All articles from June 26, 2015


News

Opinion

Blogs

The Pulse

  • There are no pulse articles posted on June 26, 2015.

Podcasts

  • There are no podcasts posted on June 26, 2015.

Featured Image
PC leader Patrick Brown http://votepatrickbrown.ca
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne

News ,

Patrick Brown plans to be first Ontario Tory leader to march in Toronto Pride

Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

TORONTO, June 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Progressive Conservative leader Patrick Brown, who earned major social conservative support in his leadership bid, announced Friday morning that he will marching in Toronto’s Pride parade on Sunday. He will become the first leader of the party to lead a delegation in the event.

“We are building a new Ontario PC Party—one that celebrates diversity in all its forms and that includes Ontarians from every corner of the province, in every community and on every block,” Brown said in a statement. “I am looking forward to attending the Pride parade on Sunday to march.”

Brown’s announcement was greeted with dismay by Campaign Life Coalition, Canada’s national pro-life, pro-family lobby group, which campaigned for Brown in his bid for leadership of the PC Party.

“This is definitely not a good development, and we’re upset by it,” says CLC vice-president Jeff Gunnarson.

After Brown was elected PC leader May 9, defeating sole opponent MPP Christine Elliott in a landslide victory, Gunnarson calculated that CLC supporters accounted for about 20 percent of Brown’s vote, a total that didn’t include social conservatives not directly affiliated with CLC.

As a three-term MP for Barrie, Brown had a perfect pro-life voting record, and on this basis CLC was confident in endorsing the 37-year-old as a supportable candidate. Brown also opposes the Ontario Liberals controversial sex-ed curriculum, and has stated that he would start over and consult parents on proposed updates.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

Elliott, on the other hand, supported a woman’s “right” to choose abortion, and co-sponsored Ontario’s transgender-rights “Bathroom” bill.

But Brown’s decision to march in Sunday’s Pride Parade won’t sit well with social conservatives.

“He wrongly believes that he needs to set aside his principles in order to be accepted by all,” Gunnarson told LifeSiteNews. “By doing so, he risks excluding the socially conservative base that helped him get elected as leader. He will need that base come election time because the social liberals will not vote for him anyway.”

Brown has not hidden the fact that he attended Pride events as an MP in Barrie. “Pride Week is one of the largest events in Toronto and is celebrated by so many Canadians and others from around the world,” his statement reads. “Having attended many Pride events in my community in the past, this weekend will be great.”

The pressure for social conservatives to march in the Pride parade is intense, as in the notable case of former Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, whose ongoing refusal to do so and the attendant controversy became, during his tenure as mayor, a major part of the annual event.

And Brown is “still promising to repeal the sex-ed curriculum if elected and that’s more than Christine Elliott would have done,” Gunnarson pointed out. “Although this is definitely disappointing, social conservatives need to remind Brown to work on other issues that are important to pro-life and pro-family citizens.”

To respectfully voice concerns, you can email Patrick Brown at: [email protected].

Featured Image
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry

News , ,

Newspaper bans op-eds against gay ‘marriage’

John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

HARRISBURG, PA, June 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – One of the largest news publishers in Pennsylvania, Pennlive.com put out an editorial on the Supreme Court ruling noting, “As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.”

After a public outcry the publication recanted slightly but maintained a near ban on all comment opposed to same-sex “marriage.”

The new section reads:

As a result of Friday's ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.

These unions are now the law of the land. And we will not publish such letters and op-Eds any more than we would publish those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic.

We will, however, for a limited time, accept letters and op-Eds on the high court's decision and its legal merits.

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Follow Matthew

News , ,

Mexican priests and laity enter capitol building to prevent approval of gay ‘marriage’

Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Follow Matthew
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

June 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – A dozen Catholic priests, accompanied by dozens more of the faithful, prevented the discussion of a bill to create homosexual “marriage” in the Mexican state of Chihuahua by their impassioned protest outside of the capitol building and their entrance into the congress itself to observe the proceedings, according to reports in the local and national press.

Following a prayer vigil the night before in the cathedral of the state capital, the protesters began to gather outside of the state congress and express their rejection of allowing debate over the legal recognition of homosexual unions as “marriages.” At 11:30 pm a group of about ten priests accompanied by laymen entered the congress itself to witness the proceedings, holding placards expressing support for the traditional family.

Seeing the protestors and the presence of the priests, the president of the state congress, Cesar Augusto Pacheco Hernandez, stated that the topic would not be addressed at the session, according to the local El Diario newspaper. The decision was met by cheers from the pro-family protesters.

The push to create homosexual “marriages” in the state is based on a recent Supreme Court interpretation of recent case law, declaring that state laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman or associating marriage with the generation of offspring are unconstitutional. 

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

According to recent Supreme Court decisions, it is “discriminatory” to link “the requirements of marriage to sexual preferences,” as this “unjustifiably excludes homosexual couples -who are in similar conditions as heterosexual couples- from marriage,” the Court stated.  It added its claim that it is “unsuitable” to “consider that the purpose of marriage is procreation,” and affirmed that the “only constitutional purpose this decree acknowledges is the protection of family as a social reality.”

The clergy of the archdiocese of Chihuahua, however, do not agree.

“We are opposed to calling the union of two people of the same sex ‘marriage,’ said Miguel Ortega, a spokesman for the archdiocese. “God elevated the union of a man and a woman to the level of a sacrament by means of matrimony, and so a union between homosexuals cannot be called ‘marriage.’”

Featured Image
Premier Kathleen Wynne and her partner Jane Rounthwaite attend the Don Mills Civitan Club's 15th Annual Banquet Dinner and Silent Auction in April 2014. Queen's Printer for Ontario
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne

News ,

Wynne and lesbian spouse planned ‘homophobia’ smear on McNaughton

Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

TORONTO, June 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- A staunchly outspoken critic of the Ontario Liberal government’s sex-ed curriculum is not surprised by revelations that Premier Kathleen Wynne and her lesbian “spouse” Jane Rounthwaite strategized on how to depict him as “homophobic” – or that Rounthwaite called him a “Neanderthal.”

“I think it’s unprecedented for something like that to happen, but it doesn’t surprise me. This premier’s taken this to a very personal level,” says MPP Monte McNaughton. “The people who are pushing for this are aggressive, they’re outspoken and they’re intolerant of different points of view.”

McNaughton was referring to the controversial new sex-ed curriculum, which the Wynne Liberals will roll out in September in the province’s publicly-funded schools despite widespread parental outcry and ongoing protests.

The Liberals are “bringing in a curriculum that is obviously against hundreds of thousands of parents’ wishes,” McNaugthon told LifeSiteNews. “I’m standing on the side of parents and asking for increased parental consultations, for parents to have a voice.”

Wynne and Rounthwaite, lesbians who “married” in 2005, are shown gaming out the homophobia smear tactic against McNaughton in a one-hour documentary entitled “Premier: The Unscripted Kathleen Wynne,” commissioned by TVO, Ontario’s publicly funded educational media agency.

TVO ended the commission contract in May, stating among the reasons for its decision that the documentary didn’t meet its journalistic standards, and that director Roxana Spicer resigned before the project was finished.

But the Toronto Star “lifted the veil” on the film June 24 in a lengthy review by Queens Park bureau chief Robert Benzie.

Among the scenes he describes are Wynne and Rounthwaite discussing McNaughton – the sole MPP to challenge the Liberals in the legislature on the sex-ed curriculum, which Education Minister Liz Sandals released on February 23 to media cheerleading.

As Benzie tells it, after McNaughton “alluded to Wynne being a lesbian, the Liberals pounced.”

The comment at issue was when McNaughton pointed out in Question Period that: “It’s not the premier of Ontario’s job — especially Kathleen Wynne — to tell parents what’s age-appropriate for their children.”

On Rounthwaite’s advice, the premier questioned McNaughton’s phrase “especially Kathleen Wynne” the next day, thundering rhetorically: “Is it that I’m a woman? Is it that I’m a mother? Is that I have a masters of education? Is [it] that I was a school council chair? Is it that I was the minister of education?”

Benzie quotes Wynne saying in the film: “We worked it out in the morning. But Jane said: ‘Don’t give him the word. Make him say it.’ ”

Benzie, who describes Wynne and Rounthwaite’s “marriage” as “one of loving, equal partners” and Rounthwaite as a “smart and savvy political operator,” quotes the latter telling the premier, “Let everyone fill in the word. Don’t give him the gift, he doesn’t deserve it. This guy is a Neanderthal and we just won’t help him.”

McNaughton has insisted that he was not singling Wynne out because of her sexuality, but because of the various scandals swirling around her government, and the fact that she broke her promise to properly consult parents on the sex-ed curriculum.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

“I can tell you one thing Ontario families don’t want is the premier’s spouse going around and calling people names,” McNaughton told LifeSiteNews. “For a premier of the province of Ontario to attack people who have different points of view at such a personal level is something that we’ve never seen before.”

