Discussion: Should private biz be legally penalized for refusing services to customers?

Keep calm

This.

A controversial bill taken up in Kansas recently has stirred a national discussion on what constitutes “religious freedom” versus “unlawful discrimination” – via AP:

TOPEKA, Kan. — An anti-gay marriage proposal that roiled Kansas politics is dead, the chairman of a state Senate committee assigned to review it said Tuesday.

But the declaration from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Jeff King didn’t appear likely to end the debate over providing legal protections for people and organizations refusing for religious reasons to provide goods and services to gay and lesbian couples. King, an Independence Republican, said he’ll still have hearings on whether Kansas needs to enact religious liberty protections in case the federal courts strike down the state’s gay-marriage ban.

The House approved a bill last week to prohibit government sanctions or anti-discrimination lawsuits when individuals, groups and businesses cite their religious beliefs in refusing to provide goods, services, accommodations and employment benefits related to a marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, or a celebration of such relationships.

Supporters said their intent was to prevent florists, bakers and photographers from being punished for refusing to participate in same-sex weddings, keep churches from having to provide space or clergy for such ceremonies and keep religiously affiliated adoption agencies from being forced to place children with gay couples. Critics said the bill was much broader than advertised and would encourage discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Senate leaders already had said the bill would not pass their chamber, but King said Tuesday that his committee won’t even take it up.

I can’t comment on the specifics of the bill because I haven’t seen the details of it, but if what I read from my friends on the right about this bill is accurate, it represents a big overreach from simply “protecting religious freedom.” While I support protecting religious rights, I don’t support any law that would go beyond that and veer into the unfair discrimination realm. Certainly there’s a smarter, less controversial way to protect the religious freedoms of florists, bakers, etc .on this issue, right?

Well, you’d think/hope so, but on the flip side, you have the activist left (and especially militant gay liberals who talk show host Tammy Bruce refers to as the “Gay Gestapo”) who are bound and determined to bend people to their will on the issue of alternative forms of marriage, even if that means using government to punish you for refusing to provide a service related to gay marriage (like a wedding cake, etc). They’re not satisfied if a baker or a florist provided a birthday cake to a gay couple or hospital flowers to the partner of a gay customer – the baker and florist must also, to the militant left, be forced into providing services for those couples specifically as it relates to their union itself, even if the religious beliefs of the service providers go against those types of unions.

Let’s go ahead and state for the record that there are plenty of cake makers , photographers, etc who have no issue whatsoever with providing gay couples who are getting married whatever service they seek. Let’s also note that for some service providers, they don’t want to provide specific services to gay couples because they don’t like gays, while others oppose providing marriage-related services to gay couples on religious grounds – but would provide other services (like for birthdays, graduations, etc) to them upon request.

My thought is this: The explanation given for the grounds for refusal is immaterial, although using a religious rights basis certainly does raise the stakes quite a bit. You aren’t allowed by law to discriminate against a potential employee based on age, sex, race, sexual orientation, religion etc, but should the government also dictate to you what customers you can and can’t provide services to on that same basis?

The prevailing sentiment I’ve seen from those on “our side” when it comes to private business is to let the free market decide rather than government. If the story gets out – and in these types of cases it almost always does – let word of mouth and the public debate over whether it was morally right or wrong do the work rather than have Uncle Sam step in. A business lives and dies on its reputation and if enough people are dissatisfied and take their money elsewhere, perhaps the business might rethink its decisions and practices. That being said, I find it deeply disturbing that anyone on either side of the issue would want to deliberately target a business owner who provides a good or service but who also – with no malicious intent whatsoever – acts based his/her/their religious beliefs when deciding what services to provide and to whom. Some people will discriminate just to be hateful and antagonistic, while others genuinely operate in good faith.

Your thoughts?

Chris Christie vetoes transgender birth certificate bill, leftists go nuts

SMH

‘Nuff said.

The clueless wonders over at “Think Progress” are having a sh*t fit over Gov. Chris Christie’s veto of a bill that would have allowed “transgender  persons” who haven’t undergone a surgical sex change to legally change the sex on their birth certificates.  First, the story – via NJ.com:

Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a bill today that would have permitted people who underwent a clinical sex change procedure to amend their gender designation on their birth certificates.

