The U.S. Supreme Court has issued one of its non-rulings that gives a boost to one side of a controversy. In this case, they have left in place the decisions from seven courts regarding gay marriage. According to SCOTUSblog:

This morning the Court issued additional orders from its September 29 Conference. Most notably, the Court denied review of all seven of the petitions arising from challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage.  This means that the lower-court decisions striking down bans in Indiana, Wisconsin, Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia should go into effect shortly, clearing the way for same-sex marriages in those states and any other state with similar bans in those circuits.

The Supreme Court had issued the first round of orders from the September 29 Conference last Thursday, adding eleven new cases to its docket for the new Term.  Many people had anticipated that one or more of the same-sex marriage petitions might be on that list, but the Court did not act on any of them at the time.  Last month Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had suggested that the Court might not step into the controversy at this point, because there was no disagreement among the lower courts on that issue.  Today her prediction proved true, with the Court denying review (without any comment) of the seven petitions:  Bogan v. Baskin (Indiana); Walker v. Wolf (Wisconsin); Herbert v. Kitchen(Utah); McQuigg v. Bostic (Virginia); Rainey v. Bostic (Virginia); Schaefer v. Bostic(Virginia); and Smith v. Bishop (Oklahoma).

This is standard Supreme Court procedure when there is no disagreement between lower courts, but they have got to know that this is also an unusual situation, in that refusing to adjudicate these cases means that facts on the grounds (i.e., same-sex marriages) will shortly be created that will make untangling the mess that much more difficult when a dissenting judicial voice finally makes its way up the ladder. Of course, they are probably also assuming that the appeals courts will reverse any recalcitrant district judges, such as the one inLouisiana who recently refused to go along with the new sexual orthodoxy.

Time to face facts, folks. Short of an inconceivable constitutional amendment, we have lost the battle to stop gay marriage. It’s now time to start focusing on dealing as much as society and the law will allow with the inevitable cultural consequences.

American higher education is, by and large, no longer a bastion of free thinking, free speech, and free exchange of ideas. Instead, in thrall to statist politics, feminist hysteria, and gay totalitarianism, it has become a collection of indoctrination camps whose motto is “You WILL Comply!” The latest example comes from this story in the Boston Business Journal, in which Gordon College in Massachusetts finds out that its accrediting agency, for all intents and purposes, no longer certifies Christian institutions:

The regional body that accredits colleges and universities has given Gordon College a year to report back about a campus policy on homosexuality, one that may be in violation of accreditation standards.

The higher education commission of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges met last week and “considered whether Gordon College’s traditional inclusion of ‘homosexual practice’ as a forbidden activity” runs afoul of the commission’s standards for accreditation, according to a joint statement from NEASC and Gordon College.

The commission asked Gordon College to submit a report next September. The report should describe the process by which the college has approached its review of the policy “to ensure that the College’s policies and procedures are non-discriminatory,” the statement said.

Meanwhile, the Wenham college has formed a new 20-member working group to review the policy.

Barbara Brittingham, president of NEASC’s higher education commission, said Gordon College President Michael Lindsay had sent a letter to the commission before last week’s two-day meeting. The letter explained that the college had formed a working group and begun a review, Brittingham said.

In its joint statement, NEASC and Gordon College called the review process a “period of discernment” that will take place over the next 12 to 18 months. What “carried the day” for commission members was Gordon College’s decision to conduct its own review, Brittingham said. She said the long time frame that Gordon College has been allowed for the review is appropriate considering that Gordon College’s policy is “deeply embedded in the culture of the college” and such things “don’t change overnight.”

“What the commission sees is a policy that may be inconsistent with the commission’s standards,” Brittingham said. However, she said, the commission also felt that the formation of a working group and the policy review “was a thoughtful way for the college to proceed.”

Thoughtful my tuchus. Gordon should tell the NEASC where it can stick its standards. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen:

Only the college’s board of trustees has the authority to change the policy, said Rick Sweeney, a spokesman for Gordon College. The working group will present the trustees with a full summary of the discussions that take place in time for the next trustees meeting in February, he said.

The working group will issue its first preliminary report in November, Sweeney said.

The members of the working group include trustees, faculty, administrators, staff and students, Sweeney said. At least one of the students is gay, Sweeney said, and some of the faculty members on the working group have been vocally opposed to Gordon College’s life and conduct policy. Asked if the working group will consider eliminating the policy entirely, Sweeney said he believes this will be among the options the working group considers.

“There will be a very balanced perspective,” he said.

Which is academese for, “the fix is in.”

What the agency is doing is saying that traditional Christian ethics are incompatible with the mission of an institution of higher education. The only proper response from the college should be that its standards are founded in religious conviction, and that it will not compromise those convictions for the sake of the agency imprimatur. I have real doubts that anyone at Gordon has the intestinal fortitude to turn their back on something the college wants (accreditation) for the sake of something as trivial as Christian faith.

