Rightank

In the first of the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding the civic display of the Ten Commandments, McCreary County v. ACLU, five Justices held that a courthouse display of the Ten Commandments along with eight other documents (including the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and Star Spangled Banner) that “played a significant role in the foundation of our system of law and government” violated the Establishment Clause. See Justice Scalia’s dissent, pages 20-21.

Justice Souter’s opinion is unpersuasive. Relying on a Court-driven precedent of religious neutrality, Souter dismisses the religious historical underpinnings of our Nation’s laws (including the Ten Commandments) as a contradictory bother to the Court’s coddling concern for members of minority religions and atheists. For example, Souter writes the following:

[T]he Commandments have had influence on civil or secular law; a major text of a majority religion is bound to be felt. See Justice Souter’s opinion, page 21.

Justice Souter, do think that the Framers would have have written the Constitution so that it constitutionally prohibited a “major text” of the “majority religion” from being displayed in any public setting, let alone a courthouse? The thought is imbecilic at best.

Justice Souter also creates his own National history by claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment is the most “significant structural provision” since the Founding. Why? Not because the Amendment freed slaves. But, because the judical activists on the Court have created a doctrine called substantive due process (more like substantive B.S.) whereby the Court has found the right to privacy to rule that abortion was constitutional (Roe v. Wade) and that States could not prevent gays from sodomizing themselves (Lawrence v. Texas).

Ultimately, it is the Court’s precedent of neutrality “government may not favor one religion over another, religion over irreligion” that trumphs our Nation’s history as a religious and Christian nation:

A record of inconsistent historical practice is too weak a lever to upset decades of precedent adhering to the neutrality principle. See Justice Souter’s opinion, page 31 footnote 25.

Thus, with one broad judical brushstroke, Justice Souter and his cohort of four rely on their own policy preference of neutrality (which is not what Establishment means) to remove the Ten Commandments from a courthouse.

Justice Scalia, in his dissent, effortlessly but relentlessly picks apart Souter’s opinion, calling his logic “a thoroughly discredited say-so.” Scalia discusses the history of our Nation’s acknowledgment of God in statute, Presidential proclaimations, and prayers (judicial and legislative). Rightfully so, Scalia zeroes in the meaning of the Establishment Clause:

Historical practices . . . demonstrate that there is a difference between the acknowledgment of a single Creator and the establishment of a religion. See Justice Scalia’s dissent, page 10 (emphasis mine).

Among many examples of historical acknowledgment that do not establish a religion are the frequent displays of the Ten Commandments woven through the Supreme Court’s courtroom, doors, and gates. See Justice Scalia’s dissent, page 23. Why doesn’t Souter quiver that each and every atheist that comes to the Supreme Court must walk by such rampant religiousity?

Scalia solves the riddle of Souter’s discombobulated reasoning:

What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle. That is what prevents judges from ruling now this way now that–thumbs up or thumbs down–as their personal preferences dictate. [McCreary] forthrightly (or actually, sometimes less forthrightly) admits that it does not rest upon consistently applied principle. See Justice Scalia’s opinion, page 7.

McCreary is about five Justices’ policy preferences overriding a locality’s decision to display the Ten Commandments in a public forum. It is not about precedent or the rule of law. McCreary is yet another manifestation of the irrational doctrine of separation of church and state that has replaced the First Amendment’s prohibition of religious establishments with a preference of religious exclusion from public places and discourse. Sad indeed.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will issue their decision on whether the Ten Commandments can be displayed in county courthouses without violating the First Amendment, specifically that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Given the horridness of this Term, I wager that the Court will rule that having the Ten Commandments within a courthouse violates the First Amendment. I hope not. The Supreme Court has a painting of Moses and the Ten Commandments and begins each day’s session with “God Save This Honorable Court” ringing in their ears. Would they then remove the painting?

There is no doubt that the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State desire to remove any inkling of religion out of our schools and places of government. Will the Supreme Court fall for this ruse? It’s anyone’s guess.

Ultimately, the religiosity of our Nation will depend on the piety of its citizens. However, if the Supremes (5 of them) decide to remove the Ten Commandments, the effect will undermine the protections embodied in the First Amendment and represent a travesty for our Country and another step toward a Nation full of Christians but ruled by an Atheistic government. The intent of the Establishment Clause was not to remove any religious artifact or symbol from the pedestals of government, rather it was, among other things, to prevent the subsidization of a specific religion (e.g., Methodists, Presbyterian, etc.) via federal not state taxation. The Ten Commandments are one of the foundational documents of our society and represent many of the social mores the Framers and others have codified into our Constitutions. The removal of the Ten Commandments would be terrible. I hope the Supremes give more credence to George Washington then the homeless atheist who says his feelings are hurt when he sees the Ten Commandments.

