Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Judge permits lawsuit against pastor for "bad speech":

A U.S. judge is allowing a lawsuit by a Ugandan homosexual group charging an Evangelical pastor with a “crime against humanity.” The American pastor is accused of violating international law for speaking against homosexuality and discussing legislation with Ugandan leaders.

Scott Lively, an attorney and author, runs the Holy Grounds coffee house in Massachusetts where coffee and Bibles are free and Sunday church services minister to homeless people, drug addicts and others. In 2009, he was invited to speak at a conference in Uganda where he said the goal of the homosexual movement is “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”

Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) accuses Lively of inciting “persecution” through public speaking and advising Ugandan leaders who introduced legislation against homosexuality. SMUG advocates for legal and social acceptance of lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, transgender and intersex people. It opposes legislation to strengthen anti-homosexuality laws.

The lawsuit describes several events in Uganda, such as a raid of SMUG’s office. Lively is not mentioned a “single time within the many pages of the complaint that describe” those events, said Liberty Counsel, the law firm representing Lively.

An event SMUG attempts to tie to Lively is the murder of David Kato, a co-leader of the group. The suit fails to mention a homosexual prostitute confessed to killing Kato over a dispute regarding payment. He was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

If SMUG is successful, any person “petitioning in opposition to special designations for homosexuals would become an international human rights criminal,” Lively’s attorney Horatio Mihet told WND.

The lawsuit is based on the Alien Tort Statute, a federal law that allows U.S. courts to hear cases on violations of the law of nations or a U.S. treaty. The Supreme Court recently ruled the statute does not apply to conduct that occurred outside the U.S.

The lawsuit appears to be “a meritless publicity stunt designed to harass Scott Lively into inaction,” a legal expert told the Friday Fax. The right to free speech in the U.S. bars “such nonsense” as holding someone legally liable for trying to convince people against an opposing idea.

The veteran litigator notes this could come back to haunt homosexual activists. SMUG’s theory would invite lawsuits against “homosexual activists who are trying to repress their own political and cultural opponents in foreign countries.”

In his decision, Judge Michael Ponsor described Ugandan leaders and legislators as “co-conspirators” with Lively. Ponsor said some officials consider “persecution” based on sexual orientation and gender identity “constitutes a crime against humanity that violates international norms,” but it is questionable whether it violates U.S. law.

Judge Ponsor made news in June when his first published novel, a legal thriller set in Massachusetts, was released. Posner originally aspired to be a writer, but after two unsuccessful novels re-directed his writing when he was appointed a judge.

Three decades ago, people like Stephen Fry were afraid that Reagan might start a nuclear war by accurately describing the Soviet Union as an "evil empire."

Poles, Czeks, dissidents, Jews were not worth standing up to the Soviet Union.

That was then, and now the issue is the really, really important issue of sexual liberation and Stephen Fry wants to declare war on Russia.

Crazyland...we live in Crazyland.

The Boy Scouts Changes its Admission Policies.

My thinking on the Boy Scouts change to admit boys with same sex attraction tracks that of Canonist Ed Peters. To wit, Catholicism teaches that is not licit to discriminate against those with same sex attraction and since the Boy Scouts is not endorsing homosexuality as normative, and since both homosexual and heterosexual Boy Scouts  are supposed to be chaste, I don't see the admission of boys with same sex attraction as being antithetical to the Boy Scout mission of teaching moral probity.

Of course, we may suspect based on past experience - with a suspicion bordering on ontological certainty - that this is not where it is going to end.  We know from past experience that the next move will be a demand to identify any teaching that heterosexual sex inside of marriage as being normative as "hateful" and "exclusive" and then the Boy Scouts will tip over into stewpot of post-modern morality.

We also know that as that tilt becomes more pronounced, the membership of the BSA will plummet even more than it has in the last 40 years.

But as Peters says, that hasn't happened yet.

Maybe it won't happen.

Tolerance - the moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another.

DOJ guidance states that silence about LGBT rights will be assumed to be disapproval.

Our sources have provided Liberty Counsel an internal DOJ document titled: “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” It was emailed to DOJ managers in advance of the left’s so-called “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month.”

The document is chilling. It’s riddled with directives that grossly violate – prima facie –employees’ First Amendment liberties.

Following are excerpts from the “DOJ Pride” decree. When it comes to “LGBT pride,” employees are ordered:

“DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” (Italics mine)

That’s a threat.

And not even a subtle one.

Got it? For Christians and other morals-minded federal employees, it’s no longer enough to just shut up and “stay in the closet” – to live your life in silent recognition of biblical principles (which, by itself, is unlawful constraint). When it comes to mandatory celebration of homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

This lawless administration is now ordering federal employees – against their will – to affirm sexual behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology reject.

Somewhere, right now, George Orwell is smiling.

