Suckas take heed

Can they be stopped? It appears not. I am talking about courts ruling (in this case preemptively) in areas where it should be up to the people of the state or nation. We have the Supreme Court overruling the will of the people in Texas, and now the Massachusetts Supreme Court is preemptively ruling that a homosexual marriage ban is unconstitutional. Apparently such a ban would interfere with the right to individual autonomy and the right to equality under the law. I haven't read the Massachusetts Constitution, but it seems strange to me that the court said a ban on homosexual marriage would interfere with the "constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law." Whence are these "principles" established? I'd really like to see them. Why not just say, "we really can't find anything in the Constitution that would rule out a ban on homosexual marriage, but we really don't like that idea" instead of making up some nonsense like this? It is also strange to me that the court talks about "the community" and then talks immediately after about "individual autonomy." Seriously, are these two things compatible? I do not think one can have real autonomy and still be subject to some laws of a community, even if this country has decided that the law is really just how we want it at a certain time. Better throw out any constitution, then.
I also have a problem with this "equality under the law" talk. There is equality under the law for those who wish to get married. Marriage is defined, from time immemorial, as one man and one woman. Who ever heard of marriage ever EVER being defined in any other way? The court ruling I mentioned yesterday about adultery confirms this. If marriage is and always has been between one man and one woman, then all people have a right to get married. If they choose to love a person of the same sex, or someone who is not of age (hmm, that would be an interesting case study for this ruling), or an animal, they CANNOT GET MARRIED. It is as simple as that. If this is really about personal autonomy and equality under the law, then what argument can there be against people "marrying" more than one person? The government is interfering with personal autonomy and has said those people do not have equal rights to marriage. What argument can there be against NAMBLA? The government is interfering with the individual autonomy of a man to marry a boy, and is saying those men and boys don't have equal protection under the law. And it gets ridiculous. I hope (against hope) that the U.S. Supreme Court can clear this mess up before every possible sexual perversion becomes "marriageable."

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

You know, I was at first against the ruling (see article here) that a woman who had a lesbian relationship was not committing adultery because adultery is between a man and a woman, one or both of whom are married. However, Jeff Jacoby has partially changed my mind. He argues that this will actually bolster the case in favor of defining marriage as between one man and one woman (a legal definition that was never before needed in the history of the world; it was simply known). Read his column here.
See, if adultery (which, by definition, has to do with marriage) is defined as only being possible between a man and a woman, doesn't it necessarily follow that marriage must be between a man and a woman? But don't count on the courts to follow logic; the special interest groups have much bigger pull in legislative courts (I know, I also used to think that was an oxymoron).
I'm still a little concerned that this might teach children that some sexual activity outside of marriage is not adulterous, but that's why we have parents, right? Right?

