorists” and other such “Bright Young Things” and trendy’s
                      have had their say there can still be no satisfying answer to these questions
                      questions that does not make reference to Aristotelian final causes – even if
                      only because there can be no satisfying explanation of almost anything that
                      doesn’t make reference to final causes.

                      Let’s back up then, see what morality in general looks like from a point of view informed by Aristotelian metaphysics, and then return later on to the question of sexual morality in
                      particular. Like Plato, Aristotle takes a things “form, essence or nature” to determine the good for it. Hence, a good triangle is one that
                      corresponds as closely as possible to the form of triangularity, its sides drawn is perfectly straight as possible etc. A good squirrel, for example, is one that has the typical marks of the species and successfully fulfills the
                      characteristic activities of a squirrels life, e.g. by not having broken limbs, not gathering stones for its food rather than acorns etc. So far, this is
                      obviously a non-moral sense of “good” – the claim isn’t that triangles and squirrels are deserving of moral praise or blame – and
                      corresponds closely to the sense in which we might think of something as a “good specimen” or “good example” of some kind of class of
                      things. but it is the foundation for the distinctively moral sense of goodness.

                      But why should we choose to do what is good for us in this Aristotelian sense? The answer is implicit in what has been said already. The will, of its very nature, is oriented to pursuing
                      what the intellect regards is good. You don’t even need to believe in Aristotelian final causes to see this; you know it from your own experience insofar as you only ever do something because you think it is in some way good. Of course you might also believe that what you are doing is morally evil – as a
                      murderer or thief might – but that doesn’t conflict with what I’m saying. Even the murderer or thief who knows that murderer and stealing are wrong nevertheless thinks that what he’s doing will result in something he regards is good, e.g. the death of the person he hates or some money to pay for his drugs.
                      I mean “good” here only in this thin sense, of being in some way desirable or providing some benefit. And that is all Aquinas means by it when he famously tells us that the first principle of the natural law is that
                      “good is to be done and pursued, and evil to be avoided”. This is not meant by itself to be terribly informative; it is meant only to call attention to the obvious fact that human action is of its nature directed toward what is
                      “perceived to be good” in some way, whether it really is good or not.

                      But when we add to this the consideration that the good for us is in fact whatever “tends to fulfill our nature or essence” in the sense of realizing the “natural ends or purposes” to which various natural capacities, then there can be no doubt as to why someone ought to do what is good in this sense. For you do by nature want to do what you “take to be good” for you; reason reveals that what is in fact good for you is acting in a way that is conducive to the fulfillment of the ends or purposes inherent in human nature; and so if you are rational, and thus open to seeing what is in fact good for you, you will take the fulfillment of those ends or purposes to be good for you and act accordingly. This may require a fight against one’s desires and such a fight might in some cases be so extremely difficult and
                      unpleasant that one might not have the stomach for it. But that is a problem of
                      will, not reason. It doesn’t show that the rational thing is not to struggle against one’s desires, but only that doing the rational thing can sometimes be extremely difficult and unpleasant.

                    • mitch64

                      Joe,

                      I think you got my thoughts and James in the above response. That is fine..just saying that I would never discuss anything about Aristotelian thought, etc, as that is way over my head.. I HATED philosophy in college! Though interesting and education thoughts from you on that!

                      But yes, I am glad we can have a discussion. I think this is very interesting topic to discuss and gets no where quickly when one side just accuses the other of being “perverts,” and “trolls,” and the other side calls them “bigots.” Have a great day!

                    • Agreed. We are, all of us, here in the world together. We should each strive to find out what the right thing to do is and then, as best we can, do just that. There is far too much animus I find and not enough forbearance. We should at least begin by trying to understand one another. I’ll keep you in my prayers (I pray for everyone and if you are at all sympathetic in that direction yourself, you can pray for me as well.) Have a great day too though here in Seville… it is night time! I think I shall go and enjoy a tinto de verano! I will lift my glass. Cheers!