Christie said changing a birth certificate would create opportunities for “fraud, deception and abuse, and should therefore be closely scrutinized and sparingly approved.”

Since 1984, state law has required the Department of Health to issue new birth certificates to people who have undergone sex change surgery. But not every transgender person goes that route, with some choosing hormone therapy instead.

The bill, (A4097) would have applied to people who have undergone “clinically appropriate treatment for the purpose of gender transition, based on contemporary medical standards, or that the person has an intersex condition,” according to the legislation.

You can read Christie’s full statement on why he (rightly) vetoed this bill here. Key section:

A birth certificate is an important legal document. In many instances, the production of a birth certificate is a prerequisite to obtaining other critical identification documents that factor into decisions concerning employment, financial services, education, and travel. Birth certificates are often required to complete myriad security-related tasks. Accordingly, proposed measures that revise the standards for the issuance of amended birth certificates may result in significant legal uncertainties and create opportunities for fraud, deception, and abuse, and should therefore be closely scrutinized and sparingly approved.

Unlike many other states, New Jersey already has an administrative process in place to streamline applications to amend birth certificates for gender purposes without court order. Under the proposal before me, however, the sponsors seek to alter the amended birth certificate application process without maintaining appropriate safeguards. Consequently, further consideration is necessary to determine whether to make such significant changes to State law concerning the issuance of vital records.

Not surprising anyone, the leftists over at Think Progress, including their commenters, are OUTRAGED that this “homophobic governor”  – one who has probably done more to placate the gay left than most other Republican governors –  would dare defy them:

Garden State Equality’s Troy Stevenson condemned the veto as a “vindictive move to punish the LGBT community,” highlighting that the bill would “have zero effect on anyone else.” Indeed, Christie’s vague allusions to fraud ironically mirror the kind of suspicion — and resulting invasive searches — that transgender people can experience when their identification does not reflect their appearance.

Unless the legislature manages to find the votes to overturn this veto, sterilizing and expensive surgery will still be required in New Jersey for transgender people to achieve full recognition.

I agree with Christie here, but I’ll take it a step further: I don’t understand why people who HAVE undergone a surgical sex change are allowed to change their BIRTH certificate. If you aren’t BORN a woman but have a sex change later to “be”one, that will never change the fact that you weren’t born one, and – accordingly – your birth certificate shouldn’t be altered.   Admittedly, I am not an expert on the topic – especially seeing as “transgender issues” have oddly become burning issues over the last year or so – so someone, please tell me: is there another way to legally change your gender that doesn’t involve altering your bc?

Back to transgender folks who choose not to have surgery, don’t you dig the alarmist tone in the Think Progress piece? It insinuates that transgenders who elect not to have surgery to make it “official” would rather go through the gross invasiveness of a surgical sex change rather than the uncomfortable and invasive airport searches that the rest of us do. Huh?

I guess none of this would really get to me much if it weren’t for the fact that our society has gone full-fledged cuckoo on the issue of gender and gender roles.  Essentially, radical feminists, the militant gay left, and other like-minded allies on the far left are trying to make it so that there is no such thing as a set “sex” at birth. Ya know, in spite of the fact that 99% of the time biology tells us otherwise.  Furthermore, they think it’s perfectly acceptable for you to “identify” as the opposite gender even if you have no intentions whatsoever of making it official. They also believe that  it’s “discriminatory” for boys and girls to have different bathrooms, especially when you consider that – per them – young people in particular might be “confused” at having certain body parts while mentally identifying as the other sex.  Some even say there’s really no difference between boys and girls/men and women. Some of these same people have also been engaged in longtime campaigns to effectively neuter young boys, and the harmful effects of that are unfortunately being realized.

Here’s a newsflash for you, leftists: If you think young people – and adults, for that matter – are “confused” about gender and gender roles now, especially now in light of your campaign to more or less extinguish them, if your campaigns are ultimately successful we’ll see a widespread confusion over gender and gender roles an an epic level previously unseen, which will create myriad problems in our everyday lives  – and when and if that happens, all fingers will point angrily and directly to you as its enablers.

