California's Top Court Overturns Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Once again, liberals get a court to hand them what the people don't want.

And I wonder why all of the Californians book it up here.

Perhaps it is because I have only relatively recently started accepting the fact that I'm gay, but I've gone from being completely uninterested in legalizing gay marriage to being completely uninterested in legalizing gay marriage. The arguments people throw out ("Love is love! OMG WTF!!!111!1") are so simplified that it's laughable.

California's voters, known for their right-wing extremism, already said they don't want gay marriage. California already has what is basically gay marriage with their blessed civil unions. And yet the liberals cannot abide not having their way, so they get a court to give whatever they want to them. And it will be appealed. And it will be struck down.

Do liberals not want to work for what they want and get people on their side? Just like with abortion, a court had to give them what they wanted without them using democracy.

Sensible thoughts from Gay Patriot.

EDIT: For those of you who have forgotten, let me explain how the United States is supposed to work. Your state has laws that reflect the values of the people. If you don't like it, you simply and very easily move to a state with your values. I don't care that people in California want gay marriage--what I care about is that they are forcing an entire state, through the courts of all pathetic places, to adhere to their set of values when they can simply move to Massachusetts.

EDIT 2: OK, it_gurl explained the court's thought process to me in a way that I understand. Read her comment here. Feel free to spam her for being right.

If a woman is attacked, and her unborn baby (or twins) is killed, should the gunman be charged with murder?

Many pro-choicers have no problem saying, "Yes," because the babies were wanted by the mother and even if they weren't, it wasn't an abortion. Sorry guys, but this is another example of your movement being extreme while you are not.

Case in point, brought to my attention by Jill Stanek, Katherin Shuffield of Indiana was shot and wounded while on the job at a bank by a bank robber. Her unborn babies are dead.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a wrongful death suit cannot be brought for killing an unborn child, regardless of whether the baby is viable. This was in the wake of a drunk driving accident a few years back when a nearly full-term baby died.

Indiana law also does not define "viability" in reference to its fetal homicide or manslaughter laws. We believe we have identified a murder case in which the courts accepted viability as being 24 weeks.

It appears that fetal battery charges may be the only charges that can be brought.

Several legislators have worked throughout the last two years to correct these problems, but the core issue in Indiana is that our Democrat-controlled House kills every pro-life bill that it gets.

So because the babies were not "viable" (meaning they cannot survive outside of the womb) they are considered unworthy of justice. Sounds like a pro-choice world to me. Jill makes a good point though: "I questioned this, since the doctors decided to deliver the babies, meaning they thought the babies stood a better chance of surviving outside their mother's uterus than inside... meaning they were potentially viable."

Not that it matters whether or not they were viable: they were killed by a non-abortionist, and the mother was not planning on aborting them. Can you imagine what this mother is going through, wounded from being shot and not being able to have justice for her children? The robber remains to be caught. The babies were five months-old, no where near the pro-choice scientific definition of "blob of tissue". (See picture.)

The only reason this is an issue is because of abortion.

Pro-choice advocates, from the feminists and organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, are very, very glad that the robber cannot be charged with murder, as they have openly stated time and time again that such laws would "endanger" a "woman's right to choose".

These people are insane. Even though the babies were wanted and the mother had no intention of aborting. "Sorry, babe. Take a back seat for our agenda next to the blacks. We wouldn't want you and your children being brought to justice to endanger promiscuous teenagers in any way." Women who get knocked up and "exercise their right to choose" are considered heroines and yet a woman who survives getting shot and the loss of her children is potentially a menace to the right to choose. It's nice they care about women, isn't it?

Child rapists should die, state argues

I hold the view that all rapists should be put to death, but in our culture, the definition of "rape" is so skewed and getting grayer, it would be harder to do so beyond a reasonable doubt. Child-rape is different, however, because you don't have kids getting drunk and acting like whores.

Poll #1171561
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 8

What do you think of this?

Jessica over at Bush v Choice is snippy over Missouri governor Matt Blunt's remarks in his recent attempt to block prison inmates from getting abortions. Now, I must say, myself, that I don't see why prison inmates should be the exception in the mad dash to abort children. (Does anyone see any reasoning for this?) Thankfully, to Jessica, pro-choice liberals generally get what they want by using the courts, as they did in this case: the Federal Appeals Court said, yes, women in jail have the right to dismember their children too, thus preventing any glass wall that the jailed women who have spent their entire lives contributing to society have been striving to surpass. Ah, how glorious the victory must be.

