New York Times Ad Decrying DNC collusion with anti-Catholic group https://www.catholicleague.org/ads/nytimes_cffc.htm Australian Bill Seeks to Deny Secrecy of the Confessional https://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,7299527%255E2682,00.html
ADL director calls Gibson ‘anti-Semite’ Abraham Foxman lashes out at actor over statements about ‘The Passion’ https://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34691 Pregnant teen’s death under investigation East Bay woman had taken RU-486, according to father https://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/09/19/BA258408.DTL PLANNED SIGNING OF CALIFORNIA HOMOSEXUAL ‘‘MARRIAGE’’ BILL TODAY https://www.traditionalvalues.org/article.php?sid=1175 Questions and Answers: What’s Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples “Marry?” https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01&f=PG03103 The Supreme Court Rules – First Things By Michael M. Uhlmann – Judicial supremacy means that on essentially all matters that determine who and what we are as a political society, the Supreme Court both makes the rules and, through its opinions, sets the parameters for public debate. – The modern Court, in a word, dominates constitutional law in a manner that has no precedent in American history. – the public is by now so well inured to judicial supremacy and the concept of a living Constitution that it has lost the capacity to be shocked by the Court’s opinions. – It is bad enough that we do not know in which direction the Court will take us next when only domestic law is at issue. Do we now have to worry that foreign law and custom will be read into the Constitution as well? https://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0310/articles/uhlmann.html The Marriage Amendment – First Things “a severe intensification of what is rightfully called the culture war.” – The proposed marriage amendment has been carefully crafted by leading constitutional scholars. The first sentence means that no legislature or court may confer the name of marriage on same-sex unions or recognize a same-sex marriage contracted in another country, such as Canada or the Netherlands. The second sentence is aimed more specifically at activist courts, both state and federal, preventing them from imposing same-sex marriage or its equivalent. – They (gay activists) have by now produced a large literature in support of what they themselves describe as a social revolution that would replace traditional marriage and family with a wide array of “family” arrangements constructed on the basis of expressive individualism and the maximizing of erotic options. – Nobody can know whether same-sex marriage would, in fact, help domesticate the gay subculture. We do know, however, that it would radically change the customs, laws, and moral expectations embedded in millennia of human experience. – One of the most fundamental prerequisites of social order, it has been almost universally recognized, is the containment of the otherwise unbridled sexual activity of the human male, and marriage is-among the many other things that marriage is-the primary instrument of that necessary discipline. – Marriage and family law is, above all, about children. – What is called homophobia is more accurately understood as a positive judgement regarding the common good and, most particularly, the well-being of children. – it must be candidly acknowledged that gay demands and agitations today are not unrelated to patterns of sexual hedonism in the general culture. – One way or another, the Constitution will be amended. If it is amended by the judiciary, as the Supreme Court did in its 1973 invention of an unlimited abortion license, we will almost certainly enter upon a severe intensification of what is rightfully called the culture war. https://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0310/editorial.html