                    • Here’s part two…read the first one first!

                      Now, I received a good response from someone else to this post so I thought it might be of some interest to you in anticipation of any point you might have after reading the above. Here it is:

                      I’ve parsed your
                      post to better address the points you have raised. I hope this goes some way to
                      clarifying any misunderstandings. God bless.

                      James: Do you take Aristotle’s view on physics as well? Point is that Aristotle is not the final
                      authority on anything, certainly not psychology or human sexuality.

                      Joe: His physics? No I do not. However, we can observe the veracity of his metaphysics easily enough by “taking for our example” whatever contemporary scientific discoveries happen to be available to us… (That he thought there was a divine pinky-finger prodding the spheres so that they might continue to make their
                      heavenly music neither diminishes nor undermines his metaphysical contributions
                      in the least. These (planets and such) were examples of their kind, nothing more. He was addressing classical knowledge through the lens of sound logic. Logic doesn’t belong to Aristotle incidentally. He is not the authority – just in case there was any confusion.

                      I think I adequately covered where logic and reason lead us regarding sexuality in my post, the rest of the argument can be left to the biologist who might, at his or her leisure,
                      demonstrate “the biological imperative” for us * thank you principle of public confirmation!

                      James: As for defects, we recognize that being born blind or deaf is a defect, but we
                      nevertheless have braille and closed-captioning to accommodate these people. We
                      have handicapped parking spaces and handicapped accessible buildings for the
                      physically disabled.

                      So even if homosexuality is in fact a defect, it does not follow that we should not accommodate this as well.

                      Joe: What you have said in your first paragraph concerning the blind unwittingly serves to
                      entirely illustrate my point. However, your second paragraph (sentence) doesn’t
                      follow logically given what you have said in the first.

                      Braille is not accommodation, it is an attempt to remedy a defect (like glasses). This is the
                      point. We do not “celebrate” the child’s blindness. We accept that he/she is blind, certainly, but we don’t let it go at that and leave it.. as you seem to suggest we ought to where homosexuality is concerned. It seems that
                      you are talking about two different things here James when you use the word “accommodation”.

                      James: You try to compare homosexuality to alcoholism, but to make this point one must show objective harm from the behavior for the individual for this argument. This
                      article tries to make this argument, but fails.

                      Joe: I did not demonstrate the point because it has been adequately demonstrated by others and is subject to public record. I simply bring it up to lend “understanding” to the point. It is not an “argument from analogy” as some might be tempted to suppose.

                      James:The “know in our bones” argument is a subjective one. My wife thinks pickles are
                      disgusting. Does this mean that pickles are somehow poisonous? Of course not. Is it “stupidity masquerading-as-insight” to claim that despite her disgust that pickles are actually harmless, if not good? Of course not. Neither her nor mine nor your tastes are the arbiter of morality.

                      Joe: I knew someone would call me up on that (Lord, I dislike a narrow reading); the “know it
                      in your bones” phrase is not an argument. It is an observation. The argument belongs to the later part of my post – that is to say – I deliver on
                      the promise of that observation when I discuss “that end to which the instantiated nature of the thing tends”.

                      James: “Of course not. Is it “stupidity masquerading-as-insight” to claim that
                      despite her disgust that pickles are actually harmless, if not good? Of course not.”

                      Joe: By now, I hope you can see how a comment like this misses the point entirely. I would agree with you that pickles are harmless even though I dislike them myself. We know
                      that they are. Things do have “a nature in and of themselves” independent of “whatever we may come to think of them” (Now, that is
                      my point and a good one, no?) – I shan’t go on and address leaches, the black blood, and trepanning..having addressed the point, I need not address all the examples.