The directive includes a quote from a “gay” federal employee to rationalize justification: “Ideally, I’d love to hear and see support from supervisors, so it’s clear that there aren’t just policies on paper. Silence seems like disapproval. There’s still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace (particularly for transgender people), or that people who bring it up are trying to rock the boat.”

Of course there’s “still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace.” When well over half of federal employees, half the country and most of the world still believe in objective sexual morality (and immorality), “the workplace,” especially the federal workplace, should, at the very least, remain neutral on these highly controversial and behavior-centric issues.

Still, to borrow from self-styled “queer activist,” anti-Christian bigot and Obama buddy Dan Savage, “it gets better”:

“DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.”

Is this the DOJ or the KGB? “[A]ssume that LGBT employees are listening …”? And what are “LGBT allies”? If you disagree with the homosexual activist political agenda, does that make you the enemy?

Yes, in any workplace, language should remain professional, but who defines what’s “inclusive”? Who decides what’s “respectful”? If asked about “LGBT issues,” for instance, can a Christian employee answer honestly: “I believe the Bible. I believe God designed sex to be shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage”? Or is that grounds for termination?

Honest Public Discourse. Honest Social Policy.

Rod Dreher makes a point about the "cheerleading" of the media on homosexual issues: (a) it distorts the perception of reality and (b) it masks policies that people wouldn't accept if they knew the true motivations of the proponents:

In a poll released last month, Gallup found that on average, Americans believe 25 percent or more of Americans are gay. This is, of course, crazy. In truth, social scientists estimate that only between two and five percent of Americans are gay. But if you were a reader of The New York Times, or a consumer of mainstream news and entertainment media, it’s easy to imagine why you would think that. In turn, if you really believe that one in four people in this country are gay, it’s bound to affect your views on the justice of same-sex marriage. If 25 percent of the people of this country cannot marry, well, that’s a huge deal, and it makes the concerns of those who worry about the long-term social effects of gay marriage, and questions of how religious liberty will fare under same-sex marriage, seem picayune.

According to the 2010 US Census, less than one percent (0.77 percent, to be precise) of all American households are constituted of a same-sex couple — and a statistical analysis paper on the Census website cautions that that number probably overestimates the number by 28 percent. The reader who pointed this out to me does the math, and says:

So how exactly do around 650,000 gay couples get to redefine marriage, stifle religious freedom, demand special rights, shut down adoption agencies, mandate the teaching of uncritical approval of homosexuality in schools, tear down the biological family, and tag anyone who disagrees with the label “hateful bigot?” Is there really some overwhelming new social consensus on gay “marriage,” or are we being marketed, manipulated, and maligned by our Ruling Classes into either agreeing with this brave new world or keeping our mouths shut?

There has been no discussion in The New York Times, or in the mainstream media, of the impact same-sex marriage will likely have on religious liberty under the US constitutional framework. I routinely talk with people on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue who haven’t even thought about it. The issue is well-known in legal circles, but is widely ignored by our media. I believe it’s ignored because it greatly complicates the case for same-sex marriage as a matter of politics. If more people understood how constitutionalizing same-sex marriage is likely to affect their churches, parochial schools, and religious institutions, as well as the public schools, they would be far more reticent, I believe, to support same-sex marriage. Or if they affirmed their support of same-sex marriage, they would be doing so from a better informed position, like that of Chai Feldblum, the Georgetown law professor, EEOC commissioner and gay rights activist who says that yes, advances in gay civil rights come at a substantial cost to religious liberties, but that on balance, it’s worth it. As she told Maggie Gallagher in 2006:

“Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

If only The New York Times and the mainstream media approached the same-sex marriage story with the honesty of Chai Feldblum! But they do not. It’s advocacy, all the way down, both in what the media choose to cover, how they choose to cover it, and — crucially — what they choose not to cover.

Is it the case that a .5% fraction should redefine the remaining 99.5%?

Likewise, do we really think that sexuality - something not mentioned in the Constitution - trumps religion - something that is?

Denmark makes it mandatory for churches to marry homosexuals.

Rights of conscience?

Freedom of Religion?

Screw that.

You. Must. Approve.

Notice the Orwellian doublespeak in this Telegraph story:

Gay Danish couples win right to marry in church

Homosexual couples in Denmark have won the right to get married in any church they choose, even though nearly one third of the country's priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies.

The country's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.

Denmark's church minister, Manu Sareen, called the vote "historic".

"I think it's very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married. Today, it's only heterosexual couples."

Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church.

The far-Right Danish People's Party mounted a strong campaign against the new law, which nonetheless passed with the support of 85 of the country's 111 MPs.

In other news, I've won the right to withdraw funds from your bank account. If your bank teller objects, the bank manager has to find a teller who will allow it.

