Sometimes I wonder why I read both to read TownHall.com. All it does is anger up the blood.

Case in point: an editorial from Robert E. Rector at the Heritage Foundation concerning sex education. Rector has much to complain about: most sex ed programs these days don't preach abstinence as the only option, he says. The implication, of course, is that the school should teach that the only method of contraception is to say "no" to sex.

And what about the rest of us that live in the real world? He addresses this issue: "Far worse, though, is what abstinence-plus programs do contain: explicit demonstrations of contraceptive use -- especially condoms -- and direct encouragement to experiment sexually." I'd be hard-pressed to find a program that actually encourages sexual activity. At the same time, though, an abstinence-only program ignores the fact that kids are having sex. As we've found out many times before, ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away or change it for the better. Preventing kids from discovering other methods of contraception doesn't encourage sexual behavior; it acknowledges that it is not the school's job to tell kids whether or not sex is moral. In the same way that a library which shelves Mein Kampf doesn't necessarily support those ideas, so too does a school which markets "abstinence-plus" programs not necessarily endorse sex for children. Like the library, it merely provides information so that those kids who do decide to have sex know what their options are, instead of being shut out and labeled as evil by some institution which only recognizes abstinence as a method of contraception.

Rector's column is the rhetorical equivalent of closing one's eyes when a car is coming, as though pretending it's not there will change it. Or, we can be realistic and acknowledge the fact that sex among kids does exist. And rather than shunning those that do and giving them a stern lecture about how it is evil and that, if they want to have contraception, they cannot have any, since abstinence is the only "correct" method of contraception, we should tell them what they want to know.

This, of course, only goes for schools. It is the parents that set morals, and as always, it is not the school's job to teach morality, despite certain folks who feel that a particular morality -- their morality -- should be taught to all children. These same people proceed to balk when the school takes an amoral stance or begins teaching a morality contrary to theirs. It's a great day when hypocrisy walks into a room disguised as virtue and then becomes unmasked, revealing its true, decrepit face.

Posted by Mark at 7:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

On August 22, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, was suspended for refusing to comply with an order from U.S. District Court judge Myron Thompson to remove a monument depicting the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the state judicial building. TownHall.com, as expected, was abuzz with opinions defending Moore. My personal favorite was a ridiculous pile of garbage produced by Greg Rummo, which cleverly used ellipsis points and interpolation to manipulate his readers like Shari Lewis. "For centuries, religious freedom in America was dictated by the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, 'Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].'" The unlearned visitor thinks that Congress has no power whatsoever to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Unfortunately, that's not what the amendment says. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," is actually what the amendment says.

Writing pejoratively about the Supreme Court's 1980 decision, Stone v. Graham, Rummo also alters the text of the case to suit his needs. "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey [them]. This is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause," is what Rummo claims the majority opinion said. Rummo's alteration of the text of the opinion induces the reader to believe that the Supreme Court does not want the Ten Commandments to be venerated, is evil, and anti-Christian. In fact, the sentence continues on to read: "However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause." In other words, keep religion in people's private lives and don't involve the government in it.

In any case, I wrote this so that I could expose the inaccuracy and manipulation of Mr. Rummo. And I agreed with the District Court's decision.

Posted by Mark at 11:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I finally got tired of dreaming and decided to live the experience -- the experience of the Hungry Man All-Day Breakfast. (The link points to X-Entertainment's review of the product.) All in all, it was a lot of food. The sausage was too dry, the eggs had the consistency of sand, but the pancakes, bacon, and hash browns were good. I ate about half of it, and only because the eggs got increasingly disgusting. If combined with cheddar cheese, I would have eaten the whole thing.

Did the 690 milligrams of cholesterol and 2.09 grams of pure, unadulterated sodium kill me? Fortunately, no. My constitution shields me from fats of any kind. And, if pressed, I would eat the breakfast again. Maybe twice.

Posted by Mark at 4:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Finally, there’s a voice in the discussion of gay marriage that doesn’t preach Scripture or the protection of moral values. As expected, it’s William F. Buckley, the vanguard of reason, and he injects a constitutional question into the debate: “gay marriage evangelists are ready to take advantage of that clause in the Constitution (the ‘full faith and credit’ clause) that requires individual states to respect legislation and judicial findings of other states in respect of citizens of those states. A couple who are [sic] married in the state of Virginia must be treated, when traveling in Wisconsin, as married.” The gay marriage advocates also have a safe haven in Article IV, which says, “Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” Buckley balks at the use of this clause to force other states to acknowledge gay marriage: “The authority of Congress here is presumably evidentiary, not substantive,” meaning that past Supreme Court cases have established Congress’s breadth with regard to this clause; it is not specifically written into the Constitution. And this is where the problem is for him: the ability for state laws to be applied to other states via Congress is inferred, not explicit. This ability comes from the Supreme Court.