Related:

DC #Obamacare “outreach” sees clubgoers more interested in condoms than care

Condoms

Clubgoers were more interested in getting right to the, um, point ….

The Politico reports on the latest unconventional attempt at Obamacare “outreach” – this time in the White House’s backyard in DC. And with most things related to the so-called “Affordable Care Act”, it was an epic fail (bolded emphasis added by me):

Washington’s new health insurance exchange dispatched a sign-up envoy to one of the city’s gay clubs one recent night to get out the word about Obamacare. It envisioned men mingling on the dance floor, a cocktail in one hand and enrollment information in the other.

But the brochures about DC Health Link, as the exchange is called, weren’t snapped up as quickly as the free condoms provided by a local clinic.

Like other health exchanges and coverage advocacy groups across the country, DC Health Link is reaching out to people wherever they may be, including bars. President Barack Obama even urged bartenders — who may themselves be uninsured — to hold happy hours to talk about health insurance and what it can offer young adults.

That strategy has clear challenges, however. In a packed nightclub like Town Danceboutique in Northwest D.C., music smothers conversation, dimmed lights make reading difficult, and health coverage is not what’s on people’s minds.

“They’re looking to let loose. They’re not looking to talk about serious topics,” patron Maven Saleh said as he surveyed the Town crowd on a winter weekend.

Add an appearance by Santa wearing a “Naughty” hat as he posed for pictures on stage, and DC Health Link assister John Esposito had a near-impossible task that night. Positioned behind the stage and bar area, he stood by a small table offering not just information about insurance enrollment but packages of condoms and tubes of lubricant. The latter items were courtesy of the Whitman-Walker Clinic, which also had its HIV testing van parked outside.

Any surprise here that Team Obama and their allies urge people to talk about health insurance coverage issues when they’re not in the state of mind that would allow them to think clearly? At the holiday dinner table – where everyone is more focused on food, fellowship, and presents. On college campuses – where Obama and other admin officials love to lecture to young, captive, impressionable (and gullible) audiences.  At bars and nightclubs where people go to “let loose”, get drunk, and get laid. Seeing a pattern here? They’d love to fool people all over again, just like they did the first time around when they shoved the bill through Congress and got it signed into law way back when.

That they have to rely on “selling” enrollment into Obamacare, in part, based on snagging people when they’re not on their A game speaks volumes about proponents of this law, none of it good …

Related:

Media Watch: Alec Baldwin and #MSDNC “mutually part ways” over gay slur

Alec Baldwin

Alec Baldwin: Unhinged and proud of it.

Via Fox News:

NBC’s Alec Baldwin experiment is over 46 days after it began.

“We are jointly confirming that UP LATE will not continue on MSNBC,” the network and actor’s reps said in a joint statement to FOX411.

MSNBC had already suspended Alec Baldwin’s low-rated news program last week following an alleged gay slur directed toward a photographer outside his New York City apartment earlier this month.

Despite the actor’s apologies, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) had also had enough.

“Mr. Baldwin can’t fight for equality on paper, while degrading gay people in practice,” a GLAAD rep told FOX411.

Capital One, which employs Baldwin in its “What’s in your wallet?” TV campaign, has so far done nothing to distance themselves from the hot-headed thespian. The credit card giant did not respond to multiple requests for comment from FOX411 last week regarding his status with the company.

Mediaite has more details, classifying what happened as a mutual parting of ways:

UPDATE: Contrary to the Page Six rumor, Variety reports that Baldwin hasn’t been fired but that his show ended as part of a “mutual” split:

Alec Baldwin and MSNBC have agreed to part ways on his short-lived interview show following the controversy the erupted over the actor’s use of an anti-gay slur in an encounter with a photographer.

Sources close to the situation insist that Baldwin was not been fired from the NBCU news cabler, but that the sides “mutually” agreed to end the show in light of the dust-up.

UPDATE II: Baldwin’s rep Matthew Hiltzik and MSNBC jointly confirmed the news via statement: “We are jointly confirming that UP LATE will not continue on MSNBC.”

MSNBC adds: “This is a mutual parting and we wish Alec all the best.”

