Thursday, October 30, 2014

SBC Baptists Push Back on 'Gay Marriage' Trend

The mainstream media is apoplectic over this week's three-day conference in Nashville of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention titled "The Gospel, Homosexuality and the Future of Marriage."  Over a thousand SBC pastors and leaders gathered there.
"We come from a Christian world view and a Christian world view is that God designed marriage as between a man and a woman and He gets to define it no matter what the Supreme Court thinks."
-- Dr. Richard Land, the president of the Southern Evangelical Seminary



-- From "Southern Baptists Strike a Different Tone than Catholics in Conference" by Elizabeth Dias, Time Magazine 10/28/14

Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, opened the gathering on Monday in a defensive posture, saying that Western society is experiencing “a moral revolution” happening “at warp speed,” one that now celebrates things that were previously condemned. “We are accustomed to speaking from a position of strength,” Mohler said, explaining how traditional evangelical opposition to homosexuality is no longer mainstream.

. . . Mohler suggested in his opening remarks that Christians should approach gays in ways “not about their sin (homosexuality) but about our sin (all shortcomings).” Glen Stanton, director for Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family, continued the theme: “Every one of us is stricken with an eternal disorder called sin,” he said in his talk called, “Love my (LGBT) Neighbor.” “How do we love gay and lesbian people? … The great equalizer is our sin.”

On the whole, the conference makes clear its strong on moral opposition to homosexuality. Many of the prominent speakers champion a pointed opposition to mainstream culture, and nearly all use the phrase “someone who experiences same-sex attraction” or “a homosexual” instead of using preferred, self-identifying terms of LGBTQ persons. Erik Stanley, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, compared the show Modern Family to a gateway drug for accepting gays and described Matthew Shepard’s murder as a gay hate crime hoax. Barronelle Stutzman, a Washington state florist who declined to make a wedding flower arrangement for a gay couple, said, “They can destroy me but they cannot destroy God and his word.” The crowd gave her a standing ovation.

What’s happening in Nashville gives the world a peek at the kind of culture different church leaders are cultivating in the midst of changing societal views on sexuality. For the evangelicals and Baptists in Nashville, it is time to double down. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Southern Baptists tell pastors: hold line on gays" by Rachel Zoll, Associated Press 10/28/14


Speakers at the event said they understood they were on the losing end of the culture war on marriage. But they were prepared to be the voice of a moral minority because gay marriage is a "rejection of God's law," according to Mohler. He said evangelicals needed to have "a lot of agonizing conversations" about how to move forward.

. . . Each [conference] participant was given a bagful of books and pamphlets, with titles such as, "Love Into Light: The Gospel, The Homosexual and The Church," and "Loving My (LGBT) Neighbor," meant to help pastors articulate their stand against same-sex relationships.

Most of the morning sessions Tuesday featured Christians such as Rosaria Butterfield who had been attracted to members of the same-sex but say they were now married to someone of the opposite sex or had overcome their attractions. . . .

In an interview, Mohler said he expected to see some evangelical churches splitting off to accept gay relationships in years ahead. Evangelicals in the millennial generation, ages 18-33, are twice as likely as their elders to support same-sex marriage, according to a survey released in February by the Public Religion Research Institute. Southern Baptists last month cut ties with a California congregation, New Heart Community Church, whose pastor accepted same-sex marriage after his son came out as gay. But Moore believes only a small minority of evangelicals will come to accept same-sex relationships as they struggle with expressing their opposition in the current climate.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Limiting Births Fails to Save Earth: Gov't Report

A new study from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which receives 85% of its funding from President Obama's federal government agencies, has concluded that even a world-wide one-child policy for population control is not enough.  The Academy's environmentalists, concerned that humans are destroying the planet, also determined that even massive deaths from cataclysmic events such as nuclear war and unprecedented pandemics would not succeed in saving the non-human life of the Earth.
“We were surprised that a five-year WWIII scenario mimicking the same proportion of people killed in the First World War and Second World War combined, barely registered a blip on the human population trajectory this century.”
-- Professor Barry Brook, Ecologist, University of Adelaide
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Obama White House Says Lower Birth Rates Will Lower Costs