                      All that being said. It was a well written post and I appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into it. You thought enough of what I had said to consider it worth commenting on and
                      so, you have my gratitude. I hope I have both sufficiently addressed your points as well as provided any necessary clarity. If you are interested in the “clock work” of the argument or any kind of follow-on discussion, we
                      can begin with: “act and potency” “material, formal, efficient, final, eminent…causality etc.” or whatever metaphysical underpinning you feel is worth addressing…God bless

                      I’ve also addressed the claim that “there is so much more to sex than just the biological imperative”. I’ll re-post here for your convenience (again, in response to the above claim):

                      My contention is that just because distinctions can be made between “human bonding, intimacy, appetite etc,” and “the biological
                      imperative” it doesn’t necessarily follow that a separation is entailed.

                      I am always curious to know what the “far more” of this comment argues for (you’re not alone in using these two words and I have
                      yet to find a satisfactory development to that end). I touch upon the intimations of what that might mean later on below but I should like to know your thoughts on the matter as well.

                      Here’s the argumentation:

                      Where LGBT people are concerned, the “minor principle” of pleasure (which they always call love when sex is on the cards) -talk about
                      your ubiquitous term – is equal to or can be made to trump the “major principle” of procreation (and all of this is persistently folded into a narrative of: “natural affection”, “a spiritual something”, “friendship” and so on – this being the common ground as it were.)

                      Yet this is dishonest on its face. Speaking in this way is merely another way to “sneak sodomy into the house” under the auspices of universally acceptable credentials. In this way, the LGBT community look to “talk past
                      the issue” regarding their own sexual mores. Moreover, this assertion (the distinction/division fallacy) like many “LGBT arguments” proves too much.

                      What I mean by this is that “it”: “there is more to sex than…” must, because of the principle
                      upon which it rests its argument, be open to any kind of sexuality that one can
                      “think of” and “indulge in” regardless of whom or what they “indulge in it with” – and not least of all because of the ambiguity inherent in this kind of reasoning. (just consider that for a moment – I certainly hope there are limits to what that “far more” intimates).
                      Of course this sort of reasoning is a reductio ad absurdum (a fault inherent to the position they have adopted – logical fallacy number 2).

                      Permit me, by way of explanation, to flesh out what I have just said by means of the following
                      analogy (This is not an argument from analogy. What follows is meant to be explanatory – just in case there is any misunderstanding): I shall take “the eating of food” for my theme.

                      Where food is concerned, would anyone seriously contend that “a healthy appetite for what the food tastes like” takes precedence
                      over, is separable from, or equal to “the need to nourish oneself”? This is the kind of argument which underpins comments of the following kind: “well, there is more to eating than just keeping you alive”…if we were to take it literally (but of course we don’t, we all understand it to mean just this: Enjoy the food! and little else besides…but what if we were to take it
                      seriously, that is, what if we were to hold to it with the same degree of seriousness and earnestness that we do with a statement like: “there is more to sex than just babies”. What then?– I ask you, what kind of “premise” is this for “any kind of preference”?” Now, just
                      in case you are tempted to misunderstand me here, I’m not saying that one doesn’t eat a hamburger because it doesn’t taste better than a kiwi for example. In fact people do eat more hamburgers than they do kiwis’ precisely
                      because they do taste better for the most part (vegetarians not withstanding).
                      “Appetite”, the “friendship of a shared meal” etc. brings us to the table but it is the hamburger that is “the end to which the appetite tends”. Despite distinctions, it’s a package deal. Another way (though formal)
                      to understand this is: The effect is inherent in the cause. It is not a case of 1. Cause followed by the separable 2. Effect.

                      Now, hopefully the first difficulty with a “there is more to it than that” sentence becomes clear: just because “a distinction” can be made (between “enjoying food” and “nourishing oneself” or “space” and “time” or “sex” and “emotional bond”) it doesn’t necessarily follow that a “separation” is entailed (logical fallacy). The question is one of “comprehensiveness”.
                      A meaningful corollary might be found in the scientific disciplines: “the best theory is the theory that takes into account the most information.”