Jessica indignitaly quotes Blunt, who said, "Over the last three years, we have … enacted laws that reflect our profound respect for the inherent dignity of each and every life...I am hopeful and prayerful that we can further protect life by enhancing our laws to defend the dignity of human life."

Responding with her usual thought-provoking commentary, Jessica states: "Unless that life is an incarcerated woman, then her dignity doesn't really mean [obligatory curse word] to Blunt." (And the blog entry dramatically ends!)

What kind of a world do pro-choicers live in? It must be nice that any kind of argument, no matter how elementary or advanced, can be ended with, "PRO-LIFERS HATE WOMEN!!!!!11!!!" and a threat to go stick a coat hanger in themselves.

Queen of Child-Killing Advocacy herself, Kate Michaelman, graced us with her presence on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade with a rather intriguing column in the Los Angeles Times. She frankly states, "Twenty years ago, being pro-life was déclassé. Now it is a respectable point of view. "

In the 1970s, the arguments were simple and polarized: Abortion was either murder or a woman's right to control her body. The fetus, however, stayed largely invisible. The pro-choice movement stayed on the message offensive, tactically shifting in 1989 from women's bodies to the "who decides" [Hahahahaha!] question posed by NARAL Pro-Choice America. But this was rapidly parried by the anti-choice demand that we look at what was being decided, not just who was deciding.

Um, wow. I totally agree with what she just said.

She declares, "It's not 1973. Pro-choice forces must adjust to regain the moral high ground."

This article was actually enjoyable to read, because it reaffirms what I've been saying from the start: pro-choice advocates know the fetus is a human, they just don't care. To have Michaelman of all people admit this is wonderful.

Perhaps some of you have already clued into this "moral highground" of screaming "women, women, body, women!" when discussing abortion pointlessly with some NARAL supporter type on a college campus or, worse, abortiondebate. (Not dissing the community, mind you.) You have the smart ones and the clueless ones: the smart ones are the ones who don't care about the development of the fetus despite any information that comes out (the fetus could literally be saying, "Um, please don't kill me!" and they would tell it to shush, their mother is getting ready to practice her right of bodily integrity, and it would be ever-so-much easier if the fetus would keep it down) and the clueless ones are the ones who don't know about Doe vs. Bolton and think that abortion is illegal after the first trimester. Needless to say, these types don't lead the movement.

It's funny, because pro-choice advocates are so desperate to kill children. They have ignored any new information about the fetus that has come out in the past 35 years that points to "personhood" or claim that, why no, just because a fetus is fully developed doesn't make it a "person", oh wow look at how deep we are talking about "personhood"! ("Personhood" is a term so vaugue that it has come to mean "whatever pro-choicers want it to mean at the time".) They simply are now the most honest they've ever been about their position, which has been the same ever since Roe: they think women have the right to kill their children.

Darrell Birkey, in one of the few pleasant e-mails I've received in the past week, addresses my point about Fred Thompson being against a Human Life Amendment. One hostile commenter (not Mr. Birkey) illiterately asked "WHAT PART OF A HUMAN LIFE AMENDMENT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?" as if I somehow missed that in my post about Thompson.

Firstly, it should be noted among the "personhood" crowd (as if the rest of us don't believe that fetuses are people too) that it really doesn't make sense to create a Personhood Amendment if the Constitution already protects people. (Not that I would be against such an amendment, but I'm just making the point.) The "let's stand on principle" thing doesn't really work that far, unless you are willing to "stand on principle" when the time comes and say, "We don't NEED a Personhood Amendment! It's already in the Constitution! Equal rights NOW!" Why have the redundancy? (This question is rhetorical, of course.)

But anyway, regardless of that, Darrell took slight exception to my statement that the president doesn't really have a role in the amendment process, saying that, actually yes, the president does have role: an influential role.

Well, yes. I agree with that. I was meaning an actual role laid out by the Constitution. But yes, the president can influence Congress and the states.