“I knew the attacks were coming,” said the 38-year-old father of a two-year-old daughter who is serving his second term as MPP, “but what I’ve been strengthened by is the thousands and thousands of people who are writing and calling and emailing and signing petitions and showing up at local rallies” in opposition to the sex-ed curriculum.

Critics of the Liberal sex-ed curriculum say it introduces homosexuality in Grade 3, masturbation in Grade 6, and oral and anal sex in Grade 7. It advises Grade 7 students to carry a condom in case they engage in sexual activity, and Grade 8 students to have a sexual plan. Children are also taught by Grade 8 that there are six genders rather than two biological sexes of male and female.

McNaughton recalls introducing an 185,000-name petition in the legislature on June 1 that asked for repeal of the sex-ed curriculum, and “a couple weeks ago standing in the pouring rain with hundreds of parents in Waterloo Square. So that keeps me going personally, to stand on the side of the parents. …This is something I believe in and something that I’m going to continue fighting for.”

As for Wynne and her Liberals, “they have to go back to the drawing board and do this right. Stop the name calling, take these concerns seriously like a grown up and solve the concerns that people have.” 

Featured Image
Toronto politicians and Gay Pride organizers pose for a photo op with young children at the flag raising ceremony on June 22, 2015. Blogwrath.com
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News ,

Toronto councilor tells young kids to become gay activists at Pride flag raising

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski
Image
Young children walk to the Toronto Pride flag raising with a man dressed as a fruit. Blogwrath.com

TORONTO, June 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- About 20 children, appearing to be kindergarten age, were given front row seating at Toronto’s “Gay Pride” flag raising ceremony this week at city hall. During one city councilor’s speech, she spoke directly to them and told them to “make sure the work is carried forward” of promoting the acceptance of homosexuality in society. 

“Because we know the work [is] never finished, we’re going to rely on you little guys and gals to make sure the work is carried forward."

“Because we know the work [is] never finished, we’re going to rely on you little guys and gals to make sure the work is carried forward,” lesbian Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam told the youngsters from Clinton Street Public School in the Toronto District School Board at the June 22 event.

The children, who were led to the event by two activists dressed as fruits — a kiwi and a blueberry — were handed mini gay pride flags and were used by the mayor and other homosexual activists for a photo op.

Speeches by Mayor John Tory, Councillor Wong-Tam and other homosexual activists emphasized how homosexual achievements throughout the city recently have made Toronto a template for homosexual activism across Canada.

“When Toronto acts, I hope the rest of the country indeed does follow,” Tory said in his speech, in which he focused on differentiating himself from former Mayor Rob Ford who on principle did not attend one Gay Pride Parade during his years as mayor.

“I have been proud to attend many Pride Festival flag-raisings right here over the years and now I have the privilege to be here in 2015 as an enthusiastic, supportive mayor in Toronto,” he said.

“My entire family will march with happiness and enthusiasm at this year’s pride parade,” he said at one point, adding: “You have a friend in the mayor of Toronto.”

A blogger from Blogwrath filmed the event and published the video and photos. In the blogger’s view, when compared to the past years, this year’s event “looked and sounded like a homosexual victory party.”

Featured Image
Ontario Education Minister Liz Sandals holds up the new sex-ed curriculum documents during her February 23 press conference at Queen's Park. Lianne Laurence / LifeSiteNews
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne

News ,

Ontario’s education minister needs to answer to parents on sex-ed: Tory MPP

Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

To sign a petition to stop Ontario's graphic sex-ed curriculum, click here.

WATERLOO, Ontario, June 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Another Conservative MPP has gone to bat for constituents who oppose the Liberal government’s radical sex-ed curriculum, set to roll out in Ontario’s publicly-funded schools this September.

After the Waterloo Regional District School Board passed a motion to invite Minister of Education Liz Sandals to answer parents’ concerns about the sex-ed curriculum in person, MPP Michael Harris sent Sandals an open letter asking her to honor the request.

“I wanted to ensure that the minister heard loud and clear that this needs to happen,” the MPP for Kitchener-Conestoga told LifeSiteNews in a telephone interview. “I expect her to heed the wishes of a school board.”

In his letter, Harris wrote, “Given the fact that Ontario families were never allowed the voice they were promised in decisions over how this curriculum was developed and implemented, I encourage you to respond to the Board and take them up on their invitation as soon as possible.”

Trustees heard strong objections to the sex-ed curriculum from eight delegations during a June 15 meeting that was standing-room-only and often heated. But they voted down Cindy Watson’s motion asking for more thorough parental review and information sessions on the curriculum, as well as the release of data on the curriculum collected in surveys and focus groups.

The board opted instead to invite Sandals to visit in the fall to answer parents’ questions.

Watson admits she was disappointed her motion didn’t pass “but at the very least we’re asking the minister to come and have that public meeting with our parents,” she told LifeSiteNews.

Watson, who stressed that she didn’t speak on the board’s behalf but was giving her personal view, said she has “heard from a wide variety of parents, different cultures, I’ve heard from people who will say I’m a taxpayer, I’m a grandparent,” and the common lament is that “they all feel that there wasn’t enough consultation that was done.”

Parents also feel shut out by the press, she noted, “They feel that they’re not being represented in the media. They’re really feeling as though they’re not able to get their message out.”

That makes any political support particularly welcome. “I was very pleased that Michael Harris sent the letter in support of parents,” Watson said, “and I know that the parents were very pleased that he was vocal on their behalf.”

Campaign Life Coalition project manager Jack Fonseca also lauded Harris’s intervention. “It’s great news for parents to see yet another Progressive Conservative MPP take a stand for parental rights by calling out the Liberals on their total disrespect for parental rights, and their callous disregard for the well-being of children,” he noted.

“This also says that Harris has been hearing from parents in his riding, loud and clear, that they oppose this dangerous curriculum which promises to prematurely sexualize kids.”

Harris joins PC leader Patrick Brown, and fellow MPPs Jack MacLaren, Carleton-Mississippi Mills, and Monte McNaughton, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, as vocal advocates for the hundreds of thousands of Ontario voters who oppose the Liberals’ controversial sex-ed curriculum, which introduces homosexuality in Grade 3, masturbation in Grade 6, oral and anal sex in Grade 7, and by Grade 8 teaches that there are six genders rather than the two biological sexes.

Harris’s support of parental rights “goes back to what I’ve been calling for now back to last November,” says McNaughton, long a staunch opponent of the Liberals’ sex-ed agenda, and the only MPP to speak out against it in the provincial legislature. “The Liberal government needs to consult with parents and have meaningful consultations province-wide on the updates to the sex-ed curriculum.”

McNaughton, who says his main concerns are the age inappropriateness of much of the curriculum and the lack of parental consultation, points out that opposition is growing.

“I know, talking to my colleagues, that more and more parents are contacting MPP offices,” he told LifeSiteNews. “When 185,000 people sign a petition, then the premier and the education minister have to respect the concerns these parents have. Unfortunately we’re not seeing this government respecting parents.”

PC leader Patrick Brown “has been clear publicly that he wants to go back to the drawing board on the sex education update,” McNaughton added.

He has “serious concerns” about what will happen come September, noting that the teachers’ unions “are refusing to allow the teachers to receive the proper training,” and “we had tens of thousands of parents who kept their kids home from school at the end of the school year.”

“Quite frankly, we’re going to see that escalate in the fall,” he said. “This has been completely mishandled by the Liberal government since day one. They need to bring a complete halt to this until the due diligence is done.”

MPP Harris echoed this, stating that in general, Liberal “leadership and management has been a disaster.”

Harris says he talked to some of the Waterloo trustees, and “felt compelled on behalf of the parents who wrote me and those who haven’t written me who are concerned about the issue, that there’s been a motion passed,” and that Sandals “should comply with it.”

But it remains to be seen if that will happen.

“I’m hoping the minister will show up and have a question-and-answer period with these parents, so they’ll be able to share their concerns with her directly,” Watson said. “We’re just going to wait for the response from the minister.”

CLC’s Fonseca foresees another possible scenario.

“If the education minister does show her face in Waterloo, she will likely try to stage handle the meeting so as to prevent parents from asking her tough questions on the most controversial elements of the curriculum,” he cautioned.

“As deceitful and belligerent as this Liberal regime has been, I wouldn’t put it past them to try screening questions. They might also stack the meeting with Liberal hacks, to toss her softball questions,” Fonseca observed. “I wouldn’t put it past the Waterloo District School Board to comply with a rigged meeting, given they voted down the original motion that parents really wanted.”

“The last thing parents need is another Liberal whitewashing session, so they have to be on guard it doesn’t descend into that.”

Find a full listing of LifeSiteNews' coverage of the Ontario government's explicit sex-ed program here.