Yeah – this had to be about more than just the incident involving the gay slur. After all, Baldwin has a history of meltdowns and freakouts,  including at least  one other instance of him using a gay slur against someone, and MSNBC still brought him on.  Perhaps even the far leftists there found him too hot to handle and decided to use his latest embarrassing scandal to say “adios” before he humiliated them even further?

Who knows? In fact, who cares? But lets hope this emerging epidemic of the left eating their own continues … ;)

Related: HuffPo – Sarah Palin Accepts Apology For Martin Bashir’s ‘Vile, Evil Comments’

Priorities: Closed-door session on “bisexual issues” to be held in Sept. at White House

What the hell?

The White House will hold a closed-door roundtable discussion on issues facing bisexuals Sept. 23.

The event, described in an invitation by White House  LGBT liaison Gautam Raghavan as a session focused on “issues of importance to the bisexual community,” was first reported Thursday by the Washington Blade.

“Participants and administration officials will discuss a range of topics including health, HIV/AIDS, domestic and intimate partner violence, mental health and bullying,” Raghavan wrote.

A White House confirmed Thursday the event will take place, but decline to elaborate.

“Issues facing bisexuals” – “conflicted” people who choose to “love both sexes”?? Not saying they don’t have issues, but don’t we all? The USA Today reported that this type of session will be “an apparent first for the Obama administration” so I’m guessing we should all be impressed at the amazing “inclusiveness.”  Isn’t that special? In the meantime, the White House has seemingly wrapped up the Benghazi issue in short order, with no one being punished.

Move along here, nothing here to see… o=> :-w

Priorities

Yeah. Whatever.

Scalia rips #SCOTUS majority in scathing dissent on #DOMA ruling

Scalia is one guy whose bad side I would not ever, ever want to be on.  Via National Journal (bolded emphasis added by me)

In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage “enemies of the human race.”

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “dis- parage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

Scalia says that the court’s holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.

It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.

In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

You can read the full opinions of the court on United States v. Windsor here.

So nice to know that proponents of traditional marriage like myself are viewed by the majority in this case to be hateful, demeaning bigots, hmm?  Next up for militant liberal gay leftists? The church. Don’t be surprised if this court doesn’t go along with it.  Meanwhile, on to polygamy.

By my count these are the terms successfully redefined by the left over the last few decades: abortion, gender, marriage, family, adult, racism, sep. of church & state. And people still wonder why we’re so screwed up?

Justice Scalia

#TeamScalia

VIDEO: MSDNC’s “Cycle” uses young girl to advance #SSM: “Can you marry a girl?”

And by “young” I’m talking 4 years old. Absolutely unbelievable. Via Politico’s Dylan Byers:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I really thought I’d seen everything, but of course MSDNC never fails to sink to new lows so I shouldn’t be surprised at all by this.  AllahPundit at Hot Air comments:

The idea here, I take it, was to show that supporting gay marriage is so obvious that even a five-year-old can arrive at the right conclusion if left to reason her way through it. That’s not how it comes off; you get the sense that this segment would have run for 20 minutes, with Krystal Ball nudging all the way, if that’s how long it would have taken to arrive at the favored result. I hope they keep this up and expand it to other hot-button issues. I’d be awfully curious to see what a five-year-old thinks of, say, abortion.

Look, there’s nothing wrong with having a debate/discussion about alternative forms of marriage. In the last few years, it’s been an extremely hot topic. But dragging a child into it is just so many levels of inappropriate you’d think even the dopes at MSNBC would understand it. But apparently not.

Wow.

Update – 5:48 PM: I didn’t catch it the first time around because parts were difficult to hear, but apparently the young girl is Krystal Ball’s daughter.

QOTD: On polls and popularity contests regarding the issues we face

Read this over the weekend from Pastor Rick Warren on Twitter, and thought it was worth sharing here:

“Popularity has no bearing on what’s true and what’s false. The crowd, and opinion polls, are often wrong.”