Endlessly, the Democrats and their liberal media accomplices have been demanding additional Bolton documents in order to prove his dangerousness as the Bush-appointed Ambassador to the UN. Truthfully, all the requests for documents or tearful blathering of Senators like Voinovich are is a smokescreen to stall and tempt Bush to either re-nominate someone “more qualified” or make a public gaffe.

Bolton is so strenously fought against precisely because of his potential to rectify the problems within the UN by asserting American interests above the UN and withdrawing from the multilateral bullcrap and internationalist prism that bogs down the UN (in addition to the unfettered corruption).

In 1997, John Bolton authored an article on UN reform that is reflects the raison d’etre for the Libs hate and remonstrance toward his nomination. The article entitled “The Creation, Fall, Rise, and Fall of the United Nations” was part of a collaboration by a Cato Institute scholar called “Delusions of Grandeur: The United Nations and Global Intervention.” Bolton’s article reflects a sharpness of tongue and blunt manner that must have sent a few internationalists into a fit of global rage.

Bolton begins his article: “American foreign policy must be based on identifying our vital interests and then advancing and defending those interests around the world.” Bolton’s premise–that American interests are supreme–reverberates throughout his article. Bolton refuses to accept the UN as a moral leader and accuses the UN of “trash[ing] our values.” Bolton also gallantly asserts that some nations votes are carry less weight than others. In other words, the vote of the U.S. should not carry the equivalent weight as Madagascar’s.

Most important, Bolton defines the proper role of the UN: an instrument–not a source–of U.S. interests. “The UN [is] an instrument of U.S. policy, not the policy itself.” And to top it off, Bolton says that the role of the UN Secretary-General does not include “Mr. Friend of the Earth.” These qualities of clarity and statemanship are impeding Bolton’s progress. In other words, by verbalizing an “America First” approach, Bolton is U.N enemy number one. Heaven forbid that the U.S. Ambassador profess love of his country’s interests above those of the world community (which includes terrorist dictatorships and socialist quagmires). Bolton concludes as he begins:

The UN . . . is not worth the sacrifice of American troops, American freedom of action, or American interests.

Sadly, boldly declaring American interests is Bolton’s handicap. Regardless of the outcome, Bolton’s nomination illustrates that the Senate Democrats–and the Democratic Party in toto–prefer a UN Ambassador with a internationalist communitarian approach and not a pro-America, “America First” approach. Bolton is a true American–not some Frenchy-French substitute.

John Bolton’s nomination to the UN failed to attain enough votes for cloture again today, even with Voinovich’s help (he actually voted for Bolton).

The Bolton vote epitomizes the raging debate in Congress on UN reformation. Representative Henry Hyde, the venerable statesman from Illinois, has authored a bill that strips half of the funding for the UN unless the UN makes some drastic changes in its management and organizational structure. The bill has passed the House and now moves on to the Senate.

Brett Schafer of the Heritage Foundation authored an excellent analysis of the UN Reform Act of 2005. Any reform focused on greater accountablility and transparency for the UN would be a step in the right direction. and Rep. Hyde’s bill is such a step. Too bad the bill wasn’t entitled the “Kick out Kofi UN Reform Bill.”

Hopefully, Bolton will get a fair shake. However, that fair shake will not happen until the constitutional option is exercised. Senator Frist, it’s time to throw down the gauntlet and force the constitutional option to a vote. Now.

Senator Dick Durbin decided to “clarify” his inane absurdity where he compared the handling of Gitmo by our troops to the torturous brutality of the Nazis, Soviet gulags, and the Cambodian genocide masterminded by Pol Pot:

More than 1700 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and our country’s standing in the world community has been badly damaged by the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. My statement in the Senate was critical of the policies of this Administration which add to the risk our soldiers face.

I will continue to speak out when I disagree with this Administration.

I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support.

The trouble is, Senator “Pol Pot” Durbin, that your clairification is just as despicable as your previous gaffe. With all due respect Senator “Pol Pot,” if you wanted to criticize the Bush Adminstration, then volley your pathetic rant at Bush directly not at the Troops. When you compare the Troops who are out risking their lives in 110 degree plus heat to Nazis, you are criticizing the Troops. Not only the Troops, but the families of those Troops who are sacrificing to protect my freedom and your freedom. How dare you deface their dignity and honor by fawning naiveity in the “historical parallels” you spat in the Senate on Wednesday!

Senator, if you truely loved our Troops, you would support them and refrain from making ridiculous and outlandish comparisions. Gitmo is a heckuva place. Free food, lots of Korans, and flashy orange jumpsuits. Our Troops go above and beyond and have to adhere to ungodly rules of conduct in handling the terrorist thugs chained there.