But Darrell, you also said that appointing judges was the least important thing that a president can do for the pro-life cause. I would totally disagree with that. But then again, I'm not going the amendment route, so our disagreement makes sense.

-N

Brian Rohrbough, president of the new pro-life organization American Right to Life has recently issued a "Media Advisory". As I suspected from the inception of this new organization, ARL is going to be spending a lot of time criticizing National Right to Life.

It’s interesting to note, first of all, that when you go to the American Right to Life website you’ll find many cross words with NRLC but little explaining the “better” way to be pro-life. NRLC is constantly denounced by ARL as being worse than pro-choicers themselves, but yet the solutions to the “failed” stratagem of NRLC is no where to be found on the ARL website.

Oh wait, unless you want to pay $15, that is. That’s right: on the “Strategy” page which I eagerly clicked on in order to find out how ARL plans on ending abortion in twelve years very quickly blasts the “immoral” strategy of the National Right to Life and then tells us that we have to order a DVD in order to find out how we can stop being immoral. It's like those late night infomercials that promise us a way to earn one hundred-grand with minimal work...and we only need to buy a program to find out how!

I’m all for denouncing, by the way. Go ahead: attack the National Right to Life, call them baby-killing accomplices—but at the very least show us how to do things the right way without charging us money. It’s for the children, after all.

ARL peeps seem to think that should Roe vs. Wade become overturned and the choices of abortion finally go back to the states, NRLC will simply cease to be an organization. Ah yes, come the glorious day of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade they’ll brush off their hands, pack up their Washington DC office and go back home. ARL seems to think that the most important thing for the people at NRLC is to be all Libertarian about abortion and return power to the states, case closed.

And I’m not saying that National Right to Life is perfect—they aren’t. But I fail to see how creating an organization that will, over time, raise thousands of dollars for the sole purpose of attacking National Right to Life helps anything. That’s what American Right to Life is. Well, at least that’s all I can tell that they do via their webpage without paying $15 for the “strategy” that will end abortion in 12 years.

While it certainly is possible that American Right to Life will pass some kind of personhood bill in some small, conservative state, the fact remains that it will have to make its way up to the Supreme Court. And such a bill will be struck down by the Supreme Court. This is the realistic reality right now. We must continue to pray for God to touch the hearts of the people of this wicked nation, and He surely will do so. But 1) He will not force morality into their hearts, 2) abortion is the root of a greater spiritual problem and 3) we should be doing what we can and be at least trying to save some of the children. This is a point that ARL refuses to address.

ARL would rather 1.5 million children all be slaughtered than save, say, half of them. They have the position that it is unacceptable for even one child to die (which is a correct position) and that no children should be saved unless they all can be saved (which is a morally reprehensible position).

The ultimate goal of the ARL is to pass a Personhood Amendment. These days an Amendment is very, very hard to pass, requiring three-fourths of the States to ratify it. Yes, if abortion ever becomes viewed as slavery is now viewed, it may be easier, but it should be noted that that’s not how abortion is viewed. Should we go to war over the issue as we did with slavery? Maybe, but you’ll have to order the DVD to find out!

From Jill Stanek:

Politically correct personhood

This spectacular Time magazine photo, posted November 21, is of a human embryo implanted in the wall of the uterus.

Except Time called it "[a]n implanted fertilized egg." Judging by the number of cells and placement, this human embryo was about 1 week old, far older than what Time called an "embryo" a day earlier in another article on embryonic stem cell research.

To MSM, agenda drives terminology. And when speaking of human personhood amendments, which Time was in the first article, "fertilized egg" suited the agenda.

Read the rest of her thoughts here.

First of all, this picture is amazing. The idea that we are so helpless early in life—so dependent on a being much greater than we—puts the fear of God in me. The idea that we so easily destroy these tiny lives for our own selfishness also causes me to fear for those who would do it.

The reason Time wrote about this is because there is an initiative in Colorado that will declare that a "fertilized egg" is, in fact, a person. In other words, it will declare what should be obvious. I'll write more about what I think of the initive later, but I wanted to make a prediction that the biggest argument against this initiative will be that birth-control will be made illegal. (It won't, of course.)