                      Yet, despite this, despite what we can know, there are many who would like to believe or simply maintain whatever they like and by means of whatever assumed fallacy suits them, insist that both – “the appetite” and the “ends to which the appetite tend” are separable and can be validly appealed to depending on one’s
                      preference.

                      Consequently, false choices are set up and promoted as something substantially valid (where “eating” is concerned, space/time) and yes, even where thoughts and arguments
                      concerning sexual proclivity abound.

                      To conclude, I’m not saying that this is dishonestly done by most. People hold to all kinds of ideas everyday without subjecting them to anything resembling a Socratic cross
                      examination. There is no incrimination here. People are busy, worried and are subject to all kinds of passions and problems. It is a very easy thing buy into what the culture peddles for the most part. All I can say is this: Stay awake.

                      Comment:
                      So yes, I agree that equality is a simplistic term but in our simplistic imperfect political system, where each side demonizes the other side it’s as a good a claim as any.

                      Response: This is precisely the problem. I’m going to restate here what I had said
                      earlier elsewhere: How wonderful it would be if intellectually honest, sufficiently disinterested, thoughtful men and women were subjecting
                      the arguments to rigorous cross examinations. I do not think the best arguments ever win. Philosophy is always a failure in court. Consider Socrates’s great difficulty: Even the world’s greatest teacher, whose arguments are sharp and bright like swords, cannot fight against a fog.

                • LarryCicero

                  Why begrudge the single person a tax break? What does sex have to do with it? What if someone lives with a family member or a friend? It is not about tax breaks, it is about seeking approval of perverse behavior.

            • I’m sorry but marriage is not infinitely malleable. The premises upon which arguments for “gay marriage” rest (the revisionist argument) ensures that any kind of definition is permissible ultimately reducing the word to a misnomer.

              Perhaps you might be interested in a fine book on the subject: What is Marriage by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T.Anderson and Robert P.George. (The arguments do not appeal to sacred text at all)

              Now, is banning interracial marriage really like banning same-sex marriage? A little development from the previous post:

              In fact, differences in race are not equivalent to differences in sex. Everyone agrees it is wrong to have “separate but equal” facilities for each race – for example, bathroom for only African-Americans. But virtually everyone agrees it is fine to have
              separate women’s bathrooms and men’s bathrooms. We have separate men’s and women’s Olympic basketball teams, but we would not accept a white US basketball team and an African-American US basketball team. The analogy between banning
              interracial marriage and banning same-sex marriage fails because discrimination according to race is wrong, but distinctions (“separate but equal”) according to sex is not always wrong. – This is just simple logic

              • James

                I have read the Girgis/Anderson/George argument and found it unconvincing. As have multiple federal courts. I believe Judge Posner refuted it point-by-point.

                You (and Girgis/Anderson/George) think that legal marriage has something to do with sex and babies. Your philosophical beliefs about marriage may strongly associate the two, but legally, this is not the case. Consummation is not even required for a civil marriage to be valid in most states. Parenting law has long since been separated from marriage law.

                My point about Loving v. Virginia is that neither you nor the OP really believes that these issues should be democratically decided. On this we agree. This IS, in fact, a battle between elites to be won and lost by the best arguments.

                • Comment: I have read the Girgis/Anderson/George argument and found it unconvincing.

                  Reply: Have you? Each substantiated point logically progresses to the following substantiated point while addressing both major and minor claims of the opposing argument. I would be curious to know why you remain unconvinced.

                  Comment: As have multiple federal courts. I believe Judge Posner refuted it point-by-point.

                  Reply: The federal courts are not interested in the arguments. Judge Posner is not exactly a logician. His reasoning is circular and his determinations rely heavily upon “slipery slope” arguments.

                  Comment: You (and Girgis/Anderson/George) think that legal marriage has something to do with sex and babies.

                  Reply: Marriage has for the most part, a great deal to do with sex and babies. This is not merely a position pulled out of a hat. This is a position that holds true in much the same way that it holds true to call Apples: apples because they have a “nature in and of themselves” independent of what we might like that nature to be. Things have both “act and potency”. There are not many philosopher kings on the bench sadly and so determinations are made by what convinces easily and what is politically expedient.