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Cardinal Newman Society

News

Catholic dioceses nationwide hold teachers to faith and moral standards

Cardinal Newman Society
By Cardinal Newman Society

June 26, 2015 (CardinalNewmanSociety) -- In two eye-opening reports, education reform experts at The Cardinal Newman Society have compiled and analyzed employment documents from more than 125 Catholic dioceses in the United States, showing evidence in the Church of a broad and substantial movement toward high standards for Catholic school teachers with regard to faith and morals.

In the past year, several dioceses have announced new “morality clauses” and other improvements to teacher contracts, handbooks and other employment documents, ensuring that teachers are aware of expectations that they model Catholic values and beliefs both inside and outside the classroom. A firestorm of criticism has engulfed Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone in San Francisco, who proposed similar changes to local teacher agreements.

But an important study by The Cardinal Newman Society’s Dr. Jamie Arthur, released a couple days ago, shows that Archbishop Cordileone and his fellow bishops have only been implementing standards that the Vatican has required for several decades, wholly consistent with the Church’s vision for Catholic education.

And now two new reports from the Newman Society—authored by Dr. Denise Donohue and Dr. Dan Guernsey, deputy director and director respectively of the Society’s K-12 education programs—clearly demonstrate that the several bishops whose updated teacher standards have been reported by news media are not alone in their efforts. Instead, there appears to be a national consensus among Catholic bishops that faith and morals clauses are needed in teacher agreements.

“The work of these researchers provides valuable support to Archbishop Cordileone and the whole Church,” said Patrick Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society. “Not only do these reports dispel false claims that the bishops who are implementing strong teacher standards are out of touch with the rest of the Church, but these reports also will help bishops and school leaders engage in a national conversation about the essential role of faithful Catholic teachers and collaborate in strengthening the Catholic identity of America’s Catholic schools.”

In their reports, Drs. Donohue and Guernsey find much diversity in how dioceses articulate their faith and morals standards, and with what sort of employment documents the standards are presented to current and prospective employees in Catholic schools. But some dioceses have been collaborating on specific language, and there are clear themes that run through the standards, with apparent concern for hot-button moral issues that are most likely to cause friction between Catholic schools and teachers who do not fully embrace Catholic values.

The Newman Society authors identify and analyze several outstanding examples of diocesan policies in their paper, Faith and Morals Language in Catholic School Teacher Employment Documents: Best Practices Brief. “Best practice in invoking a faith or morals clause involves ensuring the teacher understands and participates in the school’s religious mission and is aware of areas of potential moral concern,” write Drs. Donohue and Guernsey.

The “best practices brief” draws upon a much longer, 67-page compilation of sample language from more than 125 dioceses in the United States.

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

Among the model documents is the “pre-application statement” for teachers in the Diocese of Sacramento, chosen because it includes “a narrative on the mission of the Church and the expectation of employees to share in that mission and give public witness to the Catholic faith through their life choices,” the authors explain.

Provided to prospective teachers before they even apply for a Catholic school position, the Sacramento statement is very specific about Church teaching on issues like marriage—an especially important point given the redefinition of marriage in California and the Supreme Court ruling on marriage expected tomorrow or Monday. The Diocese informs applicants that “the notion of ‘gay marriage’, and the adoption or placement of children in anything other than a traditional family setting, secularism, the paring back of religious freedom rights, or the restriction of… liberty of conscience, anti-Catholicism, or anti-Catholic biases, [and] the abuse of alcohol or the use of illegal narcotics or other controlled substances” are opposed to Catholic morality and faith. Anyone who is unwilling to “authentically witness the Catholic faith by their lives may wish to reflect and seek pastoral guidance before applying for employment or ministry in the Church,” the Diocese warns.

Other examples of teacher employment documents include stand-alone faith and morals statements, witness statements, belief statements and oaths, employee handbook policies and “safe environment” policies that protect against child abuse but also require teachers’ moral behavior in other respects.

Drs. Donohue and Guernsey note that in addition to explaining particular points of moral concern for the Church, many dioceses will also instruct teachers to consult the Vatican-approved Catechism of the Catholic Church on all moral and faith questions.

“Direct reference to the entire Catechism is a best practice, because it not only solves the potential legal question of where to find authoritative, clearly articulated, and binding theological and moral norms for use in adjudication, but also has the added benefit of addressing a much broader scope of possible flashpoints in a deeper context than can be addressed in an employment document,” the authors advise.

“This helps clarify two important legal questions in a termination related to morality clauses,” they write. “Was the employee aware of what was expected (did they know that their behavior violated expectations), and how is immorality defined or understood in particular instances so as to avoid an arbitrary enactment of the clause by the employer?”

The Newman Society authors also have praise for the Code of Ethics for the Teacher in a Catholic School issued by Bishop Robert Vasa of the Diocese of Santa Rosa, because while it is necessary that such documents be “legalistic,” Bishop Vasa takes great care to also ensure “pastoral sensitivity, instruction and clarity.”

The Code explains that “as human beings, we are called by God to a life of holiness. We recognize that, without diminishing our freedom, this call orients us to heed God in our thoughts, words and deeds. We further recognize that this call is all the more compelling for us since, in our lives and vocations as teacher/administrators in a Catholic school, we have been entrusted with the task of helping students ‘arrive at the fullness of the Christian life’ (Canon 794, § 1).”

Therefore, the Code states, it is essential that Catholic school teachers and leaders model an “exemplary life both personally and professionally”—words that also appear in the Diocese’s employment contracts. “Thus, whether we are at school or outside of school, our public behavior is to be in conformity with Church teaching as expounded in The Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

While teaching in a Catholic school can be an extraordinary experience for the faithful Catholic teacher, the authors note that disputes with teachers who run afoul of diocesan standards can be “painful, emotionally and socially charges, and potentially litigious.”

“Charity, clarity, humility, and justice will all need to come into play in aiming for a peaceful resolution with the employee,” the authors advise, citing the Diocese of Davenport’s termination policies as exemplary in their avoidance of scandal and promotion of “mutual respect, personal integrity and freedom of conscience.”

What the two reports demonstrate, the authors conclude, is that:

…there are different options for Catholic leadership to approach the presentation and enforcement of faith and morals clauses for Catholic school teachers. In seeking to implement faith and morals clauses, it is prudent for the school to ensure that 1) it has properly highlighted the fundamental religious nature of all of its efforts, 2) it has made all teachers aware of their responsibility to advance the religious mission of Catholic education, and 3) it seeks to ensure that the teachers understand the scope of faith and morals transgressions that might result in termination of employment.

Both reports—the best practices brief and the full compilation of diocesan materials—are posted online at The Cardinal Newman Society website.

Reprinted with permission from The Cardinal Newman Society

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

News ,

LGBT group backed by Cardinal to march in London’s huge ‘gay pride’ parade

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

LONDON, June 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- An LGBT group for Catholics supported by Britain’s most influential cardinal will participate as a registered group at a major ‘gay pride’ event this weekend.

Westminster Cardinal Vincent Nichols says LGBT Catholics Westminster is hoping it will serve as an “opportunity for evangelization,” but also notes that they “arranged independently” to march in the event.

The group’s leader, ex-priest Martin Prendergast, has been in a homosexual civil partnership with Julian Filochowski, the former head of Cafod, since 2006. Cafod is the official bishops’ conference charity for overseas development.

Prendergast has claimed on film that “a lot of us who are in civil unions have had services of blessing in Catholic churches.”

The parade, to be held in central London, describes itself as providing “a platform for every part of London’s LGBT+ community (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, questioning, intersex, non-binary, asexual, polysexual, genderqueer and gender variant).

The LGBT group will march alongside homosexual and transsexual rights activists, “gay marriage” supporters, drag queens, and a host of semi-nude dancers and sadomasochistic displays, among others.

LGBT Catholics Westminster was appointed by Cardinal Nichols to provide pastoral provision to self-identified LGBT Catholics. The group gained notoriety for its “Soho Masses,” before being moved to the Jesuit Church on Farm Street, central London.

In one video, the group is seen during Mass in Soho, with a rainbow flag draped over the lectern, and what appears to be a man with a dress and wig on, reading one of the bidding prayers.

The group will be joined by “LGBT Catholics YAG,” the affiliated youth group for LGBT Catholics. On their website they proclaim:

"Big-up your Catholic LGBT identity by marching with us! Being visible with your LGBT Catholic identity at Pride not only proclaims your identity proudly, but it also tells people who are still struggling with reconciling their faith and LGBT identity that yes, it is possible!  It also shows skeptics that faith and LGBT identity can coexist within a person. You never know who you will enlighten."

Cardinal’s response

Cardinal Nichols’ press secretary, Alexander DesForges, contested the idea that the cardinal supports the homosexual organization, or that it is an “official body” of the archdiocese, but nonetheless acknowledged that the cardinal “arranged for pastoral care to be provided to the group through a parish of the Archdiocese (Farm St) and by a designated priest of the Archdiocese.”