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

You just have to love the Northwest. Out of Portland, OR, which (I've heard) has the largest population of lesbians in the United States (world?), comes this editorial by Dorothy Leman of Bend. She is upset that the Episcopal Church hasn't defended homosexual behavior as compatible with Holy Scripture. She is incredulous that her church hasn't "trumpeted" the Scripture that "has made Christianity home to me ["her", lest you be confused by the pronoun] and many other lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people." What examples does she muster? Is. 56:1-7 and Matt. 8:5-13. It amazes me the lengths to which sinners will go (myself included) to make Scripture say what they want. However, I try not to have completely specious arguments and examples, such as these. There is no evidence whatsoever (that means none) that these have anything to do with homosexuality or are in any way comparable. Is. 56 has to do with eunuchs "who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast to my covenant...." You tell me, are those who engage in homosexual behavior, however "sexually different" eunuchs are, keeping the covenant of God? (I do not say that that is how one is saved, but in keeping with Leman's argument...) Perhaps Leman missed the part of the covenant that has to do with homosexuality being an abomination in the sight of Yahweh.
The passage from the Gospel of Matthew is so distorted in Leman's mind, I can't recognize it when I read it. Is she really suggesting that the centurion was a homosexual, and he came to Jesus so that He would heal his homosexual lover/servant? Give me a break, seriously. These are the kinds of leaps homosexual "Christians" have to make to force the Bible into their own twisted interpretations of right and wrong.
"Ok, the Bible contains passages that explicitly and implicitly deny homosexual behavior to be pleasing to God. Hmm, I know, let's find passages that, in our addled brains, contain any hint of homosexual behavior and jump through billions of hermeneutical leaps of faith to make them fit. Yeah!" I know the Bible is hard to read some places, but these passages have nothing to do with homosexual sin. Sorry, try again. Better yet, don't try again, and accept the judgment of God that we are all sinners (homosexual sin being one manifestation of that disease), and that we all must be forgiven through the blood of Christ. Ask a homosexual sometime who goes to church if he/she believes in original sin. I would be willing to bet that nine times out of ten they say no. This is because they would then be forced to admit that they too are sinners, and repentance is necessary for salvation. But here's the tricky part: repentance involves a complete change of mind, not just lip-service. No one, no one, who becomes a Christian is able to stay the same as they were before. It simply is not possible to "Christianize" the former lifestyle, whether that be drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, or whatever. Baptism, which is entry into the Christian faith, is about death to the old nature, not about reformation (unless that be re-formation). We do not reform our Old Adam, we kill him. It is akin to the death penalty as opposed to reform school. But the homosexuals do not even want reform school, they want a ticker-tape parade for being able to be "themselves." In fact, this is antithetical to Christianity; Christians do not want to be themselves, they want to be God's selves. Not Godself, but the selves that God wants us to be. Sorry, that doesn't involve any forms or types of sin, including homosexual sin, adultery, fornication, or anything else. Be holy as I am holy, Yahweh says.
Perhaps the problem here is that we have this false idea in American Christianity that we get to heaven by making ourselves holy. This seems to be what Leman is reacting against. She claims that Christians want her to change before she can become a Christian, and she holds up against this the idea that "all you need is faith." She is right, in that faith alone saves. However, once God has given a person the gift of faith, wouldn't it be the extreme ingratitude if one were to remain in sin? St. Paul says as much, "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." Leman's got the overthrowing part down; now she should remember the second half of Romans 3:31. If this is how Episcopalians read Scripture, and by all indications it is, then there really is no hope for them to remain inside Christendom (if they still are within it, that is).

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Hey, it's been a few days, but now I have a little more time.

Concerning the Bishop of Chester, who said (of all things) that homosexuals could probably change their orientation. Now the student body of the school that is under Bishop Peter Forster's supervision is calling for his resignation.
According to the article: "Vice president Lyndsay Jackson, who believes the Bishop must go, said: 'We are in discussions with students' union members as to what the most appropriate action should be. We believe that as chairman of governors he should reflect what students' views are. Everyone is allowed their opinion but when you are a public figure you should be careful you do not incite hatred against any section of society."
I don't know for sure how the authority structure works in the Church of England, but it would seem obvious that the first responsibility of the Bishop of Chester is to the Church of which he is a bishop, would it not? Instead, these students think that his first responsibility is to them. Did I mention this is a Church of England school? Now, apparently, not only can the Bishop not represent the position of his Church, a school of his Church doesn't need to either. If the students, or the majority of them, find this position unacceptable, they should either leave willingly or be expelled. Why should they be allowed to tell the school and the bishop, and indeed the Church, what their position should be? No wonder the Brits have such a hard time with Pres. Bush and P.M. Blair!