I bring this up because of all the bandwagon-jumping I’m seeing on the issue of gay marriage – especially from Democrats (like Senator Claire McCaskill – MO) and some Republicans, most of who are not doing this out of principle but rather out of a moderate to severe case of “opportunistic-itis.” I exempt Senator Portman on this because I can’t hold it against a parent to reverse course, considering the thought I’m sure he put behind this in light of his son coming out as gay. Unlike President Obama, who has strung liberal gays along (and they have allowed him to) with his seesaw positions on gay marriage – positions he took purely for political purposes, Portman has a reason to feel the way he does now, even though I disagree with the notion that you can’t still be supportive of your son or daughter when they “come out of the closet” if you don’t support gay and other alternative forms of marriage. But that’s another topic for another day.

Reasonable people can disagree on the gay marriage issue. Then again, it seems that the loudest voices on this issue are extremists on both sides, with no consideration given for the “in between” people who are ok with civil unions for gay couples but who also believe that ultimately the best environment to raise children in is the traditional male/female two parent husband/wife marital/family structure – and that it should stay that way. There are also those “in between” types who have family members or friends who have ‘come out” who believe in gay marriage but who believe it should be a state-level issue, not one decided by the feds. We need to hear more such voices, rather than the yelling on the far left and far right about “homophobia” and “end times.”

Back to Warren’s quote, it’s interesting when you think about it. Right now, with the SCOTUS poised to take up two “gay rights” cases this week, an increasing number of politicos announcing their support, etc, pundits on the left (and some on the right who have given up on this issue and want us to stop getting beat up over it) are saying the conservative right needs to “get with the times” as a “majority of Americans” now support gay marriage or civil unions. Think about this, though: Remember the run-up to, and the aftermath of the Iraq war, when polls showed the American people overwhelmingly supported taking out Saddam Hussein? Think liberals bought the argument then that because a majority of the American people supported going into Iraq that they needed to hop on board, too? No, they didn’t. They’ve never allowed popular opinion on any issue favorable to conservatives (or America, for that matter) to dissuade them from their viewpoints. Why should we? When you believe in something – no matter what the issue – a poll and popular opinion shouldn’t be your deciding factor in whether you keep your opinion on an issue.

Do your research. Talk to people. Look at ALL facts on the table. Then determine whether or not you feel the same. And stick with it if you think it is right. Over time, you will either be proven to be on the correct side of the issue, and history – or not.

And here’s something else: It’s ok to evolve on an issue. I changed my mind on a number of them during the course of my switch from liberalism to conservatism, and I didn’t base my view point on polls and popularity contests and pop culture, but rather careful thought and consideration. Don’t be afraid to have a change of heart. But also don’t be afraid to stand strong in the face of adversity and major pushback. As the old saying goes, if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.

Dems, MSM in panic mode as new Pope opposes abortion, gay marriage

Gosh darn it, why can’t the new Pope just “get with the times”? NBC – of course- exemplifies the type of focus our superficial, “progressive Christian” mainstream media has put on the new leader of the Catholic Church (bolded emphasis added by me):

Known as a compassionate Argentine archbishop who eschewed the trappings of his role to live amid his flock and who focused on the poor, Pope Francis will likely keep to Catholic teachings that reject abortion and same-sex marriage, experts said Wednesday.

Francis washed the feet of 12 AIDS victims living at a hospice in 2001, an action filled with symbolism in the Roman Catholic Church since it was reminiscent of Holy Thursday and the washing of the apostles’ feet by Jesus.

But in 2010, while Argentina was debating same-sex marriage legislation, he was quoted as calling the bill that ultimately passed “a plan to destroy God’s plan,” and said it was a “move by the father of lies to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

He has also said gays and lesbians should not be allowed to adopt, according to Bernard Schlaeger of the Pacific School of Religion.

“The pope will be Catholic,” Professor Christopher J. Ruddy, an expert in church theology at the Catholic University of America, said of how he expected Francis to respond to some of the controversial social issues. “He speaks and he teaches what the Catholic church teaches on these issues.”

Nonetheless, gay and lesbian advocacy groups called on Francis to embrace LGBT people and their families.

“For decades the Catholic hierarchy has been in need of desperate reform. In his life, Jesus condemned gays zero times. In Pope Benedict’s short time in the papacy, he made a priority of condemning gay people routinely,” the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said in a statement.