“The Church’s pastoral outreach recognises that baptised persons with a homosexual inclination continue to look to the Church for a place where they might live in authentic human integrity and holiness of life,” he told LifeSiteNews. “Being welcomed and participating in their local faith community is the foundation of spiritual support that the Church offers to them, particularly so when they feel marginalized by society, which is so often the experience of this group of people.”

“The Cardinal’s understanding is that the LGBT group has registered to take part in the gay pride parade as they see this as an opportunity for evangelization,” he added. “This is something which they have arranged independently.”

More than just a parade

In his message of support for last year’s parade, British Prime Minister David Cameron said,  “I’m immensely proud to be the Prime Minister of the country which is – and this is official – the best place in Europe to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender...we are committed to improving LGBT rights across the planet. ... We should encourage the rest of the world to take our lead.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

On their website, the parade organizers state, “With so much of the legal framework for equality now in place, our attention is focused on the attitudinal and social change.” They then set out demands to policy makers and legislators, with a clear emphasis on promoting their agenda in schools:

  • We are asking London schools to show national leadership by including same-sex relationships within sex and relationships education.
  • The inclusion of same-sex relationship education in all London schools to ensure the representation of different families and communities within sex and relationships education.
  • The establishment of LGBT+ education ambassadors in each local borough, to work with and support local LGBT+ community groups engage with the wider community and change attitudes.

Backers of the demands include vociferous and longstanding gay rights activist and former MEP Lord Michael Cashman OBE, Labour MP and former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer MP, who argued that it was not in the public’s interest to prosecute abortionists caught on film authorizing sex-selective abortions.

Full backing of global companies, organizations

The number of high profile sponsors and groups marching in the parade is staggering.

It has the full backing of the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who is listed as one of the sponsors, along with Barclays, Thomas Reuters, Starbucks, and Baker & McKenzie.

Other sponsors include PinkNews and GayStarNews. In a recent article, GayStarNews reported on the Sao Paolo gay pride parade, in which a 12-year-old boy wearing nothing but a small pair of shorts, is filmed ‘twerking’ like Miley Cyrus, while surrounded by baying members of the parade and drag queens, which they described as:

“A video of a young boy, no more than 12 years old, twerking and having a great time at a Pride is going viral... the as-yet unidentified boy is seen dancing in short blue denim shorts to RuPaul's Sissy That Walk, as he was applauded by drag queens and revellers.”

Companies and organizations with registered groups joining the parade include many of the biggest names in business, Law, education, charity, and media. They include Barclays, Scout Association, Ministry of Defence Civil Service, Armed Forces, Starbucks, Transport for London, Amnesty International UK, NSPCC, Bernardos, Metropolitan Police, Amazon UK, United States Embassy, UK Council for Psychotherapy, Bank of England, Houses of Parliament, National Union of Teachers, Law Society, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Buzzfeed, HSBC, Facebook, LinkedIn, BP Oil and Gas, and many more.

Over 40 gay pride parades are expected to take place in the UK in the coming months.

Featured Image
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

News ,

Gay ‘marriage’ ruling opens door to polygamy and religious persecution: Dissenting justices

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The Supreme Court's conservative justices lambasted today's majority opinion that the U.S. Constitution grants an inalienable right to same-sex “marriage,” emphasizing the threat the opinion poses to religious liberty, the democratic process, and the institution of marriage even as it is redefined.

In a series of scathing dissents, each of the High Court's four conservative justices took apart Justice Anthony Kennedy's Obergefell v. Hodges decision piece-by-piece.

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, wrote that “the majority fails to provide even a single sentence explaining” how the 14th Amendment applies to redefining marriage.

“The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent,” he wrote. “There is, after all, no 'Companionship and Understanding' or 'Nobility and Dignity' Clause in the Constitution.”

Instead, the court ignored its own precedent in the 1972 Baker v. Nelson case, which ruled there is no constitutional right to homosexual “marriage.”

Urge Congress to pass a marriage protection amendment now. Sign the petition!

In a separate dissent, Justice Scalia called the decision a “judicial Putsch” that is “lacking even a thin veneer of law.” He described the majority's often flowery language as “the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

Roberts said the opinion took an “unprincipled approach” that he likened to the Dred Scott decision, which ratified slavery on the eve of the Civil War.

While all of the dissenting justices warned that the decision usurped the role of the people in a democratic government, each made his own distinctive critiques, as well.

Justice Roberts warned that today's ruling was not comparable to striking down laws against interracial marriage, because at no time was the ethnicity of the spouses considered a defining factor of marriage itself.

He also warned that by changing the fundamental definition of marriage, the justices had opened the door to redefining other vital components of matrimony. “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage,” he wrote.

Justice Thomas wrote that the opinion holds “potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.” Recognizing the threat that the government may revoke the tax-exempt status of religious institutions, Thomas added that “the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious property.”

The traditional American view of limited government was another casualty, he wrote. “Our Constitution — like the Declaration of Independence before it — was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from — not provided by — the state.”

Justice Samuel Alito alone said that marriage existed for the sake of procreation and child-rearing. The majority opinion is based on ideas of romantic love, he wrote. “This understanding of marriage, which focuses almost entirely on the happiness of persons who choose to marry, is shared by many people today, but it is not the traditional one. For millennia, marriage was inextricably linked to the one thing that only an opposite-sex couple can do: procreate.”

All of the justices had a similar concern, though: The decision substitutes the views of five unelected justices for the democratic process, much as Roe v. Wade did for abortion in 1973.

“If a bare majority of justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate,” Justice Alito wrote in his dissent.

He concluded, “All Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.”

Featured Image
Pro-traditional marriage activists march to the Supreme Court at the annual March for Marriage in Washington D.C. on March 26, 2013. American Life League
The Editors

News , ,

John-Henry Westen: U.S. Supreme Court rules against God and human nature

The Editors
By

LifeSiteNews Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen, who also co-founded the international organization Voice of the Family, released the following statement today in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to require states to uphold same-sex "marriage".

Today, the Supreme Court undermined marriage, effectively making it open season on religious liberty in America -- and providing the Court's blessing to a redefinition of marriage that is opposed to the Will of God, basic human nature, and the U.S. Constitution.

With its decision, the Court has found a "civil right" where none exists. Thanks to the Supreme Court's majority, LGBT activists and their allies are now free to continue their state-sanctioned discrimination against social conservatives. In fact, they have been empowered to do so. This is no surprise, however, as such policies have become the norm in the Obama administration and in states across the nation, where state-sanctioned discrimination against religious and social conservatives is fully accepted.

Perhaps the worst consequence of the Court's decision is its promotion of damaging sexual relationships -- which are, like discrimination, now empowered all across America. Contrary to what the Court's liberals and many other judges believe, opposition to redefining marriage is based upon love -- the kind of tough love that requires a parent to tell their child to not play in traffic, or to get good grades.

Urge Congress to pass a marriage protection amendment now. Sign the petition!

Science has proven that sexual relationships between persons of the same-sex, as opposed to the God-ordained man-woman marital relationships, cause terrible harm to those in them. To quote former leading Canadian LGBT activist Gens Hellquist, speaking to government officials a few years after marriage was redefined in Canada:

We have one of the poorest health statuses in this country. Health issues affecting queer Canadians include lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV/AIDS.

There are all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community. We have higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer.

Hellquist closed his testimony by saying that he was "tired of watching my community die." In this country, the Centers for Disease Control has shown that while men who have sex with men are perhaps two percent of the U.S. population, they make up nearly two-thirds of all HIV/AIDS victims.

Similarly, social science -- especially the work of Dr. Mark Regnerus and Dr. Paul Sullins -- has shown that children raised by same-sex parents are more emotionally damaged than their counterparts raised in homes led by a mom and a dad.

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

News ,

Supreme Court rules that states must allow gay ‘marriage’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

Updated at 1:16 p.m. Eastern time.

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Constitution contains an inalienable right to same-sex “marriage”.

In a 5-4 ruling handed down this morning, the justices ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to offer marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

The justices also ruled that a state must recognize such a union performed in another state.

Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the liberal bloc of Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan and wrote the 28-page decision.

Each of the four dissenting justices -- Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito – wrote his own, separate dissent.

The conservatives wrote that the majority opinion imperils religious liberty, twists the Constitution, and disenfranchises the American people.

Urge Congress to pass a marriage protection amendment now. Sign the petition!

The case, Obergefell v. Hodges, involved a homosexual couple from Ohio who flew to Maryland to have a seven-minute “marriage” ceremony presided over by one of the partner's aunt on an airport landing strip. Last November, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Ohio, upheld marriage by ruling that the universally recognized right to marry applies only as marriage has historically been understood: the union of one man and one woman.

In overturning that decision, the five liberal justices strongly endorsed the notion that the Constitution is a living document, subject to the views of a rotating cadre of enlightened judges. While the Founding Fathers did not specify a right to same-sex “marriage”, the justices wrote that they possessed “a better informed understanding” of how “to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”

They dismissed millions of citizens who voted for marriage protection amendments in dozens of states as people seeking merely to “lock...out,” “disparage,” “disrespect and subordinate,” and inflict “dignitary wounds” upon homosexuals.

