Conservatives: Fighting with their tails between their legs on same-sex marriage

A lot has been said by conservatives about the recent passage of a law legalizing same-sex "marriage" in New York. Some are mad at Gov. Andrew Cuomo for pushing it, and others are angry at Republicans for letting it through. Many more are angry at the Church, which seemed to be a no show in the battle there.

It's hard to be mad at Cuomo. He's a liberal. He believed in what he was doing--and acted on that belief. He was doing was he was supposed to do in doing what he wasn't supposed to do.

It is harder to excuse the people who are supposed to be for traditional marriage. They are simply wimps. It's that simple. The pretend conservatives should have had a backbone on this and done something other than act toward the anti-marriage forces like they were performing a scene in Brokeback Mountain.

I am still unclear on what happened with the Church. Reports are the Archbishop Timothy Dolan just left the state. I haven't gotten the full report, but it doesn't sound heartening. Dolan is supposed to be a conservative.

But all this goes back to my central thesis about political partisanship in this country: the liberals are more determined than the conservatives. We see it on every issue--big government health care, abortion, and gay rights. Liberals are willing to die in battle; conservative approach the enemy, give him a few effeminate slaps, and run for cover.

It's sad, really.

Just look at the account of what happened: a liberal governor took it upon himself to get the job done. He pulled out all the stops and used his valuable political capital. Why do conservatives seem incapable of doing this?

The irony is that conservatives, patriarchally dominant as they are, are also prone to hiding behind their women on these issues. Just compare Michelle Bachmann to the average Republican male and see what I mean.

It's the Church that's going to have to stand on this. Politicians by nature have no bedrock principles. They move with the political winds. The Church is the only place where there are rock bottom principles that don't change. We just can't leave it to the politicians. As Denny Burk has put it, "The unbelieving politico’s aren’t going to do it. The abdication of truth and of the public good is a bipartisan affair when it comes to marriage. We should not be surprised."

Politicians respond to pressure, which involves moral suasion--and sometimes the application of raw political power. The New York loss is disheartening in this regard. Let's hope the Church hierarchy wakes up on this.

Feminists. You gotta love 'em.

Just when you thought feminism had gone away, here they are in the news again. Their new iteration is something called "Slutwalks." No joke.

According to a report in the Washington Post, reprinted in Sunday's Lexington Herald-Leader:

Thousands of women--and men--are demonstrating to fight the idea that what women wear, what they drink or how they behave can make them a target for rape.

"Slutwalks" have so far been planned in over 75 cities in the U. S. and Canada, the report goes on to say. They are, crows the story (very objectively, we assure you), "the most successful feminist action of the past 20 years." How this "success" is measured is unclear.

The marches feature suggestively clad women, some with "'slut' scrawled across their bodies." According to the objective writer of the story who speaks on college campuses on the issue she is writing about, "... the sad fact is, a miniskirt is no more likely to provoke a rapist than a potato sack is to deter one."

In addition to cladding themselves scantily, marchers will be chanting suggestive slogans such as "Hey Mr., looking for a good time?" and "Hey Big Boy, come on over and see me" in order to show that what women say won't attract unwanted attention either.

Organizers also will be hosting teach-ins to demonstrate how rape has absolutely nothing to do with sex at all.

They also hope their message will spread to other criminal issues, where they hope to educate law enforcement officials to understand that the desire to possess something has nothing to do with shoplifting, the desire to inflict violence has nothing to do with wife beating, and that the urge to cause someone else's death actually has little relation to murder.

Marchers will also ... Oh, no. Wait. Let me check something ... Um, sorry, that last part was not actually in the story. I don't know why I even thought there was a logical connection.

Nevermind.

Israeli official praises WWII Pope for saving Jews

The Israeli envoy to the Vatican praised Pope Pius XII for his efforts to save Jews during World War II:

Lewy, speaking at a ceremony Thursday night to honor an Italian priest who helped Jews, said that Catholic convents and monasteries had opened their doors to save Jews in the days following a Nazi sweep of Rome's Ghetto on October 16, 1943.

"There is reason to believe that this happened under the supervision of the highest Vatican officials, who were informed about what was going on," he said in a speech.

It has become fashionable to denigrate Pius for not grandstanding on the issue--an act that would not only have potentially shut the Vatican down, but which would have prevented the Vatican from helping hundreds of thousands of Jews during the war. It wasn't that way at the time, when numerous Jewish leaders praised the Catholic Church for what it did.