You know what? I’m not a Christian snob, and I don’t pretend to know everything there is to know about Christian teachings, but I do know that homosexuality is one of the sins expressly condemned in the Bible – and in fact is called an “abomination.” It’s a sin alongside adultery, false gods, etc. Faith-immersed leaders are supposed to preach against sin, no matter what that sin is. They aren’t supposed to ignore it nor de-emphasize it and any pastor or priest who does so is doing a serious disservice not only to his faith but also to believers who come to them seeking more knowledge and/or clarification about the Word of God. The job of a pastor or priest is not to “modernize” in order to “keep up with changing times” …. because scripture doesn’t change, isn’t supposed to. Christians are supposed to know and understand well what sin is and what the consequences of it are. If the meaning of the Word of God is watered down to “whatever you want it to mean”, it might as well not even exist.

We’re all sinners, all imperfect – and for those of who are believers, the Word of God is supposed to be our guiding light, what we look to not just when we are facing tough times but also when times are good. While it’s true God’s Word seems to mean something different to almost everyone, there are certain things that are not “debatable” and sin is one of those little inconvenient (to the left) things that are really unquestionable. Sin is not acceptable in the eyes of God – period, no matter the sin – whether they be lies or sleeping around or murder or, yes, homosexuality. Liberals and their allies in LGBT groups like the one mentioned in the NBC article just can’t seem to understand why Christian leaders put so much emphasis on traditional marriage and the traditional family structure more than other sins. “Just leave us alone, don’t condemn!” they say. Well, that’s what they want you to think, anyway – that they simply want to be “left alone”, but in fact, Christian leaders put such a strong emphasis on the home and family so much because that is precisely what is under attack today by militant secularists and misguided “liberal Christians” both inside the church and outside of it who seek to “normalize” behavior that, according to God, is a sin.

Guess what? Even if there was one day is a Pope who doesn’t have an issue with abortion and alternative forms of marriage, according to the Word of God, it is wrong and that’s
never going to change. Not ever. No matter how many worldly declarations are made, how many laws are passed to “normalize” and “de-sin” behavior that is indeed sinful, God’s Word doesn’t change.

That’s a good thing, and I say all this as a Christian myself who knows she is a sinner but who also seeks guidance and forgiveness from God, and who also tries to help others in their Christian walk. I don’t ask God to make sins “ok” – I don’t ask Him to make it ok to lie, cheat, steal, etc. Why would I? I also don’t tell other sinners that their particular sins are “ok” to commit, but I will counsel them about sin when/if the opportunity presents itself. I also do NOT yell that other sinners are, “going to hell.” It’s not my place to make that judgment – it is God’s. But I can urge them to right themselves. That’s ministering to each other, something we are supposed to do. I’m thankful every day to God that His Word will never change, that the Bible – like the Constitution – in reality is not a “living document” that liberals and hardline secularists both in the media and elsewhere can mold into whatever they want it to mean. Well, they can try to change it, anyway but I suspect they’ll greatly regret it later, whether or not they are “successful” at it …

Final word from National Review’s Jim Geraghty in today’s Morning Jolt newsletter:

Was there any cardinal in the mix who, upon assuming the papacy, would step out onto the balcony, and declare, “Oh, hey, abortion, homosexuality and contraception are cool now”?

A couple times a year, Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne writes a column that says basically, “The Vatican has a big problem, because lots of American Catholics don’t agree with the pope.” It never seems to cross his mind that each pope and the Vatican collectively don’t really care that lots of American Catholics don’t agree with them. Or, more specifically, they would like American Catholics to agree with them, but they’re not willing to change what they teach as right and wrong based upon what the Gallup organization says American Catholics think. They think they get that material from the Man Upstairs. You may or may not agree with that assessment of Divine leadership, but the point is that the pope and the cardinals believe it, and they’re not going to be talked out of it by some pundit.

This is an institution that weathered the storms of the schism with the Orthodox and the Protestant Reformation. They’re not going to suddenly abandon their positions in the face of criticism from Chris Matthews, Lawrence O’Donnell, or Andrew Sullivan.

And I pray they never will.