“These apparent assaults on the character of fair-minded people will have an effect, in society and in court,” Justice Roberts wrote in his dissent.

On the other hand, homosexual couples seeking to redefine an institution that has stood for millennia did not “disrespect the idea of marriage” but merely asked “not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”

“The Constitution grants them that right,” they concluded.

All four dissents branded the decision an ill-conceived example of judicial activism that thwarted the democratic process.  

The razor-thin margin of the vote heightened its controversy.

“At least two members of the Court’s majority opinion were under a legal duty to recuse and refrain from voting,” wrote the Foundation for Moral Law, a pro-marriage organization, after the ruling.

Justices Ginsburg and Kagan performed same-sex “marriage” ceremonies, calling into question their impartiality and possibly breaking judicial ethics, critics said.

Without their votes, the decision would have upheld marriage by a 4-3 margin.

The foundation wrote, “Their failure to recuse calls into question the validity of this decision.”

Featured Image
John-Henry Westen / LifeSiteNews
Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike

Opinion , ,

Cardinal Kasper continues push for Communion proposal in new op-ed

Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike
By Maike Hickson

June 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Cardinal Walter Kasper has just published an article in the July issue of the German journal Stimmen der Zeit (Voices of the Time) concerning the question of the “remarried” divorcees and their possible admission to the Sacraments. With it, he redoubles his effort to promote his manifold “Kasper Proposal,” which has been rejected and refuted by now by unequivocal experts and some high-ranking prelates in the Catholic Church.

Cardinal Kasper’s article is entitled “Once More: Admission of Remarried Divorcees to the Sacraments?” In it, he says that a “realistic theology of marriage has to consider failure and the possibility of forgiveness.” He proposes to admit those “remarried” divorcees to the Sacraments, after they have undergone a period of penance and after “an honest judgment of the person concerned about his own personal situation” and support from the sacramental confessor. The local bishop, moreover, has to have the authoritative supervision over the whole process.

Cardinal Kasper claims that this “question of the admission of remarried divorcees to the Sacraments is not a new, nor a merely German problem,” but that, rather, many confessors worldwide are looking for a solution.

Kasper claims in his article that the Word of Christ “is not a 'legal sentence,' but rather a principle which the Church – with the help of the authority, as given by Christ, to bind and to loosen (Mt. 16:19, 18:18; John 20:23) – has to apply in the context of the changing cultural situations.” Kasper also claims: “The Word of Jesus may not be interpreted in a fundamentalist way.” When speaking of the concept of the indissolubility of marriage, Kasper says: “This [the indissolubility of marriage] is a great and convincing conception. However, it should not lead to an idealization which is remote from everyday life.” Talking about Christian marriage, he says: “But it [Christian marriage] cannot fully realize this mystery [with respect to Christ's bond with the Church], but only in a broken form. […] Spouses remain on the path and stand under the sign of graduality (see FC 9, 34).”

In slyly turning the concept of God's loyalty to mankind around, Cardinal Kasper claims now that God will stay loyal to us men even if we are not loyal to Him: “God's 'Yes' will remain, even if the human 'Yes' is weak or even broken.” Even though the Cardinal still repeats the moral principle that one cannot receive the Sacraments when in the state of mortal sin, he now proposes simply to look at each case individually: “One cannot speak of the objective state of sin without considering the situation of the sinner in his unique personal dignity.” Therefore, Kasper proposes to solve each case individually. Kasper also makes it clear that he does not mean, when speaking of a penitential path, that the sinners truly have to make concrete acts of penance, but he, rather, proposes to undertake a “process of clarification and of re-orientation after the catastrophe of divorce.” This process should lead to an honest judgment about oneself.

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

However, when speaking about the grounds for the admission to the Sacraments – which are contrition and repentance and fundamental (and unequivocal) change of one's conduct – Cardinal Kasper states that “forgiveness without conversion” would be “theological nonsense.” He simply states that the “remarried” divorcees may be admitted to the Sacraments when they show “repentance and the will to live in the new situation according to the Gospels.” In the subtle footnote (and only there), Cardinal Kasper questions whether those couples may not, after all, be allowed to make use of the marital act. He thereby opens up the possible idea that such couples may receive the Sacraments, even though they do live in an adulterous situation. In the main text, Kasper states: “In absolution, no sin is thereby justified, but the sinner who is willing to change [sic].” His own footnote is undermining this change of behavior, as mentioned above. Sacramental Communion, in Kasper's eyes, is, then, the necessary help for the sinner to remain on his “new path.” Here again is the question as to what this new path is, when Kasper himself opens up the idea that these “remarried” couples may still have sexual relations, which is exclusively licit within a Sacramental marriage.

Finally, the German prelate proposes to consider this question in the context of the concept of the “hermeneutic of continuity” which includes “practical reforms and, with it, a moment of discontinuity.” In his last sentence, Kasper refutes the “Five Cardinals Book” in saying: “The admonition 'to remain in the truth of Christ' includes the other one, namely 'to remain in the love of Christ.'”

As one Catholic observer comments: “We are dealing here with a dangerous new move of Cardinal Kasper, which shows that the 'Kasperites' are preparing with new strength the liberalizing and ‘gradualizing’ agenda for the upcoming Synod of Bishops on the Family in October 2015, which might well undermine the Catholic moral teaching on marriage and its indissolubility. For, even the putative 'Hermeneutic of Continuity' must now apparently be seen in Kasper's phrase under the 'sign of graduality' – hence subordinated to a new Hermeneutic of Graduality!”

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Brian Brown

Opinion ,

Supreme Court betrays us with illegitimate marriage ruling

Brian Brown
By Brian Brown

June 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Though expected, today's decision is completely illegitimate. We reject it and so will the American people. It represents nothing but judicial activism, legislating from the bench, with a bare majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court exercising raw political power to impose their own preferences on marriage when they have no constitutional authority to do so. It is a lawless ruling that contravenes the decisions of over 50 million voters and their elected representatives. It is a decision that is reminiscent of other illegitimate Court rulings such as Dred Scott and Roe v Wade and will further plunge the Supreme Court into public disrepute.

Make no mistake about it: The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and countless millions of Americans do not accept this ruling. Instead, we will work at every turn to reverse it.

Urge Congress to pass a marriage protection amendment now. Sign the petition!

The US Supreme Court does not have the authority to redefine something it did not create. Marriage was created long before the United States and our constitution came into existence. Our constitution says nothing about marriage. The majority who issued today's ruling have simply made it up out of thin air with no constitutional authority.

In his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," Dr. Martin Luther King discussed the moral importance of disobeying unjust laws, which we submit applies equally to unjust Supreme Court decisions. Dr. King evoked the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that an unjust law or decision is one that is "a human law that is not rooted in eternal law or natural law."

Today's decision of the Supreme Court lacks both constitutional and moral authority. There is no eternal or natural law that allows for marriage to be redefined.

This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has issued an immoral and unjust ruling. In 1857, the Court ruled in the infamous Dred Scott v Sandford case that African Americans could not become citizens of the United States and determined that the government was powerless to reject slavery. In 1927 the Court effectively endorsed eugenics by ruling that people with mental illness and other "defectives" could be sterilized against their will, saying "three generations of imbeciles are enough." And in Roe v Wade, the Court invented a constitutional right to abortion by claiming it was an integral element of the right to privacy. Over 55 million unborn babies have died as a result.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

We urge the American people and future presidents to regard today's decision just as President Abraham Lincoln regarded the Dred Scott ruling when he said in his first inaugural address that "if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

Today's decision is by no means the final word concerning the definition of marriage; indeed it is only the beginning of the next phase in the struggle. NOM is committed to reversing this ruling over the long term and ameliorating it over the short term. Specifically:

  1. We call on Congress and state governments to move immediately to protect the rights of people who believe in the truth of marriage from being discriminated against by passing the First Amendment Defense Act through Congress, and similar legislation in the various states.
  2. We also call on Congress to advance to the states for consideration a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in the law as it has existed in reality for the entirety of our nation's existence – the union of one man and one woman.
  3. We call on the American people to make the definition of marriage a pivotal issue in the 2016 presidential contest and to elect a president who will be a true champion for marriage, one who is committed to taking specific steps to restoring true marriage in the law including appointing new justices to the Supreme Court who will have the opportunity to reverse this decision.
  4. NOM will work tirelessly along with allies to help change the culture so that Americans have a better understanding of the importance of marriage to children, families and society as a whole.

While today's decision of the Supreme Court is certainly disappointing, it is not demoralizing to those of us who fervently believe in the truth of marriage and its importance to societal flourishing. Indeed, the decision will be energizing. Just as the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade infused the pro-life movement with new energy and commitment, so too will the decision today reawaken the American people to join the marriage movement.