The completely useless Kentucky Human Rights Commision

In case anyone wondered why we have a Kentucky Human Rights Commission, members of the group drove today from various parts of the state to Louisville, all expenses paid, and ... passed a resolution against Confederate license plates.

So far, no word on the religious discrimination complaint filed by Martin Gaskell against the University of Kentucky in May of 2008. Let's see, that's one, two, ... three years ago.

Must be conducting an extensive investigation.

Not.

Tolerance Police breaking some heads, this time on single sex dorms

The Tolerance Police have donned their riot gear and grabbed their truncheons to deal with the most recent outbreak of wholesomeness and decency. This time at a college campus, where wholesomeness and decency are least to be tolerated. We go now to our man on the ground, Robert George:

A George Washington University law professor who is well-known for bringing law suits to advance liberal causes has given notice to the Catholic University of America that he will be suing the university under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act. And what is alleged to be Catholic University's mortal sin against human rights? Are you ready? It is the decision of CUA president John Garvey (himself an eminent legal scholar in the field of religious liberty and human rights, as MoJers know) to shift the university from co-ed dormitories to single-sex dorms. President Garvey's objective (of which this particular change of policy is only a small piece) is to promote moral integrity as the Catholic Church understands that virtue and to combat the culture of promiscuity and alcohol abuse on campus. And what could possibly be wrong with that? Well, for "comprehensive liberals," it seems, having separate dorms for young men and young women is "discrimination" based on "sexual stereotypes." It simply can't be tolerated. Institutions that would separate the sexes in living quarters are practicing the equivalent of racism by imposing on their students the equivalent of the Jim Crow system in the segregated South. Oy vey.

Don't you just love this Tolerance and Diversity thing?

Homosexuality does not exist

Many people do not understand that homosexuality does not exist. We know it does not exist because it can't exist. And we know it can't exist because Natural Selection precludes it.

According to Wikipedia, which commenters on this blog such as Singring frequently quote as authoritative, "Natural selection is the process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

The general idea is that a trait that facilitates reproduction gets passed on and survives while traits that do not facilitate reproduction go away. This is what I was taught in school.

Now you'd think this would be fairly clear cut. In homosexuality, you have a clear cut case of a trait that does not facilitate reproduction. In fact, it's a paradigm case of a tendency that does not get passed along. In light of this very clear cut case, we (and by "we" I mean all of us people who mindlessly rely upon scientists to tell us what to think without actually knowing the actual, like, science ourselves) could conclude very simply that there is no such thing as a homosexual.

[A]s an evolutionary biologist," says Jeremy Yoder, "I have to admit that my sexual orientation is a puzzle ... Gene variants, or alleles, associated with an 80 percent decrease in reproductive fitness should be naturally selected out of the population pretty quickly. So why aren't all humans heterosexual?

What is this? What have scientists done? How do they stand up for their theory in the face of this problem? What have they concluded in light of this all powerful theory they have relied upon for 150 years? They have faced this problem squarely and concluded ... "Natural Selection isn't all powerful," says P. Z. Myers, commenting on the article.

Oh c'mon folks: stand your ground. Don't give up. Acquit yourselves like men. Acquit your ground. Stand on your men. You get the idea. In short, make up your mind. Are you going to be intellectually consistent, or continue to believe in something your theory clearly precludes?

Up until now, people like atheist science blogger Myers have fought the good fight and rejected things like creationism because they obviously conflict with Darwinian belief. But now they are wavering. They reject creationism and Intelligent Design because they conflict with Darwinism, but they accept homosexuality despite the same problem.

How does Myers justify this apparent inconsistency? "I haven't seen any good data," says the now weak-kneed Myers, "to show that homosexuals actually have a reduced reproductive success."

...

Um, yo, P. Z., can we talk?

We can't get into the details here, since this is a family blog. But we suggest you get out a standard biology textbook, look in the section on reproduction, and take careful note of the process by which humans are fruitful and multiply.

The article in Scientific American takes all those things we've been told about Natural Selection and how it works, turns them upside down, shakes them around, stretches them beyond recognition, ... and then reminds us how undeniable they are. The contortions Yoder has to employ to account for homosexuality would try a gymnast.

Look guys, we're going to have to keep this simple. The explanation of Natural Selection we've been using for years has always had the benefit of simplicity and rationality. We can't start fudging now and messing up what before was a straightforward process. It's just bad PR.

If we're not careful it's going to start looking like we're rationalizing. People are going to accuse us of justifying our pet political beliefs in the face of the evidence. They're going to charge that we're just making it up as we're going along, only admitting evidence that confirms our theory and ignoring evidence that would falsify it.