Obama White House Advises 'Green' Abortions

Hillary Clinton Agrees 'Family Planning' Critical vs. Climate Change

Vice President Biden Sees Need for China's One-Child Policy

World Health Organization: Earth's Enemy is Too Many Babies

Green Abortions: Hospitals Burning Babies for Heat

Also read Environmentalists Say Trade Babies For Climate Change

-- From "Restricting Population Growth May not solve Environment Issues" by Felix Balthasar, Maine News 10/28/14

According to a new study, controlling population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term. The study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences stated that if the world follows one-child policy, then the number of people in 2100 remained around current levels.

The study also reported that even if a catastrophic event in the future kills billions of people, it would have a little effect on the overall impact. According to the study, in 2100, there will be about 12 billion people on the earth.

The authors of the study stated that about 14% of all the humans who ever existed on the earth were alive today. Growth in population means an impact on the environment than ever. In near future, humans will have to face problems like conversion of forests for agriculture, climate change, pollution and rise of urbanization.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Culling The Population Is Not A Realistic Environmental Solution" by News Staff, posted at Science 2.0 10/27/14

In the 1960s and '70s, population bomb reality was said to be as settled as climate change is today. No less than Dr. John Holdren, current Obama administration Science Czar, co-authored a book called Ecoscience, which argued that forced sterilization and mass abortions might be necessary, and even viable under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

And older people today still think population is the problem, though since food and energy are not major issues, they argue culling humanity might be necessary to save the environment. New multi-scenario modeling of world human population has concluded that even mandatory sterilization or abortions or a mass kill-off would not bring about large enough change to solve issues of global sustainability as they are portrayed. So World War III won't save the planet.

Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, ecologists Professor Corey Bradshaw and Professor Barry Brook from the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute say instead that we should focus on policies and technologies that reverse rising consumption of natural resources and enhance recycling for more immediate sustainability gains.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Reducing population is no environmental 'quick fix'" posted at Eureka! Science News 10/28/14

New multi-scenario modelling of world human population has concluded that even stringent fertility restrictions or a catastrophic mass mortality would not bring about large enough change this century to solve issues of global sustainability. . . .

Fertility reduction efforts, however, through increased family-planning assistance and education, should still be pursued, as this will lead to hundreds of millions fewer people to feed by mid-century.

The researchers constructed nine different scenarios for continuing population ranging from "business as usual" through various fertility reductions, to highly unlikely broad-scale catastrophes resulting in billions of deaths.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'" by Matt McGrath, Environment Correspondent, BBC News 10/27/14

The picture is complicated by the fact that while the overall [worldwide population] figures have been growing, the world's per-capita fertility has been declining for several decades.

"We've gone past the point where we can do it easily, just by the sheer magnitude of the population, what we call the demographic momentum. We just can't stop it fast enough," said Prof Corey Bradshaw from the University of Adelaide.

In their paper, the researchers also look at the impact on numbers of a global catastrophe in the middle of this century. They found that even an event that wiped out two billion people would still leave about eight and a half billion in 2100.

"Our work reveals that effective family planning and reproduction education worldwide have great potential to constrain the size of the human population and alleviate pressure on resource availability over the longer term," said Prof Barry Brook from the University of Tasmania.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Humanity's 'inexorable' population growth is so rapid that even a global catastrophe would not stop it" by Steve Connor, Science Editor, UK Independent 10/27/14

Two prominent ecologists, who normally study animal populations in the wild, have concluded that the number of people in the world today will present one of the most daunting problems for sustainable living on the planet in the coming century – even if every country adopts a draconian “one child” policy.

Professor Bradshaw told The Independent that the study was designed to look at human numbers with the insight of an ecologist studying natural impacts on animals to determine whether factors such pandemics and world wars could dramatically influence the population projections.

Simon Ross, the chief executive of the charity Population Matters, said that introducing modern family planning to the developing world would cost less than $4bn – about one third of the UK’s annual aid budget.