As most of you know, hormonal birth control sometimes works by blocking a "fertilized egg" (zygote) from the uterine wall. This means that the tiny life will die right within the mother. Most women are under the impression that the pill (and every other hormonal birth control out there) only works by preventing conception. Interestingly, even Christians don't seem to care when you tell them that they could be killing life within them. Their deluded idea of "waiting" to have kids while they are in a marriage relationship is much more important to them than actually carrying through the purpose of sex.

But the resistance against the truth about birth control pills has been so strong in the past, it will be interesting to watch it come right out now that the agenda is different. As Jill quoted Keith Mason of the CO Personhood Initiative: "Pro-aborts have either been lying for 40 years that the birth control pill doesn't kill a baby or lying now that it does. Does it or doesn't it?"

My thought exactly.

Recently I was talking with my "connection" at National Right to Life (by "connection", I mean an old-coworker) and that got me to thinking about the current branches of the pro-life movement, about which I blogged just one entry ago.

If you look at the American Right to Life website, you will see that their goal is to end abortion in 12 years. And if they don't, they say, their entire leadership board will step down and replace it with new leadership. I wish they would have made this commitment in 1973 when Roe vs. Wade went through, because then they might have a little bit more of an appreciation for the road blocks ahead. I fail to find one way in which you can blame the NRLC for abortion still being legal. I defy anyone to produce a decent hypothesis.

But I was reminded about what former Oregon Right to Life president Dr. Ken Wilson said about abortion a few years ago in a promotional video. To paraphrase: Jeremiah went 30 years without a single convert.

American Right to Life apparently wants abortion to end now. But then again, who doesn't? The problem is there is a big difference between wanting something and attaining something. You can't just stick the abortion issue in the microwave and have it be done in 6 minutes. Abortion is a complex issue (though it shouldn't be) and abortion rights have been ingrained into the lives of Americans. You can't just take it away without resistance. And our resistance is strong: the pro-choice movement has the money. They have a lot of political power. They have the colleges and universities. All we really have is the truth and some great organizations like...National Right to Life.

I really can't stress enough that I am a total "on principle" pro-lifer. I never agree with abortion. This is why I'm a blogger and don't work for Right to Life—because as a Right to Life employee you have to be gracious with the "other side" in order to save babies. That's not my cup of tea. So I choose to blog and help Right to Life out any way I can as a volunteer. But I choose to save as many babies as possible as opposed to saving a principle. Making an exception for rape and incest doesn't approve of abortions in cases of rape and incest: it is saying "Fine, we'll give you this for the time being." Once we can save 90% of the babies we'll be able to work on the hearts of the mothers who want to abort a rapist's child.

First, I don't understand Thompson's fixation with nonexistent state laws that would send girls and women to jail who abort. There never have been such laws, and there never will be. Thompson's insistence on bringing up this abortion industry scare tactic, unprovoked by any interviewer and all the while maintaining he doesn't want to discuss hypotheticals, only puts thoughts in people's minds that ought not to be. He needs to just shut up about that.

—Jill Stanek

I have also found these comments by Thompson to be annoying, and by saying them I think that he further proves my suspicion that he's in cahoots with NARAL. I mean, really, no actual pro-lifer would ever say something like this! Well, except for me of course, advocating such laws. But I'm the only pro-lifer apparently who actually thinks that the mothers who slaughter their children should receive some form of punishment. Ahem.

While the issue of abortion "going back to the states" is certainly what I believe should happen, I don't use that argument to shield the underlying principle I have about abortion: that it's murder. If anything, saying that abortion should be left to the states should be a way of softening the blow for poor college pro-choicers who can't fathom a world without a woman's right to choose; but not the other way around.

Thompson clearly doesn't care about his pro-life base, and that's annoying. Every Republican president needs to be aware of what the people who vote for him value. Usually at this point we could laugh maniacally and say that we hold the power through the NRLC endorsement...but, oh wait, NRLC chose to endorse Thompson who 1) has yet to say abortion is morally wrong, 2) shallowly says that it's a "state issue" in order to avoid any moral grandstanding, 3) talks as if he's a NARAL intern about "girls going to jail", 4) won't sign a Human Life Amendment, 5) has a bad position on end-of-life issues. Next we'll be finding out he supported McCain-Feingold!