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Christianity Today's weblog had updates today on both the stories of the Bishop of Chester and the former lesbian who was told not to expose her daughter to anything homophobic.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Okay, imagine this: there is a country, in which a bishop of the Church is investigated by police for making comments about whether homosexuals are able to change their orientation (presumably with the help of Christ, but one can never be too sure about those things). Well, you don't have to imagine. Apparently it's a hate crime in England to suggest such a thing. According to Christianity Today's weblog for 11/10/03 , Peter Forster is being investigated by the police for comments he made about a report on sexuality. I suppose it is not surprising, but, really, how quickly can this world go south? Maybe I should stop reading the news. Apparently, in a "civilized society" it is not acceptable (or "totally unacceptable," according to the chief of police there) for Christians to hold beliefs contrary to the prevailing notions (whatever, and I mean whatever, they are) of society. Christians better start speaking up, or there no longer will be any opportunities to speak. But I am not a fatalist, which means that this doesn't have to happen. Take the opportunities you are given to speak, no matter how small the injustice may seem. It may start small, but so do avalanches.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

For more commentary on the partial-birth abortion ban, see William F. Buckley's most recent column.

Here's a good example of the complete and utter moral capitulation of the Democratic presidential hopefuls: John Kerry claimed, in front of an adoring crowd of women in favor of "planning parenthood," that there is no such thing as a partial birth. I wonder what euphemism he made up for the abortion procedure where a baby is taken all the way out of its mother's womb, except for the head, and then systematically murdered? He calls it, simply, "a late-term abortion." But in the real world (not the political world of Kerry and his Planned Parenthood sycophants), late-term means third trimester. Maybe he doesn't know, but during this term the baby can probably be delivered and survive with medical help. Viability has ceased to mean anything to these mindless repeaters of the liberal catch-phrases. "Right to choose," "women's health," "religious right" and "back-alley, coat-hanger abortions" are all these people can say.
Further, in an example of his excellent way with words, Kerry claimed, "President Bush has signed legislation that takes a step backwards for women as his stealth agenda to roll back the right to choose is pushed forward." So, does it go forward or backward, Mr. Kerry? Seriously, no "right to choose" has been rolled back. Women can still choose to partially deliver their babies and then crush their skulls. No problem there. The difference is the consequences. Personally, I'm in favor of consequences for infanticide. Apparently Mr. Kerry is on the other side.
I hope this serves as a wake up call to the millions of people in this country who care about all human life, not just that which is outside the womb. It is clear that no Democratic nominee has the guts or the common sense to go against the monolith that is the Democratic party, so it remains to be seen if the American people will vote George Bush (the only strong supporter of unborn women's rights in at least my lifetime) out, or give in to the fear-mongering of people like this Massachusetts proponent of infanticide.

(N.B.: I apologize again if anyone was offended by my use of certain words to describe certain attitudes and actions. However, I cannot think of a stronger word, or a more apt word, to describe what these cowardly judges and opponents of life have done in trying to block this ban. If you have a better word, I will consider substitution.)

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

I am no doctor, but how could it possibly be medically necessary to puncture a baby's skull and suck out its brains after the rest of the body has been delivered? I apologize to those easily offended, but if anything ever qualified as "bullshit," this is it. Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc. have shown themselves to be devoid of anything resembling "conscience." They are so absolutely committed to the unlimited, unquestionable, "constitutional" right to choose to murder unborn babies, that they are blind to their morally desiccated sense of right and wrong. Forget anything resembling common sense in this debate; these Nazi pretenders decided for the rest of the country in 1973 that killing unwanted babies was okay. They "perceived" in the Constitution some ambiguous (read: nonexistent) "right" to terminate (that's a good word for it) that thing most normal people call a baby. If only we could go back and ask the framers if they had any intention whatsoever of contributing to such a barbaric, uncivilized practice. My guess is that they would rise in holy horror at any such suggestion.
You thought this country was under God? Try Molech. We offer our children at the altar of convenience and under the guise of "women's rights" (though not unborn women's rights) and call it freedom. Planned Parenthood thinks it represents the majority opinion in this country; for the sake of the millions of children yet to be conceived, may it not be so. Perhaps God will have mercy, and President Bush and the United States Congress will triumph over the butchers who reside in the white-washed tombs of women's "health" clinics and the courts of this so-called civilized country.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

FYI: Apparently Oberlin is (was) Congregationalist.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