“So, while fertility reduction is not a quick fix, it is relatively cheap, reliable, and popular with most, with generally positive side effects. We welcome the recognition of the potential of family planning and reproductive education to alleviate resource availability in the longer term,” Mr Ross said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read more background articles:

Where Liberalism Flourishes, Population Diminishes

Utopian Dream Shattered by Reality of Birth Rate

Plants' & Animals' Civil Rights - Antihumanism

Environmentalism is the Greatest Threat to Civilization

Also read how low birth rates cause European nationalities to fear that they will cease to exist, especially Russia and even Germany.

Monday, October 27, 2014

Mass. Students Forced To Learn Muslim Conversion

“Allah is the greatest. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah. I bear witness that Muhammad is his prophet.”
-- Islamic creed, prayer of conversion
Parents are livid that the public school in the Boston suburb of Revere, Massachusetts is requiring all students to study the prayer that Islamic terrorists force Christians to cite in order to become Muslim, lest they be killed as infidels.  The school superintendent will not yield, saying that teaching Islam is required in history class.

For background, read Public School Trip to Mosque in Massachusetts, Students Pray

In addition, read Minnesota School Admits Pro-Muslim/Anti-Christian Bias and also read New York Schools Observe Muslim Holidays (but Christmas?) and read the myriad examples of public schools favoring Islam.

However, Citizens Force Islam Indoctrination Out of Ohio Middle School

-- From "Some Revere parents upset over Islam in curriculum" posted at WHDH-TV7 (Boston) 10/22/14

A section of the textbook describing the beliefs of Muslims says, "I bear witness that there is no God but Allah."

But some parents said they did not want their kids learning anything about Islam.

"No religion should be taught at school. In their paper it says Allah is their only God. That's insulting to me as a Christian who believes in just Jesus only," said [parent] Anthony Giannino.

The superintendent of Revere Public Schools wrote the parents a letter explaining that it is simply part of the history in that section of the curriculum . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Massachusetts Father Mad Just Because Public School Teaches ‘There Is No God But Allah’" by Eric Owens, Education Editor, Daily Caller 10/26/14


The textbook portion also reverently celebrates Muhammad’s life.

“Muhammad later tended sheep on the dry hills like many young Arabians,” the text explains. “Later he became a successful merchant and married a wealthy widow. However, he felt as though something was missing in his life, so he went on a retreat.”

The founder of Islam was “upset about the cruelty of his people,” the text also optimistically explains. They “killed baby girls.” They “treated their slaves unkindly.” And “Muhammad had a strong sense of right and wrong.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read the Obama administration position on Islam: the "religion of peace"

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Cutting Okla. Abortions in Half: Judges OK New Law

Abortionists lost in courts twice last week as Oklahoma judges declined to issue injunctions against new state laws requiring abortion clinics to ensure the safety of women (but not their babies), which will result in the closure of one clinic that accounts for nearly half of all abortions in the state.

For background, read Abortion Clinic Closings Set Record; Abortionists Admit Defeat and are now Forced to Risk All in Supreme Court

Also read Abortionists Battle to Kill Without Clinics

In addition, read Learn to be Abortionist in 6-weeks, Free Online

-- From "Oklahoma: Challenge to Abortion Law Denied" by Erik Eckholm, New York Times 10/24/14

A state judge declined on Friday to block a law requiring doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which had challenged the law on behalf of Dr. Larry A. Burns of Norman, said it was filing an emergency appeal with the State Supreme Court.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Judge Rules That Abortion Doctors Must Have Admitting Privileges" by The Associated Press 10/24/14

Oklahoma County District Judge Bill Graves ruled Friday against a legal challenge on behalf of a Norman clinic that performs nearly half of the abortions in the state.

Attorneys for Dr. Larry Burns say the law [Senate Bill 1848] could force him to shut down his practice. They say he's applied for admitting privileges at 16 hospitals without success. His practice performs about 44 percent of abortions in the state, and is one of only three in Oklahoma.