Screw any bank or bank manager who has a conscience issue with the idea of "thou shalt not steal."

According to this Communio article, this is the logical end point of liberalism, which in a totalitarian fashion denies any right to exist to any principle apart from that of liberalism.

Perhaps that's true, but this is clearly a signal flare about what we are in for if we don't stand up to the violations of freedom of religion and conscience that we see all around us.

Although calling something "gay" is "bullying" to gay people, falsely saying that someone is "gay" when that person is not gay is not defamation...

...at least in New York.

Got that?

New York court rules that falsely calling someone "gay" is not "defamatory."

A court says it's no longer slander in New York to falsely call someone gay.

A mid-level appeals court on Thursday wiped out decades of rulings, including its own, to say that society no longer treats false comments that someone is gay, lesbian or bisexual as defamation. Without defamation, there is no longer slander, the court ruled.

"These appellate division decisions are inconsistent with current public policy and should no longer be followed," stated the unanimous decision written by Justice Thomas Mercure of the Appellate Division's Third Department based in Albany. While the decision sets new case law in New York now, it could still go to a definitive ruling by the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals.

To summarize:

Saying Justin Bieber is "gay" - OK.

Saying Justin Bieber's shirt is "so gay" - not OK.

Perhaps we should outlaw adjectives on general principle?

Mark Shea explains the deeper context:

On the other hand, however, is the fact that the gay movement is attempting to say that it is not immoral to give in to the temptation, which is equally rubbish. And since most people know this in their bones, the fact remains that calling somebody “gay” *is* still taken as somewhere between an insult and a titillating joke when the person is not, in fact, gay, while calling somebody “gay” when they are, in fact, gay mean “this person does things I would prefer not to dwell on too much and which I regard as, at best, morally unsound”. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself why Dan Savage called kids “pansy-asses” when he want to insult them and not, say, “fools” or some other less homosexually-charged insult. If he does not regard homosexual acts as, in some sense, wrong, why would he think it a particularly exquisite stab to suggest that Michele Bachmann’s husband was a closeted homosexual? If I want to insult Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden, I do not dig down into the mud and haul up the epithet “Catholic” to hurl at them because I think “Catholic” is a good thing. Dan Savage consistently acts as though “gay” is a bad thing when treating with his enemies.

Indeed, Savage and others betray a *profoundly* conflicted relationship to language when attempting to rationalize the gay lifestyle as a positive good. Most emblematic of this is the simultaneous attempt to shout down anybody who regards homosex as disgusting with the tired epithet “homophobe” while simultaneously laboring with might and main to turn the name Santorum into a term synonymous with all that is most disgusting about homosex. It’s a remarkably telling way of expressing hostility to identify your worst enemy with what you yourself do. The question that practically screams out of Savage’s behavior–and the behavior of the legions of other advocates of homosex who cooperated in his campaign–is “exactly whose behavior do you hate and find disgusting?”

All this betrays the fact that the whole attempt of the gay movement to torque the views of ordinary people past “tolerance” and to force active approval of homosex is deeply compromised by the fact that the advocates themselves know, at some deep level, that what they do is wrong and unnatural. Attempts to re-write human nature by judicial fiat not only won’t change popular attitudes toward homosex among straight people, they also won’t change it among gays like Dan Savage either. The primary losers of this court decision will be those who want to have their cake and eat it by insisting that homosex is great–while attempting to use the odium of homosex as a weapon against their enemies. Every schoolyard bully who says, “He’s so gay!” of some enemy can now point to this court ruling and preposterously claim, “I wasn’t slandering anybody”. Everybody will know it’s a lie, but guys like Dan Savage will have to agree with the bully–or acknowledge with their words what they already acknowledge with the actions: that there is indeed an odium that attaches to homosex which they themselves exploit even as they deny doing so.

Sin is built on lies. Lies eventually collapse under their own weight of self-contradiction.

Or - to repeat - perhaps we should just outlaw adjectives?

How does gay marriage affect your marriage?

Well, for one, it could get you or your spouse banned from public if you dare to express opposition to it.

Spot the rich, creamy, ironic hypocrisy here:

The “tolerant” same-sex marriage left has struck again – this time, at the popular hangout The Grove, in Los Angeles. The owner of The Grove, Rick Caruso, tweeted that iconic boxing great and Philippines Congressman Manny Pacquiao would not be allowed “on the premises” thanks to Pacquiao’s outspoken opposition to same-sex marriage. “Boxer Manny Pacquiao is not welcome @TheGroveLA,” he tweeted. “@TheGroveLA is a gathering place for all Angelenos, not a place for intolerance.” Pacquiao was supposed to do an interview today with “Extra” at The Grove.