Senator “Pol Pot” Durbin, you knew exactly what you were doing when you uttered the “historical parallels.” You knew that you were harming our Nation’s reputation. You knew our enemies would take and insidiously insert your slithering prose into their television and print broadcasts to support their rhetoric of hate towards our Nation, our Allies, Iraq, and Afghanistan. You knew. Don’t hide behind mistunderstandings of “historical parallels.” You lied. You’re a disgrace. Period.

Today in Lewis v. Harris, a New Jersey Appeals Court upheld a lower court decision that refused to find the right to same-sex marriage in the New Jersey Constitution. This moment of judicial sanity is applaudable. The opinion is sound and straight-forward, solidly grounded in the law and history of our Nation. Judge Skillman rejected the radical rationale of Goodridge and acquiesced to the voice of the legislature–not that the tiny but loud minority voice of the ACLU and LAMBDA. Here are some key points of the majority decision:

A constitution is not simply an empty receptacle into which judges may pour their own conceptions of evolving social mores. (Page 11)

Plaintiffs’ claim that a right to marriage between members of the same sex maybe found in . . . the New Jersey Constitution has no foundation in its text, this Nation’s history and traditions or contemporary standards of liberty and justice. (Page 18)

[T]he historical and prevailing contemporary conception of marriage as solely a union between a single man and a single woman is based partly on society’s view that this institution plays an essential role in propogating the species and child rearing. (Page 20, Footnote 4)

The significant difference between [traditional marriage and same-sex marriage] is that the State’s argument [traditional marriage] is grounded on historical tradition and our nation’s religious and social values, while plaintiffs’ argument is based on nothing more than their own normative claim that society should give unions between same-sex couples the same form of recognition as marriages between members of the opposite sex. (Page 23) (my emphases)

Also, the New Jersey Court captures the disingenuousness of same-sex marriage advocates claim that altering marriage by permitting gays and lesbians to marry does not adulerate or mar the traditional definition of marriage. In their argument before the New Jersey Court, the ACLU and their allies define marriage as a “compelling and definitive expression of love and commitment that can occur between two adults.” (Page 19). Not only is marriage no longer a union, but a transformative concoction containing adjectives of feeling (love and commitment) while deemphasizing the unique bond between one man and one woman. Clearly, the ACLU, LAMBDA, and others cannot argue that allowing same-sex couples to marry does not change the definition of marriage. Rather, their definition of marriage and that of the state of Massachusetts is a “significant alter[ation].” (Page 32).

Hopefully, the New Jersey Supreme Court will uphold this decision after the inevitable appeal. As for now, traditional marriage advocates can relish the savor of sweet constitional sanity. Man, that tastes good.

In the June 6th issue of National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru opines that the public debate over traditional marriage and its bastard children (same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.) should be steered in a different direction. Ponnuru argues that both sides could agree that the benefit structure that has been legally created for traditionally-married couples (i.e., hospital vistation rights and bereavement) should be extended to same-sex couples. His premise:

[T]he issue of benefits can, to a large extent, be separated from the issue of the legal recognition of relationships.

And the issues should be separated. There is no very good reason that many of the incidents of marriage that remain on the books should be tied strictly to marriage. To the extent possible, they should be extended more widely. Liberals and conservatives, supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage alike, should be willing to support this extension.

Ponnuru argues, in a follow-up piece, that the piece-meal giving of benefits to same-sex couples “is worth doing on the merits.”

What Ponnuru fails to acknowledge is that the meritoriousness of the benefit derives from the marriage relationship itself. It is the marital bond that our state and federal legislatures seek to encourage and sustain in granting the benefits or incidents of marriage. The State doesn’t support marriage merely because the conjugal relationship is the traditional familial structure, but that heterosexual couples foster benefits to the State and society that cannot be replicated in other non-traditional relationships–particularly child-rearing.

The problem with a compromise on benefits is the explicit acknowledgement by the States or Federal government that homosexual relationships are worthy of supportive recognition. The family is the bedrock of any society. Our representative governments need not further fracture the family by encouraging the coupling of its citizenry who cannot procreate or provide the optimal environment for the growth and development of children.

The debate over same-sex marriage and subsequent legal battles will continue at a torid pace. As Maggie Gallagher wrote in response to Ponnurru, any compromise will not placate the gay radicals. Ultimately, there will be a constitutional amendment protecting the traditional defintion of marriage–between one man and one woman–or, same-sex marriage or civil unions granting all benefits of traditional marriage will be imposed by judicial fiat.

In the recently announced United States Supreme Court decision, Cutter v. Wilkingson, the Supreme Court held that the Religious Land Use and and Institutionalized Persons Act permits any prisioner, regardless of their religous persuasion, be afforded the artifacts necessary to worship as they please (excluding legitimate safety concerns of the prison administrators). This unanimous opinion is important, not in its judicial blessing of Satanists and witches to practice their devilish creeds, but that it further engrained the distasteful rhetoric of separation of church and state.