But Graves denied the request for a temporary injunction that would have put the law on hold.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Judge refuses to block challenged law putting restrictions on abortions" by Barbara Hoberock, Tulsa World Capitol Bureau 10/25/14

[Dr. Larry Burns, whose Norman, OK clinic opened in 1974,] alleged it violated the constitutional requirement that bills contain one subject. He also alleged it violated the ban on special laws because it singled out abortion doctors for special treatment.

He was seeking to put the law on hold pending the outcome of the challenge. The law takes effect Nov. 1.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Oklahoma County judge rules against abortion doctor in effort to put new law on hold" by Nolan Clay, The Oklahoman 10/25/14

Graves refused Friday to issue either a temporary restraining order or temporary injunction. In a four-page order, the judge found the doctor failed to show he is likely to succeed on the merits of his constitutional claims.

The judge criticized the doctor for waiting until mid-July — 51 days after Gov. Mary Fallin signed the law in May — before applying for admitting privileges at the first of the 16 hospitals.

The judge also noted that Burns could comply with the law by simply hiring another doctor who already had admitting privileges to be at the clinic when abortions are performed.

In 2013 alone, by the doctor’s own count, he performed abortions for 2,046 women.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Oklahoma judge allows law banning abortion pills to take effect" by Heide Brandes, Reuters 10/22/14

An Oklahoma judge said on Wednesday he will allow a law that bans abortion-inducing drugs [RU-486] to take effect as planned on Nov. 1, over the objections of abortion rights advocates who said the measure is poor public health policy that could put women at risk.

Oklahoma District Court Judge Robert Stuart turned down a request by abortion rights groups to halt the measure from taking effect. Stuart also allowed a provision that would limit liability claims against physicians due to the law.

Earlier this year, lawmakers in the heavily Republican state approved new restrictions on abortion clinics they said were aimed at protecting women's health, but abortion rights advocates said were actually intended to shut clinics.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Judge Lets Oklahoma Ban Abortion Drugs" by David Lee, Courthouse News Service 10/22/14


Signed into law in April, HB 2684 bans off-label use of FDA-approved abortion drugs and requires that a physician provide surgical care and access to medical facilities to prescribe such drugs.

The plaintiffs claimed the law places "burdensome and arbitrary" restrictions on medical care for abortions.

"If the act is allowed to take effect, some women will be prevented altogether from terminating an early pregnancy by using medication alone, and others will be deprived of the safest and most effective methods of doing so," the 5-page motion states.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortion advocates lose one in Oklahoma" by Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow.com 10/24/14


The bill being challenged simply requires that abortionists use the drug according to Federal Drug Administration protocols – and as expected, pro-abortion groups filed suit in federal court. The groups asked Oklahoma District Court Judge Robert Stuart to issue an injunction against the law, which is set to take effect November 1.

OneNewsNow talked with State Representative Randy Grau, sponsor of the bill, who says Judge Stuart "rejected that [argument] and ... said they didn't have any compelling argument or reason to keep this law from going into effect."

Grau adds that while Oklahoma is looking to provide protection for women using the drug, "what [abortion advocates] want is unfettered access."

But the legal battle isn't over. The state and out-of-state lawyers for the abortion industry are now preparing to argue the case in federal court.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Four Abortionists Charged in Indiana: Rape, Murder as well as Planned Parenthood Conceals Serial Rapist in Arizona

Friday, October 24, 2014

Atheists' X-Rated Bible to Florida Schools

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation prevailed in a lawsuit against Orange County, Florida and now says that it will be distributing atheist literature (book cover at right) in the high schools that claim the Bible is too obscene for students.  School officials admit their only choice to stop the atheists is to restrict the Bible as well.
"The school board between now and then can say we’re not distributing any materials. . . . Period."
-- Katherine Marsh, Communications Director, Orange County Public Schools
For background, read Satanic Book Distribution in Florida Schools



-- From "What School Officials Have Just Agreed To Do With This Shocking Booklet Will Leave You Speechless" by Norvell Rose, Western Journalism 10/23/14

High school students in Florida will soon be given free copies of a Bible-bashing booklet promoted by an atheist organization — a publication whose front cover depicts a lecherous, cartoon Bible sexually assaulting a screaming woman.

