Showing posts with label 1st Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1st Amendment. Show all posts

25 November 2008

National Review Sticks Up For Mormons, 1st Amendment

I'm tempting the Fair Use fates (again) by posting this, but I just don't see any other way around it. If you care about the 1st Amendment, you must read this article.
Last week in a Denver suburb, someone lit a Book of Mormon on fire and dropped it on the doorstep of a Mormon temple, presumably as a statement about the church’s support of Proposition 8 in California, an initiative that amended the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In a move that may make gay-rights supporters’ heads spin, the incident is being investigated as a hate crime.

The outbreak of attacks on the Mormon church since the passage of Proposition 8 has been chilling: envelopes full of suspicious white powder were sent to church headquarters in Salt Lake City; protesters showed up en masse to intimidate Mormon small-business owners who supported the measure; a website was created to identify and shame members of the church who backed it; activists are targeting the relatives of prominent Mormons who gave money to pass it, as well as other Mormons who are only tangentially associated with the cause; some have even called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah.

The wisdom of hate-crimes legislation aside, there is no doubt that a lot of hate is being directed at Mormons as a group. But why single out Mormons? And why now?

Dozens of church bodies — including the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Christian bishops of California, and a wide variety of evangelicals — supported the proposition. It’s also worth considering that, while gay-rights advocates cannot discuss same-sex marriage for more than 30 seconds without making faulty analogies to Jim Crow-era anti-miscegenation laws, some 70 percent of blacks voted for Proposition 8. While there have been a few ugly racist statements by gay-rights supporters, such vile sentiment has been restricted. Not so the hatred directed at Mormons, who are convenient targets.

To date, 30 states have voted on initiatives addressing same-sex marriage, and in every state traditional marriage has come out on top. But somehow the fact that Mormons got involved during the latest statewide referendum constitutes a bridge too far? In truth, Mormons are a target of convenience in the opening salvo of what is sure to be a full-scale assault on much of America’s religious infrastructure, which gay activists perceive as a barrier to their aspirations. Among religious groups, Mormons are not the biggest obstacle to same-sex marriage — not by a long shot. But they are an easy target. Anti-Mormon bigotry is unfortunately common, and gay-rights activists are cynically exploiting that fact.

There are no websites dedicated to “outing” Catholics who supported Proposition 8, even though Catholic voters heavily outnumber Mormons. And the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not remarkably strident in its beliefs on the subject. So far, no gay-rights activist has had the brass to burn a Qu’ran on the doorstep of a militant mosque where — forget marriage! — imams advocate the stoning of homosexuals.

Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs. Freedom of conscience, or diversity of belief, is the last thing the homosexual lobby will tolerate: In New Mexico, a state civil-rights commission fined an evangelical wedding photographer $6,637 for politely declining to photograph a gay commitment ceremony. In California, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously against two San Diego fertility doctors who refused to give in-vitro fertilization to a lesbian owing to their religious beliefs, even though they had referred her to another doctor. And just this week, evangelical dating site eHarmony, which hadn’t previously provided same-sex matchmaking services, announced it had been browbeaten into doing so by New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights and the threat of litigation. The first 10,000 same-sex eHarmony registrants will receive a free six-month subscription. “That’s one of the things I asked for,” crowed Eric McKinley, who brought the charges against eHarmony.

Where do they go from here? Gay activists are already using the legal system to try to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Mormon church. If you believe that churches and synagogues, priests and rabbis won’t eventually be sued for their statements on sexuality, you’re kidding yourself. Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and gay activist who helps draft federal legislation related to sexual orientation, says that, when religious liberty conflicts with gay rights, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” A National Public Radio report on the conflict noted that if previous cases are any guide, “the outlook is grim for religious groups.”

Given their cavalier disregard for the freedom of conscience, it’s little surprise that the gay lobby is equally disdainful of democracy: They began pursuing legal challenges to Proposition 8 practically before they were done tallying the votes. Lamentably, the state attorney general defending the will of the people will be former Jerry Brown, the liberal former governor who was an open opponent of the measure and tried to sabotage it. The legal challenges will be heard by the same state Supreme Court that overturned California’s previous law forbidding gay marriage back in May. There’s a real possibility the will of the people will be spurned a second time, democracy be damned. They’ve already burned the Book of Mormon. The First Amendment is next.
(emphasis added)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

04 February 2008

John McCain on Super Tuesday

Had a few thoughts about John McCain we wanted to get down before the start of Super Tuesday. In no specific order....

- We disagree with those who say that John McCain is too old to be President. We value the wisdom and experience that comes with age. Also, McCain seems to be in good health, so dying in office does not seem to be a legitimate threat. We're much more worried by the youth and inexperience of Barack Obama than the age, wisdom and experience of John McCain. Don't vote for Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul because John McCain is too old; vote for someone else because you disagree with his politics.

- Speaking of his politics, the thing that bothers us most about John McCain is his reputation for compromise. When Republicans were in power, he "crossed the aisle" to co-author McCain-Feingold--one of the worst, 1st Amendment limiting pieces of legislation in history. He voted against tax cuts. He voted against drilling in ANWR. He did all of these things when its conceivable his leadership could have taken the country in a more conservative direction.

What will he do with his party in the minority? If John McCain, "maverick" (Top Gun?) was willing to "compromise" with his party in the majority, what will he do as President when Democrats are running Congress? We think it will start with comprehensive immigration reform, but where will it end? Universal health care?

If Dems control Congress, we need a President who is poised to use his veto pen and hold the Conservative line. We don't need John McCain crossing the the aisle, again.

- On the war, John McCain is solid and has proven his principled leadership--even when it was very unpopular--and we've given him credit for his stand. We were especially impressed with a speech he gave on 11 April 2007 to the graduating class at VMI. Click here to read the text and here to view a short video clip. We admire John McCain for this. But this is only one of our oft-stated, highest order priorities (War on Terror, Courts, Taxes).

- Until recently, we were confident McCain would nominate a good, conservative Justice to the Supreme Court. But then, there was this column from the Wall Street Journal's John Fund: Winging It. In it, McCain expresses misgivings about Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito whom we have named, along with John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as being a model Supreme Court Justice. Would McCain compromise with Dems on a Supreme Court nominee? For us, this would be completely unacceptable.

- On taxes, John McCain is not solid. Not solid? He's not even mushy. He opposed the Bush tax cuts and opposed eliminating the death tax. Attempting to re-write history, McCain said his opposition was based on fiscal responsibility--he wanted to cut spending, not taxes. Or at least, he wanted to cut spending equal to the cut in taxes. But we're not so new to the game that we don't remember McCain's rhetoric of the day: he employed the same class-warfare rhetoric the Democrats trot out, not only against the Bush tax cuts, but ad nauseam.

Hey, John, if you really wanted to cut government spending, wouldn't it be best to cut government funding? Just a thought.

- Props to McCain for his free-trading ways.

We had to end with something positive, right?


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

StatCounter