Although I think that property owners have a right to control the property they own, that option has been foreclosed by wiser heads that mine. California Civil Code Section 51et. seq. - the Unruh Act - prohibits discrimination by business establishments based on "personal characteristics," including personal beliefs. Semler v. General Electric Capital Corp., 196 Cal. App. 4th 1380, 1394 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2011)("In Koebke, the court commented that the personal characteristics enumerated in the Act “represent traits, conditions, decisions, or choices fundamental to a person's identity, beliefs and self-definition.” (Koebke, at pp. 842–843, italics added.)

It seems that Pacquiao may have a claim for discrimination against the Grove.

“How does my gay neighbor’s marriage to his partner affect me?”

Well, not much, unless casting a pinch of incense at the altar of gay marriage becomes a requirement of civil society, in which case a great deal.

And sacrificing at the altar of gay marriage is becoming a requirement of civil society according to Rod Dreher:

If the Obama administration has its way, all US military chaplains will have to do so. Excerpt:

The Obama administration “strongly objects” to provisions in a House defense authorization bill that would prohibit the use of military property for same-sex “marriage or marriage-like” ceremonies, and protect military chaplains from negative repercussions for refusing to perform ceremonies that conflict with their beliefs, according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

If this goes through, the Catholic and the Orthodox chaplains will have to be withdrawn from the US military. Many Evangelical chaplains will choose to leave. If same-sex marriage is constitutionalized by Supreme Court ruling, then I don’t see how even a legislative exemption would be possible. This is another one of the answers to the question, “How does my gay neighbor’s marriage to his partner affect me?”

Erin Manning, who sent this link along, writes about possible implications beyond the military:

What it’s going to come down to, eventually, is this: “Oh, I’m sorry, Catholic Church/Orthodox Church/Protestant churches who agree with them re: marriage: you either perform gay “marriages,” or we take away your right to participate in civil marriage licensing. Everyone else can get married in a church and have it “count” for the purpose of their civil marriage license, but Catholics and other “bigots” will have to “marry” in front of a judge or something and then have the church ceremony which won’t mean anything in the eyes of the state.”

It’s coming.

Mark Shea observes:

This is the hubristic tyrant who, just this past December, tried to decree to the Lutherans who they could and could not ordain and got smashed flat by a 9-0 decision by SCOTUS. The arrogance of this Administration is boundless. Anybody who thinks they don’t mean to punish orthodox Christians for incorrect thought simply doesn’t grasp the Left’s bottomless capacity for self-righteousness.

The Anti-Catholic Wedge Strategy...

...and the role of nationalist Catholics.

As I've pointed out before, the historic Anti-Catholic "wedge" strategy has involved playing off the understandable love that Catholics have for their local community, their secular community, whether that community be a nation, a people or a party, against their loyalty to an institution that transcends time and space. This translates into a conflict within the the local community between Catholics who identify more with the papacy - ultramontane Catholics - and those who identify more with the local community - "national" Catholics, perhaps, or anti-ultramontane Catholics.

You can see this playing out with anti-ultramontane Catholics like Nancy Pelosi attempting to co-opt the name of "Catholic" for her political ideology. After misrepresenting Catholic teaching on abortion, Pelosi is now claiming that Catholicism mandates same-sex marriage:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that her Catholic faith “compels” her to “be against discrimination of any kind” and thus for same-sex marriage.

A reporter asked Pelosi: “Many of the people that are opposed to gay marriage cite their religion as the reason why they’re opposed. You’re a Catholic that supports gay marriage. Do you believe that religion and the idea that you can support gay marriage can be separated? And how do you grapple with the idea that you support gay marriage as a Catholic?”

Pelosi responded: “My religion has, compels me–and I love it for it–to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination. I think it’s unconstitutional on top of that. ”

Pelosi spoke glowingly of the comments President Barack Obama made Wednesday when he said he supported same-sex marriage.

“So I think that yesterday was a great day for America because the president in a very personal, as well as presidential way, made history, and hopefully this will bring people together on the issue,” Pelosi said.

This attempt is properly slapped down by Mark Shea:

Pelosi Demonstrates, Yet Again, that Her Faith

…is not the Catholic Faith.

Sorry, Nancy, but the Catholic faith is not esoteric. It is not “whatever I feel deeply in my heart”. It is the faith once given to the apostles and handed down to us through the Holy Catholic Church.

And:

If you feel something deeply in your heart that is directly contrary to the faith handed down to the Church, that is not a confirmation from the Holy Spirit that you are right and the Church is wrong. It is confirmation that you are in rebellion against Jesus Christ and should repent. You are also, in this case, giving public scandal (i.e. tempting others to sin) and stand in grave danger of tying a millstone around your own neck as you tempt little ones to sin. God forgive you.