The pamphlet entitled “An X-Rated Book: Sex and Obscenity in the Bible” will be distributed in 11 public high schools in Orange County, Florida. An atheist organization, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), pressured reluctant school officials who eventually agreed to allow the booklet to be handed out to students.

And when will this little purple pamphlet be offered to Florida teens for free in their schools? On National Religious Freedom Day this coming January.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Will this shocking atheist pamphlet be handed out in some Florida schools?" By Husna Haq, Correspondent, Christian Science Monitor 10/23/14

The pamphlet includes Biblical passages mentioning sex, nudity and circumcision, excerpts that the FFRF deems "obscene" and is including in its pamphlet to make a point that the Bible also contains explicit material.

According to a news release posted on its website, the FFRF also plans to distribute other previously banned pamphlets that discuss what the Bible says about abortion and which, according to the school district, “assert that God is hateful, arrogant, sexist and cruel." It also plans to make available for students Robert Price’s Jesus Is Dead, which the district banned earlier because “[t]he claim that Jesus was not crucified or resurrected is age-inappropriate for the maturity levels of many of the students in high school.”

On May 2, 2013, the FFRF distributed approved materials at some Orange County schools, but on June 13, 2013, the group filed a lawsuit against OCPS, claiming the school district had unlawfully discriminated against it and violated its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by banning certain materials, as reported by CNS News.

After talks with legal counsel, the school ultimately decided to allow the FFRF to distribute the materials that were previously banned and the lawsuit was dismissed.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Illustration to be Handed Out at Public Schools: Human Bible Sexually Assaulting Woman" by Brittany M. Hughes, CNSNews.com 10/22/14

[FFRF Legal Counsel Andrew] Seidel said he believes the school district backed down from it position banning some of FFRF’s materials after realizing it could not legally keep FFRF from passing out materials while still allowing Bibles to be distributed.

According to Seidel, OCPS is the first school district the group has targeted for distribution of its materials--but it won’t be the last.

“We’re focusing on Orange County for the moment, but we will probably be expanding to other school districts that allow this,” he explained.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

'Gay Marriage' Ruled Out by Jimmy Carter's Judge

Setting up a path to the Supreme Court concerning same-sex "marriage," United States District Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez, who was appointed by President Carter in 1979, ruled that voters of each state (a.k.a. We the People) have the right to define marriage because past U.S. Supreme Court rulings have confirmed this constitutional right.

For background, read Federal Judge Cites Supreme Court Rulings to Support Louisiana Marriage Amendment

And also read about other judges (including appellate) who have ruled in favor of natural marriage saying that there is NO constitutional protection for "gay marriage," but also read how activist judges across America are forbidding voters the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

In addition, read 'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court

-- From "Puerto Rico federal court dismisses same-sex marriage lawsuit" by Dale Carpenter, Washington Post 10/21/14

[The judge] dismissed a challenge to Puerto Rico’s law limiting marriage to one man and one woman. He concluded the outcome was controlled by the Supreme Court’s summary rejection of same-sex marriage claims in Baker v. Nelson in 1972 . . .

The decision does two important things, in addition to denying marriage to same-sex couples in Puerto Rico. First, it puts the First Circuit back in play in the national litigation, although every state in the [New England] circuit already recognizes same-sex marriage. A panel of that court suggested that Baker did indeed bar same-sex marriage constitutional claims in its decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act in 2012. . . .