As expected, Buckley attacks the Supreme Court’s judicial activism, citing it as responsible for the “juggernaut determined to go all the way with the license given by the Supreme Court’s Lawrence decision.” The Lawrence decision (Lawrence v. Texas, 02-102) is the most recent ruling regarding gay rights, the Texas sodomy case that was decided just before the court went into its summer recess.

Buckley asks, “How does a self-governing republic proceed with a judiciary that has taken to writing basic laws?” This is a question that, if it were asked, should have been asked in 1801 with Marbury v. Madison. This case established the ability of the Supreme Court to override acts of other states or other branches of government if these acts conflict with the federal Constitution. This “writing basic laws” has been going on for two hundred years, and it is only when the ruling of the Supreme Court is in conflict with Buckley’s (and others’) opinions is judicial review a bad thing. The only answer to the Supreme Court’s usurpation of the legislature is an amendment to the constitution – in fact, “if the Supreme Court is going to continue to perform as a standing constitutional convention, then it becomes a conservative warrant to employ constitutional defenses.” Such an amendment to the constitution would, like the prohibition amendment, target one specific issue on behalf of a single group of people: “the necessary amendment need go no further – nor should go any further – than to limit the application of the full-faith-and-credit clause to exclude any requirement to abide by laws or judicial findings authorizing same-sex marriage.” These single-issue amendments (like the flag burning amendment) reek of a group attempting to exercise control of the country on behalf of an agenda it seeks to advance. The real issue here is not the misuse of the full-faith-and-credit clause, for if it were, the amendment Buckley suggests would close all the loopholes pertaining to that clause, like the “Reno divorces” that he cites (in the 1930s, people whose states didn’t permit divorce would go to Nevada – where divorce was legal – and get a divorce there. They would then return to their home states, which would be forced to acknowledge the divorce under the full-faith-and-credit clause, since it was made in a state where divorce was legal). Buckley seeks not to close this loophole altogether: just to close it for same-sex marriages. (And how do I know this, you ask? The sarcastic way in which Buckley refers to same-sex marriage, as well as his standing as a bastion of conservatism; conservatives don’t like the idea of same-sex marriage.)

The Supreme Court’s activism – at which Buckley and others balk – is what keeps the Constitution up-to-date. Supreme Court ruling are integral to ensuring that the framework written in 1787 is as relevant to us today as it was then. How so? Take “equal protection,” the key phrase of the Fourteenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court found as meaning that “separate but equal” is unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education) – albeit after an earlier court said it was okay (Plessy v. Ferguson) and that accused persons who cannot afford an attorney are entitled to one (Gideon v. Wainwright). Buckley and other conservatives also have a hard time dealing with Roe v. Wade, which pieced together several amendments into a patchwork version of a right to privacy (“privacy advocates are perfectly free to reason that somehow, implicit in the ‘spirit’ of the Constitution, there is something that permits the destruction of fetal life in deference to the private rights of women,” says Buckley).

While Buckley’s argument is more based in reason than arguments from, say, Pat Robertson, there is still something lacking: Buckley’s own refusal to acknowledge the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. And let’s not forget the “due process” clause also contained within the Fourteenth Amendment: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” To deny to homosexuals the same legal protections afforded to heterosexuals through the vehicle of “marriage” is a clear abridgement of their privileges – and without due process of law.

Posted by Mark at 2:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Supreme Court’s decision just before it went into summer recess to strike down a Texas sodomy law was heralded by gay rights advocates as a change in the Supreme Court’s attitude. It had just the opposite effect on more traditional sensibilities, eliciting a “here goes the neighborhood” response from friends like Cal Thomas, who wrote in a column before the decision, “If the Texas sodomy law is struck down (as it probably will be), then it is fair to ask, what’s next?” The extreme left sees the decision as an endorsement of the homosexual way of life; so does the extreme right, but each side sees it positively and negatively, respectively (that’s a lot of adverbs).