Oh, and by the way, Nancy, don’t try the trick of suddenly turning around and saying that the Church has no business sticking its nose into marriage now. You are the one who decided to play the “I’m saying this because I’m Catholic” card. Don’t want to be corrected about what that Catholic teaching is? Don’t lie about Catholic teaching.

Elizabeth Scalia shares what Pelosi is really doing, giving "talking points" to Catholics who want or need to privilege their allegiance to the secular community over that to their transcendent community.

Right on schedule, Nancy Pelosi tries to do what Ted Kennedy and Mario Cuomo have done before her: give talking points to Catholics who wish to hop on to policy that flies in the face of church teaching.

You’ll recall it was Kennedy (and later Cuomo) who gave voice to the corkscrew notion that one could be “personally opposed” to abortion but too broad-minded to “impose my views on others.”

Because, as you know, modern-day liberals would never presume to impose their views on others, not at all. The HHS Mandate? Pffffft!…it’s not imposing anything on Catholic institutions! It’s just making them do the right thing!

Kennedy’s duplicitous language was effective, though. It informed whole generations of very cowardly Catholic politicians and others.

Scalia shares my view that the end-point of the wedge strategy is the formation of a national Catholic Church:

The handwriting was on the wall, even then. At the very least, those churches who will not capitulate and permit gay marriages in their buildings (or recognize them in their institutions) will be forced out into the periphery of the public square, as the HHS Mandate is already trying to do.

Worst case scenario? Well, I get yelled at when I say this but the worst-case scenario — and I think it’s inevitable — will be a schism and the creation of an American Catholic Church, one that works very closely with the government to “do the right thing” and reaps its worldly rewards, both material and elitist. It will claim apostolic succession as I have no doubt at all that some bishop in the US will be willing to act as titular head, and it will likely — with the help of the government (via fines, settlements, levies) — quickly lay claim to (or be awarded) Roman Catholic properties.

This outcome isn't surprising to anyone who pays attention to history.

Is America's Pro-Gay Foreign Policy Going to Endanger World Peace?

American Liberals have had two guiding principles in foreign policy during the Obama years: First, apologize for imposing American values on the world. Second, impose pro-gay policies on Third World countries.

The irony of the cognitive dissonance in these policies has been lost on liberals because the policies have been essentially cost-free, in that the countries we are imposing our values on are - go figure - countries without substantial leverage against America.

That might be changing as Russia implements anti-gay legislation, to wit, criminalizing the "propagandizing of homosexualism among minors."

It will be interesting to see which of the two leftist tropisms - pro-socialism or pro-moral libertinism - wins the struggle.

Thoughtcrime in Canada.

From the "You.Must.Approve." file.

Lesbian with kids in Catholic school demands removal of Catechism quote on homosexuality

BOWMANVILLE, Ontario, March 16, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A self-proclaimed ‘lesbian’ whose two children attend a Catholic school near Peterborough is demanding that the Peterborough Catholic school board remove a Catechism quote dealing with homosexuality from a school pamphlet. Ann Michelle Tesluk has started an online petition to pressure the board to action and describes her activities as gearing to make the Catholic Church into an “openly gay friendly church.”

The pamphlet in question, however, is controversial from more than one perspective. While quoting the Catechism that the homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered”, the pamphlet also misrepresents Catholic teaching in numerous ways. The pamphlet calls on schools to highlight homosexual role models and familiarize students with terms like “LGBTQQ” and “two-spirited.” It indicates that Canada legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2005 without mentioning that the Church opposes such unions.

Greg Reeves, director of education for the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland Clarington Catholic District School Board (PVNCCDSB), told LifeSiteNews that they have had enough complaints about the pamphlet, called The Colour of Equity, to give the wording a “relook” to see if they can explain the Church’s teaching better.

The trustees voted 6 to 8 last Tuesday against a request to remove the passage, but Nancy Sharpe, the board’s head of communications, said that the pamphlet has been sent for review to the Equity and Inclusive Education committee.

That's right two trustees found Catholic doctrine too controversial for a Catholic school, but have no problem teaching students that homosexuality is just another lifestyle option.

Right up there with "keep the government out of the bedroom unless it is writing a check for what goes on in the bedroom" comes this example of "respecting the right of privacy...

...unless government funding is at stake."

Incoming UC Students May Be Asked To Declare Their Sexual Orientation:

In January, the Academic Senate recommended that upon accepting admission offers from a University of California school students should have the option of identifying themselves as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender.

The UC Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools had mixed reactions but agreed that the question would allow them to collect important statistical information. They recommended putting the question on the SIR forms instead of college applications to protect students’ privacy.

The news made the front page of UCLA’s campus paper Daily Bruin and is stirring controversy across UC campuses.

Supporters say the declaration will help campuses better plan for the needs of LGBT students.

Queer Alliance Board member Luis Roman said he has spoken with university officials about the proposal, which he enthusiastically supports, because he believes it will bring badly needed services for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students.