Second, the issue of Baker‘s effect is actively being considered in other circuits. Most immediately, the Sixth Circuit is already considering a case that turns in part on whether Baker controls. In the Eighth Circuit, a motion to dismiss a same-sex marriage challenge was argued in a South Dakota district court last Friday. (The challenge was brought by my former student Joshua Newville.) And the Fifth Circuit will soon schedule argument in Texas’s appeal from a district court decision striking down that state’s limitation on marriage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Appeal Sought in Puerto Rico Gay Marriage Case" by Danica Coto, Associated Press 10/22/14

A federal court judge has rejected an attempt to end a ban on same-sex marriages in Puerto Rico, saying political order itself depends on traditional marriage and deriding the logic of courts that have overturned such bans. The five gay couples who filed the suit will appeal, their attorney said Wednesday.

The couples had challenged the constitutionality of several local laws, including a 1902 code that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Perez-Gimenez questioned the actions of more than two dozen judges on the U.S. mainland who have struck down state same-sex marriage bans following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as U.S. vs. Windsor. That ruling struck down a federal provision that denied several tax, health and veterans benefits to legally married gay couples, though it did not declare gay marriage legal nationwide.

Perez-Gimenez wondered in his ruling whether laws prohibiting polygamy and incestuous relations will be questioned now, saying that traditional marriage is essential to society itself.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Democrat-appointed judge rules against Puerto Rico marriage equality" by Gerald Farinas, Chicago Phoenix 10/21/14

The President Jimmy Carter-appointed judge argued that it was not his place to legislate social policy from the bench.

The Puerto Rico legislature passed a definition of marriage that called it “a civil contract whereby a man and a woman mutually agree to become husband and wife.” It was signed into law in 1999.

Lambda Legal filed the case—now probably destined for the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It represents LGBT advocacy group Puerto Rico Para Todos and five couples—two seeking to marry in the commonwealth, three seeking to have their U.S. mainland marriages recognized by the commonwealth.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Puerto Rico ban on same-sex marriage upheld" by Lyle Denniston, Reporter, Supreme Court of the United States Blog 10/21/14

Relying mainly on two legal points that federal courts have repeatedly rejected over the past sixteen months, a federal trial judge in San Juan ruled Tuesday that Puerto Rico’s ban on same-sex marriage survives constitutional challenge. . . .

Judge Perez-Gimenez focused the first part of his constitutional analysis on the Supreme Court’s summary ruling in Baker v. Nelson forty-two years ago.  In that case, the Court dismissed a gay couple’s appeal seeking a right to marry because, it said, the case did not raise “a substantial federal question.”  That left intact a Minnesota Supreme Court decision in favor of that state’s ban on same-sex unions.

The San Juan jurist said the Supreme Court has never overruled that decision, so it is still binding on lower federal courts . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "In passionate ruling, federal judge upholds Puerto Rico’s marriage protection law" by Kirsten Andersen, LifeSiteNews.com 10/22/14

In his 21-page decision, Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez passionately defended true marriage and delivered a scathing rebuke to his colleagues across the nation who have overwhelmingly ruled to overturn state bans on same-sex “marriage” in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial 2013 [United States v. Windsor] ruling striking down key portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

In his ruling, Judge Perez-Gimenez acknowledged he is in the minority of judges willing to defend true marriage.  But he had harsh words for the activist courts that have now redefined marriage to include same-sex couples in 32 states.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From: United States District Court - District Of Puerto Rico - Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 57 Filed 10/21/14

Shortly after Puerto Rico became an unincorporated insular territory of the United States . . . was the enactment of the Civil Code of 1902, which included Article 129:
Marriage is a civil institution that emanates from a civil contract by virtue of which a man and a woman are mutually obligated to be husband and wife, and to fulfill for one another all the duties that the law imposes. It will be valid only when it is celebrated and solemnized in accordance with such provisions of law and may only be dissolved before the death of any of the spouses in those instances expressly provided for in this Code.
. . . A revised Code was approved in 1930 that incorporated the 1902 code’s definition of marriage . . . Two amendments were later added but the Code’s original definition of marriage as between “a man and a woman” did not change. This long-standing definition, stretching across two distinct legal traditions, rules out animus as the primary motivation behind Puerto Rico’s marriage laws.

From the time Puerto Rico became a possession of the United States its marriage laws have had the same consistent policy . . . marriage is between one man and one woman. For that reason, Puerto Rico’s marriage policy is neither unclear nor unsettled.