                  Comment: Your philosophical beliefs about marriage may strongly associate the two, but legally, this is not the case.

                  Reply: There is no association between the two. One is logically entailed in the other. Saying what is “legally” or “not legally” the case has little or nothing to do with whether a determination is in itself “correct” or “incorrect”.

                  Philosophy is not a belief (that is to say, it is not one system of thought among others – they are not all equally meritorious – though I do understand why some/many might think so), it is “a love of Wisdom/Truth.”

                  Comment: Consummation is not even required for a civil marriage to be valid in most states. Parenting law has long since been separated from marriage law.

                  Reply: How sad.

                  Comment: My point about Loving v. Virginia is that neither you nor the OP really believes that these issues should be democratically decided. On this we agree. This IS, in fact, a battle between elites to be won and lost by the best arguments.

                  Reply: I wish it were indeed the case. How wonderful it would be if intellectually honest, sufficiently disinterested, thoughtful men and women were subjecting the arguments to rigorous cross examinations. I do not think the best arguments ever win. Philosophy is always a failure in court. Consider Socrates’s great difficulty: Even the world’s greatest teacher, whose arguments are sharp and bright like swords, cannot fight against a fog.

                  • James

                    My objection to the Gergis/Anderson/George argument (and yours) is that it is an argument about what marriage should be not what civil marriage is. It presents itself as a conservative position, but is really a push for a redefinition of legal marriage along primarily Catholic lines.

                    It is a logical argument that flows from a flawed premise, specifically an altered definition of marriage.

                    You are free to argue for this redefinition and convince people of the rightness of your cause, but to present it as maintaining the status quo is dishonest.

                    • You have misunderstood their argument. To even talk about marriage in the first place is to talk about “something” as opposed to talk about “a mere word” grafted onto a criteria that shows itself to be little more than shifting sands upon which any and all “definitions” can stand. Your position is a reductio ad absurdum. It isn’t a “conservative” or “Catholic” position. It is a postion that is arrived at logically. If it happens to be in line with Catholic teaching than it got there “on its own terms”. If it had come to a conclusion that was otherwise, it would merely purify Catholic understanding. It was clearly not argued from a Roman Catholic stance. All truth is one my friend. The premise is not flawed. The premsise is simply this : “act and potency” which entails the natural “end” towards which any one thing “tends”. The “conjugal view” is simply “what it is”. Any attempt at redefinition makes the word “marriage”meaningless by definition because of its lack of definition.

          • James

            You won the elections by increasingly smaller margins and have lost the last 3. That’s a trend.

            • Austin Ruse

              Funny how gays are so confident the people are with them that they chickened out of the democratic process, Funny that.

              • James

                Should interracial marriage have been put to a popular vote? Yes or no?

                • Austin Ruse

                  Race is not essential to marriage. Sex is. Moreover, the ban on interracial marriage was an outlier in one particular place and one particular time. Same sex marriage is the same kind of outlier and will eventually be seen that way.

                  • James

                    I thought you trusted in the democratic process. Guess not.

                • “Behaviour” is not the same as race. One can choose to have sex or not. One cannot choose to be black, white, Hispanic, Asian et al. When claims concerning “identity” are grounded in “behaviour”, the claim is a fallacious one. Let’s not confuse “rights language” for “rights proper”. Incidentally, the argument you are employing is called “an argument from analogy” – a no no in the world of logic.

            • It’s called media fed pablum normalizing aberrant behaviour. If you beat the drum loud and long enough, people naturally begin to go deaf where reason and logic are concerned. Incidentally, your comment above is a tacit admission to the point raised by Austin Ruse.

              • James

                In other words, the other side argued their case and convinced more people that they were right.

                And incidentally, Austin Ruse tacitly admitted he wasn’t a really a democrat on another comment thread. He seems upset HIS elites are losing.

