The goals of the LGBT movement are not malleable. They are absolute and aggressive. The bakers, wedding photographers, florists and others throughout the country who have declined to provide services for same-sex weddings, knowing that such provision constitutes tacit endorsement, have become targets of often the vilest of attacks, not to mention legal action and media scorn.
To disagree with the full mainstreaming of homosexuality is to be a social pariah in popular culture, education and even professional life. For even mentioning their support of marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman, sportscasters, restaurateurs, business leaders and other public figures have lost jobs and been forced from their positions. This is a form of fascism.
Constitutional government in America, but could lead to even further damage to the rule of law. No, I am not referring to the elections.
The Supreme Court announced that it will take up the case of King vs. Burwell. In this case the Obama administration is being challenged over the legality of paying Obamacare subsidies to nearly 5 million enrollees on HealthCare.gov, the federal health care exchange. They have paid those subsidies without statutory authority, according to the plaintiff. The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, explicitly allows those subsidies only to those who enroll on state-run exchanges. If the Supreme Court agrees that the subsidies are illegal under the plain language of the legislation, nearly 5 million people would lose their subsidies. This would be disruptive, to say the least, since 36 states do not have a state-run exchange.
The case is very awkward for the Obama administration. The Obama administration, working with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, wrote the legislation and passed the legislation without the participation of a single Republican. They put in the explicit language that limited subsidies to enrollees of state-run exchanges as a political tool to force states to set up state-run exchanges. A key policy maker for the Obama administration plainly stated as much in a very public way. But once it became clear that many states were not going to set up state-run exchanges, the Obama administration ignored its own legislative language, and paid subsidies to enrollees on the federal health care exchange anyway. more >>
Based on the talk after Election Day, it could be easy to think we might as well forget about pro-life campaigns. Two out of three pro-life ballot initiatives failed on Tuesday. The campaigners – in Colorado specifically – are often criticized for coming at it again and again.
So why do it? Why should pro-lifers continue to put measures on state ballots? Why should they continue to push legislation in their state and federal legislatures?
What's the point? more >>
There is no such thing as the Easter Bunny.
If there arose a global movement that loudly and proudly demanded "bunny equality," and a dozen or more activist federal judges suddenly declared the Eastern Bunny to be real, and thousands of rabid rabbit wannabees pranced in pink bunny suit parades, all the while pretending to be, even believing themselves to be, Easter Bunnies, and liberal legislators passed "anti-discrimination" laws presuming to force everyone else to join in on the delusion (severely punishing those who refused), there'd still be no Easter Bunny.
There is no such thing as "same-sex marriage." more >>
What was already a great week for conservatives just turned into an incredible one -- thanks to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Good news hasn't been easy to come by on marriage, but after big wins in the election, voters can finally celebrate one in the courts. After a couple of bright spots for states' rights in an otherwise gloomy year, two judges may have just turned the same-sex "marriage" debate on its head.
For liberals, who had gotten pretty accustomed to the courts doing their bidding, the Sixth Circuit's ruling came as quite a shock. Unfortunately, that's the situation America is in right now -- it's actually surprising when a court does its own job and not the legislature's! Most judges have been too busy moving their ideology forward at the expense of the Constitution to bother themselves with the rule of law. Fortunately, two George W. Bush appointees bucked that trend and issued a common sense opinion that keeps the marriage amendments of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee intact -- for now.
Unlike the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, Judges Jeffrey Sutton and Deborah Cook recognized that the government has a reason, a "rational basis," for preserving marriage. And that reason isn't rooted in animus, but a civilizations'-old understanding of marriage's benefits and place in society. "A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world," wrote the duo, "shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the States." more >>
The decision by a United Kingdom High Court judge to allow a British mother to legally euthanize her 12-year-old daughter, who was suffering from a host of non-life threatening disabling disorders, is drawing strong criticism from many disability advocates who say the decision sets a dangerous precedent that will allow guardians of other disabled people to do the same.
In August, Charlotte Fitzmaurice Wise legally authorized the euthanasia of her daughter, Nancy, after she successfully petitioned the U.K. High Court to allow her to end her daughter's pain and misery.
Nancy, who was born blind and diagnosed with hydrocephalus, meningitis and septicaemia, suffered constant pain and was never able to talk, walk, eat or drink on her own. Her condition required 24-hour hospital care, where she could only be fed, hydrated and medicated through tubes. more >>