. . . The plaintiffs have brought this challenge alleging a violation of the federal constitution, so the first place to begin is with the text of the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, however, does not directly guarantee a right to same-gender marriage, for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”

. . . the First Circuit has spared us from the misapprehension that has plagued our sister courts. The First Circuit expressly acknowledged – a mere two years ago – that [the Supreme Court decision of] Baker remains binding precedent “unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent.” . . . According to the First Circuit, Baker prevents the adoption of arguments that “presume or rest on a constitution al right to same-sex marriage.” Even creating “a new suspect classification for same-sex relationships” would “imply[ ] an overruling of Baker,” – relief that the First Circuit acknowledged is beyond a lower court’s power to grant. This Court agrees, and even if this Court disagreed, the First Circuit’s decision would tie this Court’s hands no less surely than Baker ties the First Circuit’s hands.

. . . The [2013 Supreme Court] Windsor opinion did not create a fundamental right to same-gender marriage nor did it establish that state opposite-gender marriage regulations are amenable to federal constitutional challenges. If anything, Windsor stands for the opposite proposition: it reaffirms the States’ authority over marriage, buttressing Baker’s conclusion that marriage is simply not a federal question. . . . Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, Windsor does not overturn Baker; rather, Windsor and Baker work in tandem to emphasize the States’ “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation” free from “federal intrusion.” . . . It takes inexplicable contortions of the mind or perhaps even willful ignorance – this Court does not venture an answer here – to interpret Windsor’s endorsement of the state control of marriage as eliminating the state control of marriage.

. . . Baker, which necessarily decided that a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and woman does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, remains good law. Because no right to same-gender marriage emanates from the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should not be compelled to recognize such unions. Instead, Puerto Rico, acting through its legislature, remains free to shape its own marriage policy. In a system of limited constitutional self-government such as ours, this is the prudent outcome. The people and their elected representatives should debate the wisdom of redefining marriage. Judges should not.

CONCLUSION

That this Court reaches its decision by embracing precedent may prove disappointing. But the role of precedent in our system of adjudication is not simply a matter of binding all succeeding generations to the decision that is first in time. Instead, stare decisis embodies continuity, certainly, but also limitation: there are some principles of logic and law that cannot be forgotten.

Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is “exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution . . . inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship,” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2718 (Alito, J., dissenting). Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.

Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial “wisdom” may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.

A clear majority of courts have struck down statutes that affirm opposite-gender marriage only. In their ingenuity and imagination they have constructed a seemingly comprehensive legal structure for this new form of marriage. And yet what is lacking and unaccounted for remains: are laws barring polygamy, or, say the marriage of fathers and daughters, now of doubtful validity? Is “minimal marriage”, where “individuals can have legal marital relationships with more than one person, reciprocally or asymmetrically, themselves determining the sex and number of parties” the blueprint for their design? . . . It would seem so, if we follow the plaintiffs’ logic, that the fundamental right to marriage is based on “the constitutional liberty to select the partner of one’s choice.”

Of course, it is all too easy to dismiss such concerns as absurd or of a kind with the cruel discrimination and ridicule that has been shown toward people attracted to members of their own sex. But the truth concealed in these concerns goes to the heart of our system of limited, consent-based government: those seeking sweeping change must render reasons justifying the change and articulate the principles that they claim will limit this newly fashioned right.

For now, one basic principle remains: the people, acting through their elected representatives, may legitimately regulate marriage by law. This principle is impeded, not advanced, by court decrees based on the proposition that the public cannot have the requisite repose to discuss certain issues. It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that the voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds . . . Freedom embraces the right, indeed the duty, to engage in a rational, civic discourse in order to determine how best to form a consensus to shape the destiny of the Nation and its people.

To read the entire court ruling above, CLICK HERE.