In fact, the Supreme Court – if it’s working correctly, which is appears to be doing – should not care about upholding a homosexual agenda or a conservative agenda. It should care about upholding the constitution, and if in the process a particular way of life appears to be endorsed, that is a necessary side-effect, but not the focus of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and, if necessary, render invalid state or local laws that conflict with the Constitution. I don’t suppose many people take the time to read the full text of Supreme Court cases; instead, they rely on news blurbs which summarize the court’s decision. If one took the time to read Supreme Court rulings, one would find that, most of the time, cases that appear earth-shattering are ruled in such a way because of mundane legal reasons, not because the members of the Court are ideologues. In this instance, the Texas sodomy law was struck down not because the Court believed in gay rights, but because the law was fundamentally in conflict with the 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens. The Texas sodomy law made sodomy illegal for same-sex couples, but not for heterosexual couples, creating a double-standard against a particular class of people: gay men (or women) cannot engage in sodomy, but heterosexual couples can. It’s as simple as that, and it’s why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did.

Talk about “litmus tests” for Supreme Court candidates is ridiculous on its face (as the Supreme Court might say), since the folks who are responsible for appointing members of the Court want justices who believe in the same ideology as them. Thankfully, justices over the years have put aside their own ideologies (“what do I think is right?”) in favor of a more objective approach to the law (“what is best for the country?”). This is how we have people like Earl Warren, appointed by Eisenhower, delivering some of the most liberal opinions in Court history. Employing litmus tests to stack the court in a certain way would most likely be irrelevant once a new justice realizes the import of his position, and is antithetical to the Constitution, which created a Supreme Court that was supposed to be free of influence from any group (hence the reason why justices are appointed for life and why they can only be removed by impeachment or resignation). A “litmus test” to put a particular kind of person on the bench – currently, Roe v. Wade is the test – is underhanded and undemocratic.

For people like Cal Thomas to insinuate that allowing consensual homosexual sex in a private home is like opening the floodgates to hell is ridiculous. A law like the Texas sodomy law is a ridiculous law to have, for it is detrimental to the heterosexuals among us, as well. It establishes – by rule of law – the ability for the government to set a particular moral standard and arrest people in their own homes for violating that moral standard. Senator Rick Santorum, R-Pa., was criticized for his comments about the potential decision, stating that if sodomy became legal, so too would bestiality, incest, and bigamy. I ask: what is the government’s compelling interest in preventing bestiality or sodomy? It hurts no one except those who feel that it is morally wrong; to these people, it is – as we say in French – none of their damn business was private citizens do in their own homes. As for incest, that has always been illegal and will continue to be, for the government has a compelling interest in preventing the kinds of problems that accompany incest (I speak of birth defects and a gradual contamination of the gene pool). It also has a vested interest in preventing bigamy for legal reasons.

And let’s talk about marriage, for it is a hot topic. Any law (like the Defense of Marriage Act currently in Congress) that mandates marriage only between a man and a woman will be struck down by the Supreme Court on the same fourteenth amendment grounds. Why? Married couples are granted certain rights to each other – for tax purposes, probate purposes, at the hospital, for insurance reasons – and a dozen other places. Gay couples, who cannot marry in the traditional sense, would be denied that equal protection for reasons beyond their control simply because they do not marry in the same way that heterosexuals do. To define marriage as occurring only between a man and a woman would deny them the privileges accorded to married heterosexual couples, which is impossible under the fourteenth amendment. As far as the Constitution goes, there is a good reason to allow homosexual marriage: it has nothing to do with a homosexual agenda; it has everything to do with the Equal Protection clause. By contrast, the argument against homosexual marriage is purely subjective and based entirely on religious and moral reasons – but whose morals? To deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals based on a subjective rationale that has nothing to do with rule of law is also undemocratic.

Cal Thomas implies that the sanctity of marriage and heterosexual sex is proven in Scripture. But Scripture is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. We’re talking about rule of law, here, not rule of Bible (curiously, law based in the religion of a majority group is the same way that countries in the Middle East are run. Is Cal Thomas with us, or with the terrorists? The answer is: whenever it’s convenient for his opinion). Democracy in the United States is about equal rights based on reason, not subjective rights based sometimes on reason and sometimes on religious morals. While conservative folks like Thomas preach that they favor less government intrusion, they mean that they favor less government intrusion – for them, but more government intrusion for people with whom they disagree. Once again, a measure resorted to by the Middle Eastern dictatorships that Thomas hates so much.

But I’m not here to engage in ad hominem attacks. I’m here to state that Supreme Court decisions are made with the law in mind, not some socio-political-economic-cultural ideology in mind. The Supreme Court hates making rulings based on ideology, and well they should: it is a court of law, and when law starts entering the realm of subjectivity, that’s the end of the democracy we’ve enjoyed for two hundred-plus years.

Posted by Mark at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)