The NEASC is a private agency, rather than a government one, so it has been suggested that there is no First Amendment case to be made against it. Given the role of accrediting agencies, however, I beg to differ. Participation in a variety of federal tuition aid programs is contingent upon accreditation by an agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, so what the NEASC has implicitly threatened Gordon with here is the loss of its students’ ability to access such programs. That being the case, those students, if not the college itself, may well have the standing as a harmed party to bring a freedom of religion complaint against the NEASC. Sounds like a job for the Becket Fund or American Center for Law and Justice.

The forces of gayness will not stop until every institution, every organization, every social group, every religion, every business, and every individual has bowed the knee to its false god. We have three choices as we face this threat: we can fight it, we can go underground, or we can give in. Let’s hope and pray that there are trustees at Gordon College will to take either of those first two options.

 

KneelBeforeZodCartoonThe Witherspoon Institute’s Public Discourse features a devastating article from Janna Darnelle (not her real name) on the devastation caused by men who wake up one day, years into marriage and child-rearing, and decide they are gay. Her story is heart-breaking, but of the utmost importance. An excerpt:

My ex-husband and his partner went on to marry. Their first ceremony took place before our state redefined marriage. After it created same-sex marriage, they chose to have a repeat performance. In both cases, my children were forced—against my will and theirs—to participate. At the second ceremony, which included more than twenty couples, local news stations and papers were there to document the first gay weddings officiated in our state. USA Today did a photo journal shoot on my ex and his partner, my children, and even the grandparents. I was not notified that this was taking place, nor was I given a voice to object to our children being used as props to promote same-sex marriage in the media.

At the time of the first ceremony, the marriage was not recognized by our state, our nation, or our church. And my ex-husband’s new marriage, like the majority of male-male relationships, is an “open,” non-exclusive relationship. This sends a clear message to our children: what you feel trumps all laws, promises, and higher authorities. You can do whatever you want, whenever you want—and it doesn’t matter who you hurt along the way.

After our children’s pictures were publicized, a flood of comments and posts appeared. Commenters exclaimed at how beautiful this gay family was and congratulated my ex-husband and his new partner on the family that they “created.” But there is a significant person missing from those pictures: the mother and abandoned wife. That “gay family” could not exist without me.

There is not one gay family that exists in this world that was created naturally.

In the stampede to normalize gay families, women and children are being trampled by men who are the very definition of selfish. And some of those leading the trampling have made clear that they will brook no opposition, no contrary voices, no other experience than their own, and will destroy anyone who tries to get in their way. In a follow-up to Ms. Darnelle’s piece (which, mind you, only came out on September 22nd), Rivka Edelman (also a pseudonym) exposes the depredations of the new gay Nazis. An excerpt:

For those of you who avoid the subterranean landscape of online same-sex parenting debates, it is useful to be introduced to Scott “Rose” Rosenzweig, a virulently misogynistic LGBT activist. As soon as Darnelle’s essay was published, Rose went into action, darting from the blog Good As You to other sites in an effort to destroy her personally. (Rose’s obsessive internet commenting has attracted attention at other news outlets as well.) Darnelle’s ex-husband even weighed in. A helpful fellow, he left her personal information in the comments section of several activists’ blogs, including her full legal name.

Janna Darnelle wrote under a pen name in order to protect her family. Unfortunately, her ex-husband’s comments helped Scott Rose embark on a campaign of harassment and intimidation. As I will discuss below, Rose was not content to confine his character assassination to the internet; he has also contacted Darnelle’s employer in an attempt to get her fired. …

On the most superficial level, what Darnelle described could have parallels in a heterosexual divorce. In most cases, a woman’s standard of living drops significantly after a divorce, while men’s goes up significantly. So, in that sense, there was nothing surprising in Janna’s story: the judge favored the husband, who had a steady high income.

The bloggers and activists at Jeremy Hooper’s Good as You blog have used this judge’s decision to suggest that Darnelle was an unfit mother. Darnelle’s piece did not give details about the family’s custody arrangement, but I have confirmed that the mother has 60 percent custody of the children. This indicates that she has not been found to be “unfit” in any way.

The “unfit mother” trope is very important to men like Hooper and Rose, because it helps justify taking women’s children, eggs, or the use of their uteri. Darnelle is right. Many families headed by gay male couples are built upon exploitation of women. Practically speaking, Jeremy Hooper, Scott Rose, and their compatriots have formed a men’s rights group that seeks to use women as breeders. These egg donors and surrogate mothers supply infants for a bustling market full of same-sex couples, for whom reproduction is naturally and biologically impossible.

Take the time to read both of these important pieces, and scatter links to them far and wide. Darnelle’s story, and the response she has received from gay activists, is one that needs the disinfectant of as much sunshine as we can get it. Not all gays would treat women like this, and not all gays would endorse the actions Edelman lays out, but Americans are all too willing to believe that the new gay Nazis don’t exist, or are harmless if they do. Stories like this are the kind of wake-up call that all of our fellow citizens–and indeed, decent people throughout the gay-enthralled West–desperately need to hear.