I have other stuff to do, but I wanted to offer some brief thoughts on the "consecration" of Gene Robinson. He did have tears in his eyes, but, alas, they were not tears of remorse and repentance. I am not sure there is more to say than what I have said on other days (see below or in blog's archives), but there is much to be lamented in this action. I fear that an action of this type will make similar actions inevitable in other communions (perhaps the ELCA [Evangelical Lutheran Church in America] is next?) God bless and preserve faithful Anglicans everywhere, such as those in Africa and Asia who have been so courageous in their bold statements in support of the Scriptural view of sexuality. Here are some quotes for and against Robinson's "consecration." Here is a story on the protest service held at the same time as the "consecration," illustrating the relative size of the faithful remnant in the Episcopalian church. I must concur with the quote from the American Anglican Council: the arrogance of the ECUSA is appalling. However, in the strongest possible contrast, the retiring bishop said this: "The Holy Spirit can do different things in different places." The question is, can the Holy Spirit do contradictory things? Perhaps there should be a little more "testing of the spirits" that have presented themselves as the Spirit (see 1 John 4:1ff.).

And we speak ever louder on behalf of Christ's Body, the Church: KYRIE ELEISON.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

If you had nothing to better to do, and wasted your time with the ABC "News" special on "Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Da Vinci" (I had something better to do), read Brent Bozell's critique here. Also, read Kenneth Woodward's article on the Magdalene craziness. They both say it better than I can. (Browse around at Beliefnet, for example here [notice the John Shelby Spong ad at right], where Woodward's article is, and you'll find good examples of the nonsense that masquerades as "scholarship.")

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

You thought Mike Adams' account of "academic" life at UNC-Wilmington was scary? Read Jean Pearce's description of what passes for education at Oberlin College. I warn you before you read it, it is explicit in some places. Perhaps, though, explicitly immoral conduct needs to be exposed with equally explicit language. Oberlin was, according to their home page, founded by missionaries (of which sect is not discussed). Oh how far the proud have fallen!
Perhaps she is a student and knows these things first-hand, but I cannot find on Oberlin's site any reference to the things that Pearce says (but see amended section below). I did find "Quuer and Allies Service Plunge" and a concert with the band? person? "Peaches" who has a CD with the wonderfully edifying title of "Fatherf***er" (without the asterisks, of course).
Because I am writing this as I type (and I don't want to delete what I already wrote), I now amend the lines where I said I didn't find any evidence of what Jean Pearce wrote about. It took me forever, but here is a link to one of the items on the Oberlin College student calendar that describe one of the events mentioned by Pearce (which is, amazingly, one week before Parents' Weekend; I wonder what they would think?). Not incidentally, perhaps, HIV testing follows the "Safer" Sex event.
Further, there are a whole set of "workshops" that lead up to the "Safer Sex" event. (See weeks of Oct. 23 and 30 of 2003.)
A search of the Oberlin site brings up these results (324 of them!) for the search "drag ball." (You may only want to look at the titles of the results, and not the results themselves; the sickness is apparent.) Here is a website describing "Drag Ball 2003" (cover your children's eyes). Surprisingly, people who are really LGBT-whatever (for those in the know) seem to be offended. Unsurprisingly, more than one sexual assault was reported following the "Drag Ball."
What the hell, you've got to experience life while you're in college, right? In other words, "Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be Obies."

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Here's a good one: a lesbian couple separates because one becomes a Christian and renounces her former lifestyle, and a judge, while awarding "religious custody" to the Christian, tells her that she cannot say anything that "can be considered homophobic." Besides the incredible broadness of that statement, it is religious bigotry to suggest that this woman must forego religious teaching of her child, which is certainly likely to include teaching on God's intention for marriage. A side-note, which tells you what side the Washington Times is on: see the ads at the bottom of the story.
God help us.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Apparently these girls didn't like the way this guy decided to "exercise his right to free speech." (At least, that would probably be the Democratic spin on it!)

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com