Our prayer for America is that today's injustice can be corrected quickly, sparing the nation decades of anguish of the kind that has followed the Court's decision in Roe.

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Travis Weber

Opinion

Supreme Court coddles congress on Obamacare

Travis Weber
By Travis Weber

June 26, 2015 (FRCBlog) -- In an opinion which deals a heavy blow to our foundational separation of powers, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 today in King v. Burwell that the federal government could give out Affordable Care Act tax credits on its own health insurance exchange if a state did not set one up. Why? According to the Court, incredibly, the statutory term "established by the state" actually means "established by the state or the federal government."

In the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan opinion, the Court basically saves Congress from its own bad handiwork, scrutinizing and considering how the law would fail to work if it ruled on the plain meaning of the statute. In doing so, it illustrates how courts are not supposed to act -- as legislator (considering the policy implications of a decision) as opposed to how they should -- as judge (ruling on what the law means).

The trouble begins when the Court decides "established by the state" can't just mean "state," but must mean more given the "context and structure of the Act." Because, in the Court's view, this term has been deemed "ambiguous," it is compelled "to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase."

Once the provision is considered "ambiguous," the Court is left free to jump through all sorts of hoops to reach its desired conclusion. It fruitlessly cautions: "Reliance on context and structure in statutory interpretation is a 'subtle business, calling for great wariness lest what professes to be mere rendering becomes creation and attempted interpretation of legislation becomes legislation itself.'" I don't know how the Court has avoided doing that here.

The Court's mental machinations continue; it claims that while "'the presumption of consistent usage readily yields to context,' . . . a statutory term may mean different things in different places."

After declining to apply a method of statutory interpretation that says words should not be construed to be mere rhetorical surplus, the Court had to admit the ACA is the type of muddled mess that should have encouraged the Court to have less confidence in its ability to "figure it out" and instead send it back to Congress for fixing, noting that "with respect to this Act, rigorous application of the canon [against surplus words] does not seem a particularly useful guide to a fair construction of the statute."

Why? Even the pro-ACA majority recognizes that "[t]he Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting. . . . Several features of the Act's passage contributed to that unfortunate reality." The majority further notes that the law "does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation."

However, as the dissent notes, the Court "has no free-floating power 'to rescue Congress from its drafting errors.'" And "[l]aws often include unusual or mismatched provisions. . . . This Court 'does not revise legislation . . . just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly.'"

Much of what the Court does here is try to determine what Congress intended to do. Yet with a law containing such obvious, glaring problems and omissions, which we know Members of Congress did not even read, how can we even trust any guesses about what "Congress intended to do?" At one point, the majority cites an illustration "describing a cartoon in which a senator tells his colleagues 'I admit this new bill is too complicated to understand. We'll just have to pass it to find out what it means.'" This is a clear reference to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's astonishing comment that Obamacare would have to be passed before what is in it could be determined. I'm not sure if the Court intended it, but the irony -- and the jab at Mrs. Pelosi -- are rich.

The silver lining of this decision is that it did not expand the administrative state through excessive deference to the IRS interpretation of "established by the state." The not-so-silver lining is that the Court's endorsement of mushy reasoning allows anyone and everyone (which includes the administrative state and courts) to play with statutory terms to make them mean what they want them to mean.

The Court properly claimed it had the authority to interpret the provision, but then improperly seized a different type of authority to "save" the law. The Court should have resisted the temptation to play the hero -- in what would have been a noble exercise of self-limitation -- and deflected the statute back to Congress for fixing.

There is also a subtle assumption of congressional incompetence in this ruling. So inept was Congress in drafting and passing this legislation that the Court had to assume an intent distinctly missing from the text presented to it for review. In doing so, the Court has de facto made law by defining terms comporting with the Court's desire to save Congress from itself.

Thus, the problem now is that "context" means anything a court wants it to mean. And that's not a power our Constitution intended courts to have. As the dissent says, if "all it takes to make something ambiguous" is reasoning like the majority's, then "everything is ambiguous."

The majority concludes that "[a] fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan." Fair enough, perhaps. But even if one were to accept that assertion, I'm not sure how, in this case, which features one of the most muddled pieces of legislation in existence (which many Members of Congress have admitted they didn't even read), there can be any understanding of any "legislative plan."

Justice Scalia's dissent, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas, has the better argument: "The Court has not come close to presenting the compelling contextual case necessary to justify departing from the ordinary meaning of the terms of the law."

The majority's "reasoning suffers from no shortage of flaws. To begin with, 'even the most formidable argument concerning the statute's purposes could not overcome the clarity [of] the statute's text.' . . . Statutory design and purpose matter only to the extent they help clarify an otherwise ambiguous provision."

Exactly. And making such clarifications is exactly the job of Congress. The Court should have ruled based on the words of the statute. If Congress disagreed with the result and wanted it fixed, it would have then had the opportunity to fix the ACA.

As the dissent points out, if the majority's concern about potentially dooming the ACA is valid, then "these projections would show only that the statutory scheme contains a flaw; they would not show that the statute means the opposite of what it says." Moreover, "[h]ow could the Court pronounce it 'implausible' for Congress to have tolerated [the same] instability in insurance markets in States with federal Exchanges . . . when even the Government maintained until recently that Congress did exactly that in American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands?"

The dissent nicely summed up the problems with this decision:

"The Court's decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people's decision to give Congress '[a]ll legislative Powers' enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. This Court holds only the judicial power -- the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. . . . [T]his Court 'has no roving license . . . to disregard clear language simply on the view that . . . Congress 'must have intended' something broader.' . . .

Even less defensible, if possible, is the Court's claim that its interpretive approach is justified because this Act 'does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.' It is not our place to judge the quality of the care and deliberation that went into this or any other law. A law enacted by voice vote with no deliberation whatever is fully as binding upon us as one enacted after years of study, months of committee hearings, and weeks of debate. Much less is it our place to make everything come out right when Congress does not do its job properly. It is up to Congress to design its laws with care, and it is up to the people to hold them to account if they fail to carry out that responsibility.

Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act's limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges. . . The Court's insistence on making a choice that should be made by Congress both aggrandizes judicial power and encourages congressional lassitude. . . . What a parody today's decision makes of Hamilton's assurances to the people of New York: 'The legislature not only commands the purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over . . . the purse; no direction . . . of the wealth of society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment.'

The dissent points out that several years ago, the Court twisted the individual mandate (which imposes a penalty for volitional inaction) into the shape of a "tax" in order to save its constitutionality. It also "rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion" in order to save another provision's constitutionality under the Spending Clause. Now, the Court believes the limitation regarding state exchanges "would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere."

Such reasoning reveals the "discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites." Such expansionary reading by the Supreme Court to save unprecedented and large-scale government initiatives harkens back to the New Deal era. While the ACA has multiple problematic implications for religious freedom, the Court got this decision wrong based on an improper understanding of its role and erroneous view of the separation of powers. These are constitutional issues with far reaching implications that go beyond religious freedom.

As Justice Scalia rightly observes: "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare."

Reprinted with permission from Family Research Council.

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Voice of the Family

Opinion ,

Professor Schellnhuber: climate science and the ‘population problem’

Voice of the Family
By

June 26, 2015 (VoiceoftheFamily) -- The inclusion of Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber on the panel that launched the encyclical letter Laudato Si has sparked controversy about his approach to climate science and accusations that he supports population control.

Professor Schellnhuber is the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and was an influential figure during the preparation of Laudato Si. As well as being consulted by the Vatican during the preparation of the document he was also chosen to deliver an intervention at the encyclical’s official launch on Thursday 18th June. Earlier in the week it had been announced that he had been appointed a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences by Pope Francis.

Climate Science

Earlier this week, in an interview with German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Schellnhuber spoke of his influence on the direction of the encyclical. He said:

It was hard work, to prepare the insights of science in such a way that now people in the Vatican understand the climate problem much better.

He continued:

The worry of us scientists was, of course, that the text would accept a false balance – i.e., that it would not present clearly the current state of research concerning climate issues, but only carefully maneuver and merely declare that the one side says this, and the other side says that – according the motto ‘One does not know anything precise, but the principle of prevention demands that one acts.'

Last week the Washington Post reported that Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, chancellor of the Pontifical Academies of Sciences and Social Sciences, intervened to block the participation of French scientist Philippe de Larminat in a Vatican seminar on climate change. De Larminat, who does not accept that climate change is caused by human activity, was invited to the April seminar by Cardinal Turkson, one of main drafters of the encyclical, but his participation was, according to the Washington Post, “effectively vetoed” by Sorondo.

Professor Schellnhuber is said to have been “stunned” that de Larminat had almost been admitted to the seminar. The Washington Post quotes him as saying that it showed that “even within the Vatican, there were some people who would like to see something that presented both sides.” Presenting both sides of the argument is clearly not acceptable to Schellnhuber.