Some members of that community believe it would show that there are many more LGBT students than university officials realize.

“I think the numbers are way bigger than we really imagine or know,” Roman said.

Coming soon - affirmative action for the "differently gendered."

Mark Shea observes:

Heresy Often Tend to Mutate Into its Opposite

Feminism often winds up struggling to de-feminize women. Secular liberation movements end in chains for massive portions of the population. Soviets who promised bread, peace and land wound up starving their citizens, plunging into war, and taking all their land.

And lefties who start out claiming that the right to privacy trumps the law of God end by saying the State has the right to pry into everybody’s sexual orientation.

Lunacy.

Playing "Spot the Idiots."

A fourteen year old girl dares - dares! - to defend traditional marriage and the tolerant forces of the Enlightenment immediately call for her death:

If I ever see this girl, I will kill her. That’s a promise.”

Wake up America. The voices that preach tolerance are turning violent. This time the target is an innocent young girl, Sarah Crank, who testified before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in support of traditional marriage.

The calm, truthful testimony of a 14-year-old minor – without profanity or harsh language – generated vulgar attacks, threats of violence and even death wishes divulged on numerous pro-homosexual websites, blogs, and comment entries. In fact, pro-homosexual activists unleashed a campaign of harassment against the Maryland family, including a call to have the mother’s parental rights revoked for simply encouraging her daughter to defend the reality of marriage between one man and one woman.

Violent Reactions

“And now everyone knows her name, so hopefully she will feel what its like to be harassed and bullied…” reads a comment posted on LGBTQNation.com

From YouTube: “My god I hate people like this. Most (not all) Americans are [expletive] retards. If I ever see this girl, I will kill her. That’s a promise.”

Other entries: “Her parents should be exterminated.”

“The [sic] is why abortion must stay legal – to prevent little bigots like this from being Born…”

“Kill this child and his [sic] parent, for my 11 birthday would be a wonderful gift, thanks.”

“Her belief is hurting other people. I will attack her as much as I please.”

“Parents like hers should be sterilized…”

Mark Shea also points to this example of a 16 year old atheist who blew the whistle on a "school prayer" banner long-ensconced on the walls of a high school auditorium. Apparently, although we aren't told what was said, the angry reaction prompted her to get a police escort for some period of time. Given human nature and what passes for public discourse in this era, we can probably write out what is being said by cutting and pasting from atheist/homosexual hate screeds against theists.

Needless to say, if there was anything said similar to what was said by against the 14 year old traditional marriage supporter, shame on them. From the article, I couldn't see anything like that, albeit, perhaps, calling the girl "evil" is over the top, but even that statement is qualified by the observation that "it's not her fault." What I saw was speech well within the bounds of civil discourse as compared to the steaming pile of hate that I can read in any number of comment threads on liberal/homosexual sites.

The amazing thing to me is how this banner has managed to remain in place for the last 60 years. One would have thought that by now the principle that prayers are not permitted in schools would have reached every corner of this great "naked public square" we call America. Of course, one answer is that no one really saw this as a prayer; rather it was probably understood as being a motto, a set of pious platitudes, much like "In God we Trust."

How the United Methodist Church developed that winning policy of inclusiveness...

...that has caused its numbership to decline by over half in the last 30 years.

According to Karen Booth writing at the Ben Witherington Blog it was outsider activists who targeted the UMC, the PCUSA and the ELCA:

In 2006 the Roundtable released its first joint research project: a landmark study entitled David v. Goliath. More than half of the report focused on pro-gay caucuses in the Protestant mainline churches—“the backbone of American religion.” If these denominations could be won over to the pro-gay cause, “it would … be a tremendous moral victory for the LGBT community,” said the report. Three of the denominations (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church U.S.A, and The United Methodist Church) were singled out for special attention specifically because of their denominational decision-making processes. Because their legislative gatherings were essentially democratic in nature, they were more susceptible to pro-gay advocacy than other autocratic or autonomous Christian bodies. Because they were conducted on a church-wide basis, greater numbers of people, including those that lived internationally, could be reached. So their general assemblies and conferences were identified as the best settings to introduce and foster proposals for theological and moral revision.

David V. Goliath also challenged secular activists to recognize the political advantages of working with people of faith and to support their new friends with intellectual, political, and financial resources. In 2005 the Human Rights Campaign (the largest national group with over one million members) harkened to the call, starting its “Religion and Faith” Program with the help of a former United Methodist student pastor named Harry Knox. Committed to influencing the “moveable middle,” the Program’s most recent focus has been Hispanic believers. A comprehensive pro-gay resource entitled A La Familia was written and edited by retired United Methodist pastor Ignacio Castuera and Iliff Seminary Professor Miguel De La Torre.