Justice Ginsburg, the radical feminist who hates Mother’s Day, wrote the unanimous opinion. The separation of church and state is a court-created doctrine, a Justice’s liberal spin on a letter authored by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. Ginsburg and others on the Court desire its continued entrenchment in the constitutional decision-making of the Court and other governmental bodies. Here’s the separatist quote:

The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The first of the two clauses, commonly called the Establishment Clause, commands a separation of church and state.

This is a great example of how liberal jurists construct a statute or constitution for their ideological benefit. The Establishment Clause does not command a separation of church and state. In fact, it makes no such reference to separation or church or state. The First Amendment only says that Congress shall not make a law that establishes a religion. Justice Ginsburg’s transmogrification of the constitutional text into a secular commandment of the state imposes even more deeply a chasm that was not intended by the text of the First Amendment nor by the Framers.

Cutter: The welcoming of Satanists and Wiccans into protected status among the other mainstream religions (i.e., Christianity, Judiasm) and the continued legitimatization of Everson and the separation of church and state. Not good. Not good at all.

Yesterday, the California legislature failed to pass a bill that would have stripped gender identification from the definition of marriage. That is, the marriage certificate would read Person #1 and Person #2 instead of Husband and Wife.

Reaction:

Campaign for Children and Families: The people of California are learning that to keep everything about marriage for a man and a woman, they absolutely must pass a true-blue state constitutional amendment to override the politicians and judges who have such blatant disregard for marriage and the voters.

Equality California: This is a bittersweet moment to see so many families coming together for equality and very disappointing to see some legislators turning their backs on our families. The vote was extremely close, and while disappointing, this is a giant step forward that will only build momentum to pass this bill in the near future. This is the farthest any marriage equality legislation has been heard in a state legislature without a court-ordered action. We should be proud of this accomplishment and move forward.

Although expressing disappointment with legislators who defend the traditional family, the gay radicals explicitly recognize that it’s the courts (not the people) who are throwing same-sex marriage down the throats of the American polity. Moreover, doesn’t this gender-neutral law smell like the strategy of Ayres and company?

The reaction from those Californians who succeeded in derailing the bill recognizes the need for a state constitutional amendment to protect marriage. Hopefully right-minded Californians will thwart the gay radicals attempts at weaking marriage and act by amending their constitution. This failed bill, covertly entitled “The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act,” underscores the need to enact a federal marriage amendment. Same-sex marriage advocates will not be satisfied with having just Massachusetts. We must stop them in their tracks before we end up like the Dutch–a society where marriage is vanishing.

A new book has been released called “Straightforward: How to Mobilize Heterosexual Support for Gay Rights.” Via the blog Balkanization, one of the authors (Ian Ayres) has linked to the first chapter of the book.

One of the purposes of the book, other than whine about the “inequalities” gays face in the United States, is to propel heterosexual support for gays and their demand for special rights. It is ironic that these gay advocates cry for support from those same people they label “hetronormative” and hate-mongers.

In the first chapter, the authors write about a concept I frankly was unfamilar with: heterosexual privilege. According to the authors, heterosexual privilege is “the range of perks and incentives with which hetorsexual identified persons are rewarded for conforming to the dominant sexuality.” The authors desire (1) that hetrosexuals use this “privilege” to advocate for gays in schools (specifically gay-friendly sex education) and in the economic arena (promoting policies within the workplace that favor gays).

Cleverly, the authors encourage heterosexuals to “disable [their] heterosexual privilege by making [their] sexual orientation ambiguous.” In other words, they want heterosexuals mask their innate sexuality in order to muddy the waters of gender and sex creating a societal ambiguity. Ultimately, they want heterosexuals to behave verbally and socially so they are “mistaken for bisexuals or as a gay” (my emphasis). Their overall strategy is to throw away the words husband and wife–words that identify oneself in a heterosexual marriage relationship–and replace them with words like spouse that are gender neutral (i.e., gay friendly). Ultimately they desire to interpolate into the english language, particularly the family vernacular, words that eliminate any connotation or inkling of a heterosexual relationship. This linguistic coup d’etat must fail.

The opening salvo of the book leaves the reader with a flavor of the tactics of the gay radicals who seek to overthrow our society and destroy its familial bulwark. Their strategy is communicative, corporate, financial, and governmental. Will it work? Nope–not if the people’s voice triumphs. As evinced by the number of states who support traditional marriage and have amended their state constitutions to protect themselves from a morally-bankrupt radical gay elitism, support for traditional marriage is high. Only by circumventing the will of Americans can gays force their disembowelment of the family on our Nation.