                • Comment: In other words, the other side argued their case and convinced more people that they were right.

                  Response: No, what you have said above does not correlate with what I had said.

                  To convince someone that you are “right” is not the same as demonstrating that you are “right”. Distinctions are important here.

                  Comment: And incidentally, Austin Ruse tacitly admitted he wasn’t a really a democrat on another comment thread. He seems upset HIS elites are losing.

                  Response: Any ground “lost to error” can upset; this is true. Whether he chooses to be upset by it or not really doesn’t matter. What does matter is that we fight the good fight, run the good race.

                  • James

                    “Fight the good fight, run the good race.” That’s St. Paul, isn’t it?

                    Is it safe to say that your opposition to gay marriage is primarily religious and that your feel a religious obligation to oppose it?

                    • Oh no. I think it was St.Luke who said it (I believe) but even if he hadn’t said it, it would still hold true regardless. If there is a religious objection it would be firmly grounded in “preambula fidei” and not a “because the bible told me so”.

                • Austin Ruse

                  lie.

                  • James

                    You said that you would not accept a popular mandate against interracial marriage. Nor would you accept a popular mandate for gay marriage.

                    Your faith in democracy has its limits.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Liar.

                    • James

                      So should the people have decided whether interracial marriage should be legal or the courts?

                      You can’t have it both ways, sir. Because in 1967, the public was strongly opposed to interracial marriage.

                      Were the people right or was the court right? Which one was it?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      please show me where I said I “would not accept a popular mandate against interracial marriage”.

                    • James

                      You said “Race is not essential to marriage. Sex is. Moreover, the ban on
                      interracial marriage was an outlier in one particular place and one
                      particular time. ”

                      I took that to mean that you would not accept a popular ban on interracial marriage. But now it seems like you would.

                      Would you or wouldn’t you?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Wow. You don’t know what “essential” means? Really? You make many assumptions, kimosabe.

                    • James

                      Would you or wouldn’t you accept a popular mandate against interracial marriage?

                      Would you or wouldn’t you accept a popular mandate for gay marriage?

                      These are simple yes/no questions. Which is it?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      In this conversation I assumed at least a little good will. I see now that this was misplaced. Look up essence in a philosophical dictionary and then I would be happy to continue. But what you have shown is this is just a stupid game of gotcha. Guess what. You ain’t got me.

                    • James

                      My first comment was that you were calling for mob rule. Then I thought the article was simply poorly thought out.

                      That you are getting defensive and evasive about whether interracial marriage should have been put to a popular vote tells me your answer.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I also assumed a modicum of intelligence. My answer was far from evasive or defensive. It was direct except I did not figure in a lack of intelligence.

                      OK..will hold you hand. Race is not of the essence of marriage. it is not material to marriage therefore having a marriage law based on race made no sense. Moreover, such laws were an historical outlier. They existed in a certain time and place and therefore there was also no historical warrant for them. It made perfect sense to get rid of them.

                      Now do you understand my answer?

                    • James

                      I understand that you have no problem with interracial marriage. That’s not what I am saying.

                      Do you believe that it is the proper place of the judiciary to strike down popular laws that make no sense?

                    • James

                      Come on. We both know that the reason why you oppose gay marriage is because the Catholic Church says so. Perhaps you also find gay sex distasteful too. It’s not because of a love of democracy.

                      Your searching for an argument to confirm your preexisting beliefs. Your argument stands or falls based on the Catholic view of Natural Law. That’s why you bring out Aquinas and Aristotle (Catholics are more sophisticated than to quote St. Paul and Leviticus and call it a day) and are unconcerned with marriage laws, psychology, or sociology.

                      But you know that men do not march for the Natural Law. And you also know that the Catholic idea of Natural Law as pertaining to sexuality is unconvincing to most people. So you’ve got a problem.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Actually, our thinking on marriage is based on many things including tradition, theology, science, social science, and philosophy. And i will point that this bundle of reasons was enough to win the public to our side….overwhelmingly.