And:

Of the three mainline denominations specifically targeted in the David V. Goliath report, only The United Methodist Church has managed to hold the line on traditional moral teaching. But leaders from the Reconciling movement have gone on record predicting that the 2012 General Conference will finally reward them with long-awaited victory. At the very least, they expect compromise legislation to be passed that would enact policies stating United Methodist are “not of one mind” about homosexuality. For Lutherans and Presbyterians, that was the first step toward the downhill slide to full inclusion.

In order to prevent that, morally traditional General Conference 2012 delegates will have to be winsome and outspoken witnesses to the biblical truth about sexuality. Moderate delegates, some of whom may be stuck in the gray area of the “moveable middle,” need to realize that compromise has not served us well for the last 40 years and could very well destroy us in the long run. And all the delegates, even those who are liberal or progressive, should express outrage over the non-Methodist and non-Christian “outsider” influence and money that have been manipulating our system.

We in The United Methodist Church cannot afford to tolerate that kind of unscrupulous interference, and we must not allow it to sway us to overturn two millennia of Christian moral teaching on a cultural whim. If we do, then perhaps we are no longer the Church that Christ founded and for which he died.

No wonder the Methodists felt that they had a winning proposition in "inclusiveness"; they were getting glad-handed by a bunch of non-Methodist secularists. That must have made them feel that they were "that close" to winning over a whole new population to Methodism.

Little did it occur to them that growth does not come from alienating the 90% of your constituency for 2%, particularly when the 90% can and - all things being equal - will have children and the 2% - all things being equal - won't.

And there's a lesson in there for all Christian churches.

Hey, maybe we should stop being so understanding now...

...before they can send us to their Gulags.

From Robert George's Mirror of Justice:

"What will happen to Catholics and others . . . ?"

One of my superstar former students, writing about his experience at one of our nation's premier law schools, sent me a note after reading my MOJ post on marriage, religious liberty, and the "grand bargain." Here is the text, with names removed to protect the innocent:

I had a first-hand experience with this reality in law school. One of my constitutional law professors taught the section of our course relating to same-sex marriage under the "inevitability" banner. I met with him in office hours later to talk to him about something else, but I brought up a question that I have been wrestling with: if the SSM advocates are right and opposition to SSM becomes analogous to racism in our society, what will happen to Catholics and others whose views on SSM cannot and will not change? Are they to be excluded from public office, political and judicial appointments, or places of trust and responsibility within private institutions (e.g., law firm partnerships)? I posed the question to him because I was curious to hear his response, since he is generally a kind and reasonable person who seemed open to other viewpoints.

His response was very disappointing, and it shook my confidence in him. He responded to me by saying something along the lines of: "Well, they [Catholics and others] will either have to change their views or be treated in the same way that white supremacists and the segregationist Senators were treated. They were excluded from the judiciary entirely for decades because of the South's views on race."

He evinced no sympathy for the traditional marriage position or those who hold it. They were to be relegated to the ash heap of history. He said all of this to me knowing full well (because I had foolishly just told him) that I was a Catholic who opposed SSM.

Is anyone prepared to say that the view expressed by the professor is merely a fringe opinion in the contemporary academy? Is anyone prepared to say that it is the view of only a small minority, or a minority at all, in what University of Virginia sociologist Jonathan Haidt calls the liberal tribal-moral community of contemporary academia? Would anyone deny that there is a significant element in the elite sector of the culture---an element with real power over the lives and careers of people like my former student---that wishes to penalize or discriminate against those who refuse in conscience to yield to the liberal orthodoxy on issues of sex and marriage? Consider the professors own words. He made no effort to hide his goals and intentions. On the contrary, he made it abundantly clear that Catholics and others who persist in their dissent are to be treated the way we treat white supremacists. They are to be stigmatized, subjected to discrimination, and denied the right to hold certain offices.

And this professor, as my student observed, is a "generally a kind and reasonable person who seems open to other viewpoints." What are we to expect, then, from those who are even less "open to other viewpoints"?

When this kind of thing happens we can only conclude that we are either being drafted into a world of lies and delusions or...

...somebody is playing history's most subtle practical joke on us.

Macy's pro-LGBT policy requires that males who "identify" as women be allowed to use women's changing rooms:

Perhaps you were unaware of Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s LGBT-friendly dressing room policy. At Macy’s, a man who is dressed as a woman is permitted to use the women’s fitting rooms. I’m sure Macy’s women shoppers don’t mind. Right, women?

It gets worse. Apparently, in San Antonio, Texas, a Macy’s employee was recently fired from her job for not permitting a young man in drag to enter the women’s dressing room.