Also read 'Gay Marriage' Battle Seeks Supreme (Court) Savior

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Lawsuit: No Cross-dressing in Conn. Boys Detention

After a 16-year-old male, who has been in state care with a traumatized history since age 5 and who now pretends to be a girl, assaulted staff and fought with girls at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School for girls, he then was relocated to an adult prison for women.  But after another violent outbreak, he was relocated to the Connecticut Juvenile Training School for boys in Middletown, and now attorneys are suing the state child welfare and prison officials demanding an appropriate facility for this violent boy who thinks he's a girl.
". . . it is psychologically damaging and harmful for a transgender female to be placed in a male facility and to be unable to express herself as female."
-- Lawsuit on behalf of Jane Doe
For background, read Transgenderism is a 'Delusion' According to Victim

And also read how public schools indoctrinate children in transsexualism, and read about parents misdirecting toddlers.

-- From "Lawsuit: Detained transgender teen treated as boy" by The Associated Press 10/21/14

A 16-year-old transgender girl being held at a boys' detention center alleged that staff members are repeatedly referring to her by her male birth name and male pronouns, forcing her to wear boys' uniforms and banning her from wearing her wig and makeup.

One of the girl's lawyers, Aaron Romano, criticized the youth agency for what he called inconsistent treatment. He said that while she has been receiving hormone therapy under the agency's care, she's being treated like a boy at the detention center.

The girl's lawyers, state Child Advocate Sarah Eagan and the state chapter of the ACLU have been calling on officials to move her to a more appropriate setting with mental health counseling.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Transgender Youth Accused Of Assaulting Staff In Middletown" by Josh Kovner, The Hartford Courant 7/13/14

A brief statement from DCF said only that the youth, known in court filings as Jane Doe, "assaulted another youth and a staff member at the girls Pueblo Unit and also destroyed state property."

The locked Pueblo unit is on the campus of the former Riverview Children's Hospital in Middletown.

DCF in April won permission from a state judge to transfer the youth to adult prison, citing her history of assaulting staff members in several juvenile treatment settings, including a serious assault against a treatment worker in a Massachusetts facility in late January.

Lawyers for DCF said the department could no longer care for her. The transfer to an adult prison, with no criminal charges pending against the youth, prompted widespread outrage from children's advocates and civil rights groups.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Transgender Girl Moved to Male Facility in Middletown" by Lucy Nalpathanchil, WNPR Connecticut Public Radio 7/14/14

The attorneys for a transgender teen in the custody of Connecticut's Department of Children and Families want a judge to oversee her care. This comes after DCF moved her to an all-boys facility after she allegedly assaulted a youth and staff member over the weekend.

. . . Her case is back in the news after DCF relocated her over the weekend from a psychiatric center for troubled girls to the state's detention center for juvenile boys.

DCF said in a statement on Sunday, "Because there is no suitable place on the Pueblo unit for Jane Doe that can ensure the safety of youth and staff, we have placed her at Connecticut Juvenile Training School in a single room separated from the boys."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Judge orders Massachusetts to pay for inmate’s sex-change surgery" by Milton J. Valencia, Boston Globe 9/4/12

In the first decision of its kind, a federal judge has ordered state officials to provide a taxpayer-funded sex-change for a transsexual prisoner, after finding that the treatment is the only adequate care for the inmate’s gender identity disorder.

“This fact that sex reassignment surgery is for some people medically necessary has recently become more widely recognized,” [District Court Chief Judge Mark L.] Wolf wrote in a landmark 127-page ruling Tuesday. “Denying adequate medical care because of a fear of controversy or criticism from politicians, the press, and the public serves no legitimate penological purpose. It is precisely the type of conduct the Eighth Amendment prohibits.”

The judge did not say who should perform the surgery or where it should be conducted, leaving those decisions to state officials. The cost of the surgery ranges from $7,000 to more than $50,000, depending on the extent of cosmetic work, according to informational surgery and transgender websites.

It was not clear how much postsurgery care would have to be provided, though the state would bear that cost as well.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read ObamaCare Pays for 'Transgender' Sexual Mutilation — Gay Agenda

And read President Obama's DOJ Forces Girl into Boys Locker Room