                    • James

                      But those overwhelming margins have been slipping. The law that passed with 80% of the vote in SC in 2006 passed with 56% of the vote in NC in 2012, losing in all the major cities. The last three elections, (MD, MN, ME) your side lost. Public opinion is changing, with decline in support for your position falling at a predictable, linear rate.

                      I don’t believe you have the social science or science on your side. You’re even losing ground in the theological and philosophical debates. All that leaves is tradition. And “because we’ve always done it that way” isn’t very convincing.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      You argue a bit like a teenage girl.

                      You say all we argue from is religion. I point out the arguments we make that include theology but also other fields and then you say, well, those aren’t working anymore. So, which is it? Do we only argue from faith? Or do we use a broad range of arguments that are now failing?

                    • James

                      I think you hold your position because of faith. The Catholic Church teaches it and you believe it.

                      I think you WANT there to be other arguments to support this position because part of your faith is that science and religion compliment each other. If the Catholic Church teaches something, then there MUST be other scientific and philosophical arguments to support it. But you are not looking at these arguments objectively. You are looking at them to prove a point. You use what you agree with and you throw out what you don’t like. You’ve convinced yourself and others who feel the same way, but you aren’t convincing anyone else.

                      Do you believe that the Catholic Church can be wrong about a moral issue? How do you view evidence that appears to show that people’s well-being is better off if they do not follow the teachings of the Catholic Church?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Well actually there are many arguments against the idea of SSM. I think you don’t buy them because if your personal connection to gay sex. You are blinded to the truth. Sin is a habit that can darken your understanding.

                    • James

                      I have never had gay sex, nor do I have any interest in doing so. I am straight.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Well, I think your support for faux marriage is based on your own addiction to certain sexual practices. One needs to build up a pretty large edifice of self-deceit to carry on very long in that way. In fact, the call for faux marriage is little more than a desperate attempt at approval from society, something that will never ever come.

                    • James

                      Then you would be wrong. I’m not gay, nor do I have any inclination in that way.

                      I do have gay friends and I do have gay friends that are in long term committed relationships. I believe that same sex committed relationships are the best choice for many of them. They are better than an attempt at heterosexual marriage (which often ends in heartbreak for everyone). They are certainly better than promiscuity. And yes, I believe that I believe that it is better than a lifetime of forced singlehood.

                      Most importantly, I believe that the law should allow people to make these personal decisions for themselves. If straight people can run off to Vegas and get married on a whim (or on a 9 month deadline), then I think civil marriage can handle same sex couples who want to make a lifelong commitment too.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      How do you define marriage?

                    • James

                      Civil marriage is a lifelong domestic partnership of two persons. I see civil marriage as more as a contract, like a business partnership, than as any sort of sacramental union. That being said, no fault divorce and divorce law make dissolving a marriage far more unpredictable than dissolving a business.

                      If you believe that marriage is a sacramental union, that’s fine. The same word, “marriage”, can have different meanings, although this is confusing. But the sacramental definition of marriage is not relevant to the legal definition of marriage (and vice-versa).

                      I also believe that churches should be free to marry or not marry whomever they choose. If your church won’t marry you, find someone who will. The church is not depriving you of your legal rights because you can get them somewhere else.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      How did you arrive at 2?

                    • James

                      Can you be more specific? I’m not sure what you’re asking.

                    • James

                      Oh, why 2 persons instead of 3 or more?

                      There are no principled reasons why not 3 or more. In fact, the most common form of marriage in the world historically has been polygamy.

                      Practically, however, current marriage law is adapted to two persons. Adapting it to 3 or more would be difficult. I am not philosophically opposed to multiple person domestic partnerships, but this would involve creating a new body of law to handle them.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Ok. So the number doesn’t matter. Go ahead and change your definition then. And then tell me what is he purpose of marriage?