Schellnhuber is also associated with the controversial “gaia principle.” The “gaia principle” proposes that both living and non-living beings on Earth interact to form self-regulating system that contributes to maintaining the conditions for life on the planet. This system is considered to be a living being in its own right, with even some degree of consciousness.

In “‘Earth system’ analysis and the second Copernican revolution”, (Nature, 1999) Schellnhuber spoke of “unravelling the mysteries of the Earth’s physique, or “Gaia’s body”.

He wrote:

Ecosphere science is therefore coming of age, lending respectability to its romantic companion, Gaia theory, as pioneered by Lovelock and Margulis. This hotly debated ‘geophysiological’ approach to Earth-system analysis argues that the biosphere contributes in an almost cognizant way to self-regulating feedback mechanisms that have kept the Earth’s surface environment stable and habitable for life.

Gaia theory is often associated with a hostile attitude towards human activity, which is considered a perpetual threat to the earth’s ecosystem.

“Climbing the co-evolution ladder” (Nature, 2004), an article co-authored by Schellnhuber, seems to extend this hostile attitude even to “the first organisms” which “would have drained the environment of energetically and structurally useful compounds and replaced them with degraded waste products.”

This view of living creatures as a potential threat to the planet certainly extends to human beings. The authors write that “modern civilization already perturbs – if not dominates – various large-scale processes and components of the planet.”

They continue with the suggestion this is “the latest step on the grand co-evolutionary ladder of entwined transitions of information and environment.”

This “concept of entwined evolution” leads the authors to adopt a depressing view of the future. It “may reveal where we are ultimately heading – towards Solaris or something even scarier.”

Solaris, they remind us, is “Stanislav Lem’s science-fiction master-piece” that:

tells the gripping — and scary — story of a super-intelligent super-organism that has transmuted into a vast ocean covering most of the surface of a distant planet. Thus information-processing (that is, active) life and force-driven (that is, passive) environment have finally merged into a single entity.

The negative view of life and creation represented by this article is radically different from that of the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that God made the world, and all living creatures, according to his will and design and that everything he created is “very good” (Gen 1:31). The entire universe is subject to God’s merciful providence and will find its culmination in the Second Coming of Christ and the revealing of “new heavens and a new earth” (1 Pet 3:13).

The Catholic view of creation welcomes and rejoices in new life; the “Gaia” approach to creation leads to suspicion and hostility towards new life, often manifesting itself in attempts at population control.

Population control

Last week many commentators drew attention to comments made by Professor Schellnhuber about human population at the 2009 Copenhagan Climate Conference.

The New York Times reported that Schellnhuber told the conference that if the temperature of the earth rose by nine degrees Fahrenheit the human population would be devastated.

He said:

In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.

Further on in the article, he added:

What a triumph. On the other hand do we want this alternative? I think we can do much, much better.

In an interview with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register Schellnhuber clarified his comments and insisted that they should not be interpreted as support for population control. He asserted that he has never “spoken in favor of population-control measures” and has “always said the climate problem is completely independent of the population problem.” However, his attempt to explain his position raises more questions than it answers.

In the following comment, available here on Youtube (in German), Professor Schellnhuber seems to connect the “climate problem” with the “population problem” when he states:

The earth likely will be populated by at least 9 billion people by 2050. You have to imagine that these people will reach an average level of consumption that Portugal has, one of the poorer countries in Europe. When you imagine that if all these 9 billion people claim all these resources, then the earth will explode.

In fact, during his interview with Pentin, when he speaks about the perceived “population problem”  he immediately proceeds to propose a solution to that “problem” when he states:

If you want to reduce human population, there are wonderful means: Improve the education of girls and young women. Then the demographic transition will be a little bit faster, and, as Cardinal Turkson said, you will enhance human capital and have the emancipation of many people on Earth. So I subscribe to a good education, and that’s the only way of population strategy I would support.

It is reasonable to conclude from these comments that Schellnhuber thinks that this “demographic transition”, presumably to a lower population or at least slowed population growth, is desireable. “Demographic transition” he suggests “will enhance human capital” and lead to “the emancipation of many people on Earth”.

The mechanism by which improving the education of girls and women leads to reduction of the birth rate is explained by Jeffrey Sachs in his new book The Age of Sustainable Development (New York, 2015) Sachs is the special adviser to the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, a leading advocate of population control and an influential figure in the Vatican over the last couple of years.

Sachs explains that the “most important single step” in “reducing high fertility rates” is “to help young girls stay in school. They will marry later, have fewer children, and be more oriented toward the workforce. They and their husbands will choose voluntarily to have many fewer children, a voluntary reduction of high TFR [total fertility rates] that has already occurred in most other places in the world.”

They will of course, in most cases, have fewer children through the use contraception, including the use of abortifacient contraceptives.

Schellnhuber’s “wonderful means” to “reduce human population” will surely amount, in the end, to contraception and abortion. Schellnhuber’s remarks that also imply that educated women will want fewer children that uneducated women. The suggestion that small families are an advance for society in comparison to large families stands contrary to the Church’s obedience to God’s command, given in Genesis 1:28, that mankind must “increase and multiply, and fill the earth”.

It is also of note that Schellnhuber is a full member of the Club of Rome, which describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.”

During its foundational event in 1968 in Rome it began an international campaign to reduce the world’s population. The book-length report, Limits of Growth, which was written for the Club of Rome in 1972, was one of the starting points for the worldwide attempt to reduce the population by the aggressive promotion of contraception and abortion. As recently as 2009, the Club of Rome has reaffirmed that “the global issues which were the focus of the 1972 Report, ‘Limits to Growth’ are even more severe and urgent today.”

A recent Club of Rome publication, entitled What was the message of ‘Limits to Growth’ , states:

If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion continues unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.

The document also states that “the global population and economy has continued to grow more or less as expected in 1970″, which means that:

the real world has moved into overshot… According to the best estimates of today, the world moved into aggregate overshoot in the middle 1980s. This is most commonly accepted when related to the issue of greenhouse gas emissions, but other dimensions of human activity have also moved into unsustainable territory.

In such ways the Club of Rome continues to promote the myth of overpopulation, which has led to death and suffering for an uncountable number of many of the most vulnerable members of the human family.

Given Schellnhuber’s views on the “population problem” and his membership of the Club of Rome, many Catholics are understandably seriously concerned by his appointment to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and his participation in the preparation and launch of the encyclical letter Laudato Si.

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Anne Morse

Opinion

The war on India’s population is still an emergency

Anne Morse
By Anne Morse

July 26, 2015 (POP) -- This week marks the 40th anniversary of the beginning of a reign of horror in Indian history. Yesterday, 40 years ago, India declared a state of emergency and gave the power to rule by decree to the prime minister, Indira Gandhi. During this “emergency period,” the Indian state sterilized eleven million of its citizens. Consent and sanitary conditions were considered superfluous; people were killed, maimed, and violated by the state’s intrusive hand into the most private realm of their lives. Far from bringing the responsible parties to justice and making reparations to those harmed, the Indian state continues to sterilize its own citizens without their informed consent.

During the emergency period, men were the primary victims of the state’s frenzied program to sterilize as many persons as possible. Some districts rounded men up in the middle of the night and sent them to be vasectomized. Some locales withheld employment until men were vasectomized. Other states withheld government aid—food aid and schooling for children—until the father ‘consented’ to undergo a vasectomy. Some districts used group threats to meet sterilization targets: in the state of Madhya Pradesh, the state gave subsidized water prices to villages that met their vasectomy targets.

Throughout the state of emergency, the government sterilized 11 million citizens, men were victimized more often than women. The ratio of vasectomies to female sterilizations was 1:1 in 1975 and 3:1 in 1976.

After the emergency period ended, the Indian people quickly voted Indira Gandhi’s government out of office. The incoming Janata government ceased the sterilization drive but did not dismantle the political machinery responsible for the abuses. The specter of runaway population growth still terrifies India’s elites, and the legacy of the emergency period—population reduction by any means necessary—lives on in modern India.

In India today, the abuses continue, but the focus has shifted to women. The current ratio of male to female sterilizations in India is 1:25.

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in India approves and funds sterilization camps. These camps, not necessarily close to these women’s homes, necessarily mean that women must be driven into them. With their set times and locations, sterilization camps nullify the possibility that women seek out sterilization willingly. Instead, the Indian health system pays people to go out into the community to ‘motivate’ people to appear at the sterilization camps. Through such methods, 4 million women are sterilized every year in India.

Inside the sterilization camps, sanitation and informed consent are viewed as dispensable luxuries. The government of India lacks reliable data on sterilization deaths and injuries, but the best estimates available conservatively suggest that three women die every week from sub-human conditions in India’s sterilization camps.

Of the 4 million women sterilized every year in India, 34% say they were not “informed that sterilization was permanent.” The statistics about informed consent improve greatly by educational level and income level. Likewise, women who are educated and have informed consent choose not to be sterilized. In modern India, the people who are funneled into sterilization camps are overwhelmingly female, less educated (often illiterate), and poor.

