Tag Archives: laws
What is the logical end of the new sexual revolution that seeks to erase inherent differences between the genders and make sex a matter of cognitive choice rather than biology?
Nope, I’m not overstating it even a little bit. If anything that might be an understatement. But just in case you still aren’t convinced by my fool-proof logic and obviously sound reasoning, let’s look at a couple of recent accounts to see if my hypothesis holds up to scrutiny.
Bryan John Ellicott was born a woman, but now identifies as a man. According to a recent article the 24-year-old went to a Staten Island public pool where “he” changed into swim trunks and a t-shirt. A little while later when “he” returned to change shirts an employee of the pool told the transgender man that he had to either use the women’s locker room or leave.
Pedophilia is one of the most heinous crimes a person can commit. It is the intentional robbing of childhood innocence for the sexual pleasure of an adult. It is selfish. It is dangerous. It is helping to create victims of sexual abuse that often engage in damaging behavior such as drug and alcohol abuse (and some say homosexual behavior).
The question being asked is whether or not it is fair for a person guilty of pedophilia to be sentenced to jail?
Here’s the story, a 39 year old man is busted for sexual activity with his 3 year old daughter. After a lengthy trial in which the man claimed the child initiated the sexual contact with him causing him to be aroused, he is sentenced to twelve years in jail. Is this case fair for all parties involved?
Before you answer there’s a couple more facts to be aware of. The man in this case admits to having mental disabilities of a minor kind that do not prevent him from knowing the difference between right and wrong. He was judged to be more than competent to stand trial. The accused also repeatedly blamed the child’s mother for the incident (presumably his ex-wife). The accused also said it was the child that initiated the contact by undressing herself and then unzipping his pants; which led the man to become aroused and engage in the sexual contact.
Judge strikes down Idaho marriage protection law.
Judge strikes down Arkansas marriage protection law.
Judge strikes down Oregon marriage protection law.
The disturbing trend of judicial activism that continues to plague our country has claimed more victims. I’ve previously written about what is happening in a number of states regarding marriage. The previous article centered on 13 states: Pennsylvania, Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Kentucky, Colorado, Oregon, Texas, Michigan,
Tennessee, Indiana, Florida, and Ohio.
In each of these states federal judges or a combination of federal judges and state legislatures (in cooperation with attorney’s general) have either overturned voter approved laws or simply refused to defend state laws from attacks. Or a state was on the list because a challenge was in place and an outcome to the challenge was pending; as in the case of Oregon which has now “fallen” and had marriage redefined by a federal judge.
It would probably surprise most West Virginians to know that right now there is a challenge in federal court to our state’s DOMA laws. Several couples from Kanawha and Putnam counties have filed a lawsuit against West Virginia seeking to invalidate our DOMA laws and redefine marriage.
Before anyone gets too self-righteous thinking “that won’t ever happen in West Virginia,” lets remind ourselves that our lawmakers not only rejected a ballot measure to add a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman; but our “pro-life” governor just vetoed a life-saving abortion ban.
In light of the debacle that took place in Arizona last week, the question has been asked whether or not states already have religious freedom protections. The answer? Yes! At least 31 states have religious freedom protections that were either enacted by legislation or by state court decisions. The map below shows the breakdown of which states have what kind of protections.
Unfortunately, West Virginia has no such protections. I am currently unclear on what protections, if any, West Virginia has in place. According to this map our state doesn’t have any protections other than what is provided in the Constitution of the United States. It’s alarming to me how behind West Virginia is on critical issues like abortion limits, abortion funding, marriage protection laws, religious freedom laws, and more. It’s as if our state has been in the hands of liberal leadership for the past century. Oh wait…
In what I can only describe as both typical of the Obama Administration and egregious, Attorney General Eric Holder has said that it would be acceptable for state attorney’s general to ignore state laws regarding marriage. A recent article reports:
“Attorney General Eric Holder has given the nod to his state counterparts that they do not have to defend laws they consider discriminatory — effectively giving the green light for states to stop defending bans on gay marriage. Speaking to the National Association of Attorneys General, Holder said that any decision not to defend individual laws must be ‘exceedingly rare’ and reserved for ‘exceptional circumstances.’ He indicated that legal challenges to gay marriage bans would qualify as such a circumstance.”
Typical of the Obama Administration, if you don’t like a law, just stop defending or enforcing it. Never mind that it was enacted by the people of the state, or supported by those people, just stop defending it. Make the law up as you go and do what you want regardless of the state or federal Constitution.
The encouragement for AG’s to dereliction of duty by Holder is egregious. Would AG Holder encourage every person to decide which laws we will and will not live by? What if an AG decided to ignore 2nd amendment protection laws? Would that be acceptable for AG Holder? His words and “advice” are repugnant and offensive to everything that America stands for. It’s no wonder even his own party is calling for his resignation.
If morality is not absolute, based on something higher than society, culture, or opinion, it is only reasonable to assume that at some point laws will be based purely on the views of the people making the laws. The end result will be a shift in laws toward greater immorality rather than a shift towards morality. We can expect, then, not a redefinition of marriage, but a complete eradication of marriage altogether. As long as marriage exists, even in the minds and hearts of individuals, the perceived bigotry and discrimination the government likes to imagine will continue. The solution, then, according to the government and marriage redefinition allies, is to erase any meaning associated with marriage and family.
A recent report by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute says that more pro-life laws have been passed in the last three years, 2011-2013, than in the previous decade.
The info-graphic shown here puts the numbers into clear focus. The single greatest year for pro-life laws was 2011, followed by 2013.
Lifenews.com shares comments from the Guttmacher Institute report:
“This legislative onslaught has dramatically changed the landscape for women needing abortion. In 2000, the two states that were the most restrictive in the nation, Mississippi and Utah, had five of 10 major types of abortion restrictions in effect (see Appendix). By 2013, however, 22 states had five or more restrictions, and Louisiana had 10.”
by Kristi Burton Brown
Originally posted at Live Action.
In any given year, there are thousands of pro-life moments to celebrate. Reflecting on these moments inspires us to keep on keeping in the new year.
Here are ten notable moments from 2013:
10) The rejections of the Estrela Report by the European Union and the Bali Declaration by the United Nations
Brad Mattes explains the Estrela victory for Life Issues Institute:
The Estrela Report is a proclamation of “sexual and reproductive health rights”—code words for their primary objective of abortion-on-demand. The Report would literally declare abortion to be a human right. The goal is to make abortion accessible through the public health systems in all European Union member countries. There are no limitations, meaning that third-trimester abortions until birth could be a common reality. …It should come as no surprise that one of the self-seeking groups behind this measure is the International Planned Parenthood Federation. …