They'll point to our own rhetoric about science always being subject to falsification and say that, in fact, we just ignore obviously disconfirming cases. Like homosexuality.

We've got to be firm on this evolution thing. Either that or question the claims that homosexuality has a scientific basis.

And we can't do that.

Being kicked out of a public pool for wearing too much: the next big thing from Europe?

In the comments section of the previous post about the City Manager in Hazard, Kentucky who, in the name of "federal and state law," unilaterally placed "sexual orientation" language in a policy governing admittance to the city pool despite the fact that a) federal and state law doesn't include this language or require anyone to implement it in their own communities; b) it would have had no effect on what actually happened in the case in which two men who were making out in the pool and ejected because of it; and c) local officials have no business unilaterally making such policies in without the involvement of some locally elected government entity, our own Singring gave his customary opinion on the subject.

He commented:

Martin, a word of friendly advice: Never visit Europe, especially Southern Europe in the summertime. Your head might explode from all the fornicating in the street.

I received his advice with an open mind, and responded that I appreciated his reminder concerning the laxity of European moral standards, and that I would take this into account in making my vacation plans. But I was also reminded of the recent incident in Port Leucate in Southern France in which two women were ejected from a resort pool for wearing "burkinis," swimsuits worn by Muslim women that cover their body and their face.

In other words, while in Eastern Kentucky they eject people from pools for making out in front of the rest of the swimmers, in Singring's Europe they eject them for not showing enough skin.

But we better be careful of giving any ideas to the Kentucky "Equality" Federation.

The City of Hazard stands belly to belly with gay rights group

All it takes is a charge of anti-gay discrimination to strike the fear of God (or possibly some other lesser deity) in the hearts of local officials.

According to recent news reports two city workers in Hazard, Kentucky were reprimanded for asking two men who were kissing in a public pool to leave. One of the workers, Charlotte Pearlman, the manager of the Pavilion facility from which the men were ejected, was reprimanded specifically for "conduct unbecoming a city worker" and for using "inappropriate language" over the phone with a staff member of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 who was trying to conduct an interview with her.

I don't know what exact language Mrs. Pearlman used (we're guessing it was something along the lines of , "@!#?@!."), nor the exact nature of the hand signals she used while saying it, but under normal circumstances, telling off CNN should get you some kind of medal. I have fantasized about doing the very same thing many times. In fact, we just got rid of our old TV set which sported numerous dents incurred by airborne remote controls over the course of a number of years while watching CBS News with Dan Rather.

According to the report in the Louisville Courier-Journal:

City employee Kim Haynes, who was given a week’s suspension without pay for his role in the incident, told investigators that the two men were engaged in an excessive display of affection, and that he would have told any other couple to leave had he seen similar behavior.

The two men had "development disabilities" and were clients of the Mending Hearts, Inc., a local social services agency whose services apparently do not include teaching its clients about socially acceptable public behavior and common courtesy to those around them. Anyone who wants to contact the organization might want to consult their local public bathroom wall: "For a good time, call Mending Hearts, Inc."

What exactly is wrong with telling two people making out in a public pool--no matter who they are--to leave in order to spare other swimmers from having to watch?

At least one witness saw the two men “standing ‘man to man’ or ‘belly to belly’ in the pool … splashing each other with water and pushing each other under the water,” Collins reported. The witness “also said he observed them hug each other on at least one occasion” and give each other a kiss.

Not a spectacle likely to attract swimmers to the local swimming hole.

But Mending Hearts Director Shirlyn Perkins called the Kentucky Equality Federation, which swung (pun--which we just noticed as we were typing this, but are now very pleased with--intended) into action, charging the city pool with discrimination against the two bellied smoochers.

The Kentucky "Equality" Federation is the same group that last year charged that two Eastern Kentucky girls had committed a hate crime when they conducted a mock kidnapping of a gay friend--despite the fact that the girl giggled during the entire episode and gleefully filmed the whole thing on her cellphone. Local law enforcement officials finally just dismissed the case because it was obviously a good-natured prank. But to the Kentucky "Equality" Federation it was a federal crime.

The Hazard City Manager issued an apology to CNN and the staff of Anderson Cooper 360 for Mrs. Pearlman's charge that their staff was a bunch of "@!#?@!" "@!#?@!s" who "@!#?@!ed" their "@!#?@!" "@!#?@!s," although these charges were never actually denied by the network.