In 1975 and 1976, the emergency period was rightly called a “war on population”. The abuses during the emergency period resulted in men taking to the streets in “family planning riots” to protest their treatment. The government attacked, and the men fought back. In modern India, the sterilization programs are more like a massacre than a war.

Reprinted with permission from Population Research Institute.

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Niamh Ui Bhriain

Opinion

Abortion clinic death: Women are just collateral damage to an increasingly exploitative abortion industry

Niamh Ui Bhriain
By Niamh Ui Bhriain

June 26, 2015 (TheLifeInstitute) -- A woman from Ireland bled to death after an abortion at a Marie Stopes clinic in West London. Three people – the abortionist, Dr Adedayo Adedeji, and two nurse colleagues, Gemma Pullen and Margaret Miller – who worked at the clinic have now been charged with manslaughter.

Reporting from the Irish media on the case has been confined to four-sentence news snippets. There has been no blaze of publicity, no calls for an inquiry, and no hard questions asked of the abortion industry.

Another Irish woman almost died in the same Marie Stopes clinic in 2006 when an abortionist, Dr Phanuel Dartey, perforated her uterus and left pieces of her baby inside her body. When she returned to Ireland, the woman was rushed to hospital where she was in a critical condition for two months.

But it gets worse.

The 2006 case only came to light in 2011, and the Irish media then rushed to talk to Marie Stopes. Not to question them, mind you, but to give them space to justify themselves and to make sure the abortion providers had plenty of opportunities to reassure everyone that, despite the fact that a woman had been left fighting for her life, Marie Stopes was still a top-notch operation.

The Belfast Telegraph quoted Gabrielle Malone, manager of the Marie Stopes referral clinic in Dublin, at length, when she insisted that “Marie Stopes clinics had an excellent record and the Dartey case was an isolated one”. The Irish Independent gave Tracie McNeill, Marie Stopes’ international vice president space to claim that the harm caused by Dartey was an “isolated incident” and to preach about their ‘concerns as a healthcare services provider” in relation to Ireland’s ban on abortion.

Yet just months later another woman from Ireland bled to death in that same Marie Stopes clinic.

And it gets worse again.

The Marie Stopes abortionist, Phanuel Dartey was eventually struck off the register. But no Irish journalist investigated the trail of misconduct and harm he had wreaked on vulnerable women when working in the British abortion industry.

That evidence wasn’t hard to find. In 2004 Dartey was named in news reports concerning a mother who also attended the same Marie Stopes clinic for an abortion. Dartey performed an abortion which reportedly went horribly wrong, causing an emergency transfer to Ealing Hospital, where doctors told her she had a punctured womb, cervix and bowel, and there was a pint and a half of blood in her stomach. She said “I feel like I’ve been butchered. I’m still living with the scars and the effects on my health.”

But despite that Marie Stopes let Dartey continue to work in their clinic, and no-one asked why. The Irish media refused to ask hard questions of Marie Stopes, refused to grill the abortion industry on its failure to protect women, refused to draw attention to the fact that, in general, only the dregs of the medical profession work in a setting where clinics make money by killing babies instead of helping women.

Instead, the media gave the opening of a Marie Stopes abortion clinic in Belfast the most sycophantic coverage possible and hailed its Director, Dawn Purvis, as a latter day saint, despite her history as a political mouthpiece for the UVF, amongst the most brutal and most feared of the loyalist terrorist groups that arose during the conflict in the north of Ireland.

And so now a Marie Stopes clinic has caused a woman from Ireland to bleed to death, and there will most likely be no outcry, no media investigation, just the same cover-up, and the same shameful and sickening refusal to ever, ever put the truth or the real needs of mothers and babies ahead of the distorted, medieval ideology which thinks that killing a baby is a solution to a crisis.

The truth is that women have now just become collateral damage for the abortion industry and its supporters. If they die after an abortion, or if they are harmed, or if they suffer adverse mental health effects, or if baby girls aborted simply because of their gender, all of that will be ignored because nothing, absolutely nothing, can be allowed to disrupt the media mantra that abortion is a right and abortion providers must be supported.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

This is, of course, the same media who lied and distorted the facts when reporting on the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar, telling the world that she died because abortion was illegal when three subsequent inquiries found that she died of sepsis which went undetected when medical staff missed the warning signs. They went to enormous lengths to exploit Savita’s death to push abortion, yet when women die following abortion that inconvenient truth is buried – a cover-up that will surely lead to further malpractice and ultimately to more lives being lost.

So we need to make the truth known. If you are tired of the media bias and cover up, then share the facts, like those in this video which summarises some of what the public needs to know about Marie Stopes International which makes millions from killing babies and harming women.

Share this piece and any news or opinion piece challenging the consensus: write your own, join the conversation, force the truth out into the light. Be part of ending exploitation – and of the movement to provide women with better answers than abortion.

Reprinted with permission from The Life Institute

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Ryan T. Anderson

Opinion ,

The Supreme Court’s marriage ruling is outright judicial activism. Here’s how to respond.

Ryan T. Anderson
By Ryan Anderson

June 26, 2015 (DailySignal) -- Today is a significant setback for all Americans who believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, democratic self-government, and marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong: It should not have mandated all 50 states to redefine marriage.

This is judicial activismnothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage, and the court imposed its judgment about a policy matter that should be decided by the American people and their elected representatives. The court got marriage and the Constitution wrong today just like they got abortion and the Constitution wrong 42 years ago with Roe v. Wade. Five unelected judges do not have the power to change the truth about marriage or the truth about the Constitution.

Urge Congress to pass a marriage protection amendment now. Sign the petition!

The court summarized its ruling in this way—which highlights that they have redefined marriage, substituting their own opinion for that of the citizens:

The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central mean­ing of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.

Manifest to five unelected judges that is. Not to the majority of American citizens who voted to define marriage correctly. As Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in dissent:

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

That’s exactly right. When it comes to the majority opinion, the Constitution “had nothing to do with it.”

We must work to restore the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected officials to make marriage policy that reflects the truth about marriage. We the people must explain what marriage is, why marriage matters, and why redefining marriage is bad for society.

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

The government is not in the marriage business because it’s a sucker for adult romance. No, marriage isn’t just a private affair; marriage is a matter of public policy because marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage acts as a powerful social norm that encourages men and women to commit to each other so they will take responsibility for any children that follow.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

Because the court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant set-back to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.

Reprinted with permission from The Daily Signal.

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve

Blogs

It is time for another American Revolution to overthrow oppressors

Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve
By Steve Jalsevac

Today’s US Supreme Court ruling against the understanding for millennia that marriage can naturally only be the union of one man and one woman, although expected, is nevertheless a shocker. It is a shocker because of what we now understand are grave implications of the decision.

The concept of law is now further in shambles. It is ridiculed, gutted, and trashed by these judges who consider themselves to be a unilaterally declared new power over the American people.

They have made it very clear that they are an enemy of the American Republic and its original declarations and ideals.

Allan Parker, president of the Justice Foundation stated today, “The Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage shows written law is meaningless today in the United States.”

The decision affirms once again, as have a growing number of activist court decisions, that reason must not be allowed to overrule the particular biases and desires of a majority of the justices and those urging them to be as creative as necessary to arrive at demanded outcomes.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, stated today that what the majority of the court “has done is simply invent a constitutional right to same-sex 'marriage' out of thin air."

The decision is also seen as only the beginning of a next stage of efforts to radically change American society by forcing citizens, using this legal decision, to comply with the new social order.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

Brown says the rogue justices “have put in the crosshairs for persecution every American and group that believes in the truth of marriage.” “Indeed”, he says,

Justice Roberts noted that "ominously" the majority of the Court has not spoken to the right of people to exercise dissent from support for same-sex 'marriage.' Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas all worry aloud – rightly so – that it will not be long before cases will be brought involving punishment of people and groups by the government for not agreeing to go along with the new orthodoxy of marriage.

Brown further warns,

Already a top Obama lawyer has hinted that Christian schools and other nonprofit and charitable groups that refuse to go along might lose their tax exempt status. But it won't stop there. Soon, any lever of power the government can wield will be used to force compliance – whether that be the tax code, revocation of government contracts, new provisions in employment law, denial of access to services and benefits, etc. – whatever the federal government has at its disposal to force individuals and organizations to comply will be utilized.

Perhaps now many more Americans, especially the youth of the nation, will begin to comprehend that this same-sex “marriage” push is not at all what it has been presented to be. It is not about “equality”, “justice,” or preventing “hate.” It is instead revealing itself as a tool to destroy the concept of America and all the freedoms and strengths of the original Republic.

Quite frankly, the United States, with this decision may have entered into a new kind of civil war. Not a violent one, at least not yet by the opponents of America in America, but a brutal, destructive one nevertheless.

It is time for another American Revolution to overthrow oppressors.

View specific date
Print All Articles