A young woman was fired from the Macy’s San Antonio Rivercenter department store for refusing to violate her religious beliefs by permitting a young man dressed as a woman from entering the women’s dressing room. Natalie Johnson claims she saw the young man walk out of the women’s fitting room and politely told him that he could not go back in because it was for women only. The cross-dressing young man claimed that he is a “female.” Johnson said that he was wearing make-up and girl’s clothing, but clearly he was a male. The cross-dresser was accompanied by five other individuals. The group argued with expletives that Macy’s is LGBT-friendly, to which Johnson replied that Macy’s is also non-discriminatory toward religion, and that it would go against her religious beliefs to lie that he was a woman or compromise with homosexuality. The group then demanded to speak with a manager.

When Johnson was confronted by her employer, she explained that she could not allow a male to change in a female’s fitting room. Johnson’s boss referred her to Macy’s LGBT policy which allows “transgender” people to change in any dressing room they want. However, Johnson pointed out that the same policy also protects against religious discrimination and, in this case, it protects her right to her beliefs that were being violated. The manager demanded that she comply with the LGBT policies or lose her job. Johnson refused to go against her sincerely held religious beliefs and was terminated from her job.

Now, I can’t imagine why Macy’s found it necessary to fire this young woman, especially at the height of the Christmas shopping season. Presumably with the boss standing right there, Johnson’s cooperation or permission wasn’t needed to allow the “female” shopper access to the women’s fitting rooms. I’m also not clear from the report why Natalie felt that allowing the cross-dresser into the women’s fitting rooms would constitute a “lie” on her part. Perhaps her job involved keeping track of the number of male and female shoppers in the fitting rooms at any given time.

What does seem to be clear is that Macy’s and its affiliate Bloomingdale’s would apparently rather cater to the antisocial demands of a tiny percentage of the population than make the vast majority of its customers comfortable. I can’t imagine that many women would appreciate bumping into a man in drag in the corridor of the women’s dressing rooms. Assuming he’s even in drag—after all, women can wear pretty much anything men can wear. What’s to stop a guy in jeans and a T-shirt from barging into the women’s dressing rooms, declaring himself a woman?

Freedom of conscience - it's not for liberals anymore.

Toleration - the moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another.

Mark Shea writes about the directive issued to all military chaplains that they must forthwith marry men to men and women to women as directed by the Revelation of St. Secularism or else:

Leftist Authoritarians Love to Use the Military…

…as a laboratory for social experimentation. Why? Because the military is sworn to obey orders. So while its a dodgy proposition that a leftist authoritarian will get the courts to impose some new experimental regime on free citizens, he can always simply command the military to impose some demented idea on the troops and they *have* to do it cuz it’s orders.

However, even the military has its limits. So the Administration’s most recent attempts to say, “Tolerance is not enough. You. MUST. Approve of gay marriage!” are being met with resistance by the fact that thousands of military chaplains are finding ways to resist the demand that they perform gay “marriage”.

The Godfather Politics provides the source material:

On September 30, 2011, the Pentagon issued a directive to all military chaplains to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies and to make military chapels available for any such private ceremonies.

In response to the Pentagon directive, the Catholic Archdiocese for Military Service issued a statement that no Catholic chaplains serving in the military will perform or participate in any same-sex marriage ceremonies at any military chapels. In conjunction with the Catholic response, members of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty have issued a statement indicating that they will also not participate in performing same-sex ceremonies.

The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty represents over 2,000 military chaplains. Serving as a military chaplain for 28 years, now retired Col. Ron Crews, executive director of the organization said,

“They made a very strong statement saying that no Catholic chaplains serving in the military will participate in any same-sex ceremonies at any chapels. We appreciate that strong stand. So we just wanted to let the Department of Defense know that it’s not only the Catholic chaplains, but that some 2,000 chaplains who come from evangelical backgrounds are saying our chaplains will not participate in same-sex ceremonies in the military.”

Col. Crews also said that they are petitioning Congress to pass a right of conscience clause to be added to the revised code allowing military chaplains the right of not being forced to conduct or be involved in any activity, such as performing same-sex marriage ceremonies, that goes against their religious beliefs and what they strongly believe the Bible to say about homosexuality.

Tolerance - the moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another...

...which is why Conservatives are now the principled defenders of Free Speech.



Via Mark Shea.

Tolerance is the moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another.

'Teacher of the Year' suspended for Facebook comment.

A Florida teacher has been suspended and removed from the classroom in Mount Dora, Florida, for comments made on his Facebook page against homosexual "marriage." Liberty Counsel will be representing the teacher in court.


The comments by Mount Dora High School teacher Jerry Buell were posted on his Facebook page on his personal time, using his home computer. Those comments reflected the mainstream view that marriage should be between one man and one woman. According to a Liberty Counsel press release, the history and government teacher expressed his view that homosexuality is a sin and that seeing two "grooms" kissing on a news story revolted him.

Here is the coverage of the story on MSNBC.