In addition, the City Manager ordered that a new pronouncement would be posted at the pool:

As soon as practicable, a new sign will be installed within the Pavilion complex to reinforce the commitment of the City of Hazard that the Pavilion will be open for the benefit of the public and that the services, benefits, and facilities of the complex are available for use without regard to race, ethnicity, color, creed, national origin, age, sexual orientation, or physical/mental disability as required by federal and state law.

Um, can we point out that "sexual orientation" is not currently included in any of the relevant federal or state laws? And that putting them there will require the workings of something called the "democratic process"? You know, that thing we have to use in order to pass laws?

And that just because the Kentucky "Equality" Federation (which lays awake at night worrying that somebody, somewhere might disagree with it on the issue of homosexuality) threatens to sue you does not mean that you have to lay over and play dead--and pass gay rights ordinances that no elected body has ever approved?

And what exactly does this new sign have to do with what happened at the pool with the two men who were smooching "belly to belly"? Does this mean that, if you're gay, you can make out at the pool, but that if you're heterosexual you can't? After all, prohibiting the former is "discrimination," while the other isn't.

That's what the Kentucky "Equality" Federation calls "equality."

Views on the rationality of God, man, and nature

Just thinking out loud here, but, as I was reading Michael Allen Gillespie's The Theological Origins of Modernity on a trip out of town last week, it occurred to me that one could break down worldviews on the basis of their view of reason as it applies to God, man and nature:

• The Medieval Scholastics (e. g., Thomas Aquinas) emphasized belief in a rational God
• The Nominalists (e. g., William of Ockham) and some Protestant Reformers (e. g. Luther) emphasized belief in an irrational God
• The Renaissance Humanists (e. g., Erasmus) emphasized belief in a rational man
• The Existentialists (e. g. Nietszche) emphasized belief in an irrational man
• The Mechanistic Scientists (e. g. Newton) emphasized belief in a rational nature
• The Quantum Theorists (e. g. Neils Bohr) emphasized belief in an irrational nature.

It's not an exhaustive list, but it clarified a couple of things for me.

Go ahead, Maniacs, take it apart.

What George Washington would have tweeted on the eve of the Battle of Trenton

Check out Tom Hoopes' Top Ten Great American Tweets. Here are 9. and 10.:

10. George Washington, Dec. 24, 1776 … Yikes. Valley Forge=brrrr! FMAO! lol. Serious, though #YikesItIsCooold. Tomorrow-MerryChristmas @Hessians

9. Meriwether Lewis, Sept. 13, 1803 … Bleh. “R we there yet?” has been SO not funny since Missouri.

Check out the other ones here.

Uncle Tom's Cab ..., er, Interest Group: Who is the NAACP trying to protect?

Well, it appears that the Simon Legrees at the teachers unions are having some trouble keeping 'em down on the liberal plantation. Seems there are many blacks don't understand what's expected of them from places like the United Federation of Teachers--one of the nation's largest teachers unions.

In New York, a battle has broken out between many black parents, who want better schools for the children, and the NAACP, which is supposed to, like, be working for their interests. After the NAACP joined the teachers unions in a lawsuit opposing charter schools, many black parents parents protested. Literally.

But black children have been major constituents of charter schools since their creation two decades ago. So when thousands of charter-school parents, students and advocates staged a rally on May 26 in Harlem, it was not so much to denounce the litigation as it was to criticize the involvement of the N.A.A.C.P.

Since then, a war has broken out within the civil rights community in New York and across the country over the lawsuit against the city and the larger questions of how school choice helps or hurts minority students.

... For the N.A.A.C.P. ... the dispute has turned into a public referendum on its mission. After joining the teachers’ union in the lawsuit, which seeks to keep 20 charter schools from opening or expanding in buildings shared with traditional public schools, the national organization has found itself on the defensive, forced to explain whose rights, exactly, it is trying to protect.

Read the rest here.

Barefoot and Progressive--but not too Bright

Uh oh. The Tolerance Police over at "Barefoot and Progressive" have spotted our press release pointing out new gay rights language in the Kentucky Department of Education's Model Curriculum Framework. In the fearful sounding post, they accused me of being "terrified of gay people."

Okay. I admit it. They're right. That is why I wrote a press release stating publicly that writing the political agenda of gay rights groups into the state's education policies was a stupid idea, knowing that it would make every member of the Brown Shorts angry at me. Because I'm scared of them. That's why I did it.

I mean, that's what you do when you're scared of people, right? Publicly criticize them to their face?

Just one more piece of keen insight from the folks at Barefoot and Progressive.