                    • James

                      The purpose of civil marriage is to recognize domestic partnerships as a legal unit. It formalizes the partners relationship to each other and to the state.

                      Why have domestic partnerships? Same reason we recognize business partnerships (and corporations/LLCs/etc.) as a legal unit. The difference being that the needs of a domestic partnership are different than the needs of a business partnership.

                      (And, BTW, I do not care if such a legal partnership is called a “civil marriage”, “civil union”, or “domestic partnership”. The structure matters more than the name. I thing some gay marriage advocates want government to encourage social approval of their unions, but, whether you approve of these unions or not, this is really beyond the scope of what government can and should do.)

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I think hardly anyone opposes allowing same-sexers to sign a contract.

                    • James

                      Which is exactly my point.

                      You may talk about the spiritual nature of marriage and of how heterosexual couples are important to society in a way that same-sex couples are not. These are important philosophical discussions and both sides make good points.

                      But what you are advocating is prohibiting same sexers from signing a contract because the majority doesn’t like it. It’s not OK to deny people civil rights (i.e. the right to form a contract) because such rights are unpopular.

                      Don’t bring a “debate society” argument into a discussion of legal rights.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Not at all. Just can’t cal it marriage.

                    • James

                      So the entire debate is over a word?

                      **head desk**

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Not really. Your position is a Distinct minority on your side.

                    • James

                      Because both sides are looking for government to weigh in on the moral/social issue, which, IMHO, isn’t government’s job. I’m a social libertarian, not a social liberal.

                    • James
  • clintoncps

    “We need generals who will lead us using the language that will move us from agreement to conviction and—more important now than ever—to action.”

    Austin, I fully agree with the above concluding statement of your article. And here is one absolutely essential element of “the language” necessary to achieve the goal: “Homosexuality must be re-listed in the catalog of psychological disorders.”

  • Benny

    “We have won 34 statewide elections where traditional marriage was on the ballot. We did this even though the polls showed us losing most of them, perhaps all of them, prior to the vote. We won even in liberal states like California. We won even during Democratic primaries like Missouri. Our opponents persuaded the people in a measly three states to vote with them on faux marriage.”

    Lol! The anti-gay marriage side hasn’t won 34 statewide elections. The polls in nearly every referenda contest from 1998-2012 correctly predicted the winner, even if some polls got the margin wrong. Voting during primary elections is not a point for boasting; it means that far fewer voters participated (1.4M vs. 2.6M in the general) and since a lot of them were older in 2004, that also means a lot of them aren’t around 11 years later. And finally, the pro-gay side won in 4 states, not 3 (excluding Arizona in 2006).

    Those are just the errors in the first paragraph. This is the sort of high-quality, well-researched thought piece that we’ve come to expect from Austin!

    Here’s an interesting question: The pro-gay wins in Maine and Washington in 2012 were merely statutory. Those statutory changes can be changed via citizens initiative, and both ME and WA make it very easy to do that. So why didn’t Austin Ruse call for a rematch in 2013 or 2014? In 2013-2014, there were no court ruling dealing with the issue in ME or WA, and Austin and his pals were free to gather signatures and defeat the gays. So why didn’t they?

  • Maria Gabriela Salvarrey Rodri

    Men march for their children and for the future of their families. That is what moved the french to march and I think it is what would work anywhere. If they get a clear look of the future ahead for their children and for family if we loose. We need to paint this picture and we need to be clear and without subtleties. The future that awaits our children if this continues is grave and dire.

  • Pingback: 袚芯褉褟褖懈械 褌褍褉褘 胁 袝谐懈锌械褌,孝褍褉褑懈褞, 袨袗袝, 袣懈锌褉, 孝邪懈谢邪薪写, 袠薪写懈褞, 楔褉懈-袥邪薪泻褍, 袚褉械褑懈褞, 袠褋锌邪薪懈褞 懈 胁 写褉褍谐懈械 褋褌褉邪薪()

MENU