Via Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage comes word that the trans insanity has spread to deep-red Kentucky:

A transgender teenager, who was born male but identifies as a female, can continue to use a women’s restroom and locker room at a Jefferson County Public School.

In a 5-to-1 vote, an appeal board upheld Atherton High School’s nondiscrimination policy Thursday, which states the school must accept the gender identity each student asserts and shouldn’t discriminate on the use of school space on the basis of gender identity nor gender expression.

The current JCPS policy allows individual schools to set their own policies on the use of facilities.

The appeals board is composed of three teachers appointed by the president of the Jefferson County Teachers Association, two parents appointed by the 15th District PTA and a school administrator appointed by the president of the Jefferson County Association of School Administrators.

Attorney Clint Elliott argued allowing transgender students to use the restroom of their choice violates other students’ right to privacy.

“So students get to choose the restroom or locker room they use without any apparent monitor or control measures in place under the policy and no control to assure safety or privacy,” Elliott said.

Atherton’s principal defended the school’s site-based decision making council’s resolution to add gender identity to its non-discrimination policy.

“Is the question really about privacy or is it about comfort? Just because someone does not feel comfortable, doesn’t mean their rights are being violated. Our policy recognizes gender identity as a real issue that deserves accommodation within a school system,” Atherton Principal Dr. Tom Aberli said.

There’s an easy answer to this question, Dr. Tom.

It’s about privacy, you moron!!!

3stooges_face_palmAsk yourself this, Dr. Tom: if your 14-year-old daughter came home and told you that there was a 17-year-old boy who had a gym class at the same she did, and who was telling everyone he believed he was actually a female, and was insisting that he be able to take a shower at the same time as your daughter, would that be fine and dandy with you?

Here’s another question for you, Dr. Tom: If it’s all about being “uncomfortable,” and such concerns are really beneath your notice, why not have all the boys and all the girls shower together? As long as there’s no touching, what could it hurt? It might make some of them “uncomfortable,” but what difference does that make?

And yet another question, Dr. Tom: given the apparently infinite malleability of human sexuality, and the willingness of public school administrators to accommodate those of every possible permutation, what are you going to do with a high school junior who comes to you and says, “I was born in the wrong body, I identify as a female, and I’m also a lesbian”? Yeah, I know, that’s a joke a lot of people have made, but I mean it in all seriousness, Dr. Tom. Are you going to dispute that young man’s claims? Accommodate him? Turn him away? On what grounds?

Oh, and before I go, one more question, Dr. Tom: why do hate females? I mean, you seem to have no concern over exposing them to naked teenagers on a daily basis, whether they want to be so exposed or not. As we all know, there’s a “war on women” going on in this country, and you appear to be doing your part to traumatize teenage girls. A fair-minded person has to ask, “are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Republican Party?”

Most important word for every sane parent to remember: HOMESCHOOLING.

Old hotness: “get the government out of the bedroom.” New hotness: “the government needs to micro-manage your bedroom behavior.” From NRO:

The University of Michigan has released a list of relationship behaviors that it considers violent and abusive — including “withholding sex.”

“Discounting the partner’s feelings regarding sex,” “criticizing the partner sexually,” and “having sex with other people” are also examples of “sexual violence,” according to the list.

The school also offers definitions of domestic abuse. Under the section for “verbal or psychological abuse,” it states that not only is “insulting the partner” considered “abuse,” so is “ignoring the partner’s feelings.”

Brings a whole new meaning to the expression in loco parentis, doesn’t it?

That famous phrase of the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan came to mind when I saw this item from the Daily Telegraph:

Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scrapped after a government ethics committee said the they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.

“Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.”

Their intervention follows a notorious case in which a brother and sister living as partners in Saxony had four children together. The couple had been raised separately and only met when the brother, identified only as Patrick S, was an adult, and his sister Susan K was 16.

The Council said it based its recommendation on extensive research, in which it found many incestuous couples are forced to live in secret.

In one case, it found a woman was being blackmailed by her father and ex-husband, who threatened to deprive her of access to her children unless she ended a new relationship with her half-brother.

“Sexual self-determination”–the most important right in all of human existence. It is the one right before which everything–including genetics, the good of children, the stability of families, common sense, and common decency–must bow, no matter where it leads.

I used to laugh at the comparison that some people drew between the decline of the Roman Empire and the modern West. I no longer do.

Every time I think the Molech cult has reached a new low, they find even greater depths of evil and idiocy to plumb. The latest instance is a Scottish “poet” named Leyla Josephine, whose self-justifying video is being promoted by the Huffington Post. LifeSiteNews has more:

In the video Josephine, decked out in military camouflage, justifies herself in part by saying that she would have been willing to serve as a sacrifice to abortion just as she offered her daughter to the idol of “choice.”

“I would’ve supported her right to choose – to choose a life for herself, a path for herself. I would’ve died for that right like she died for mine,” she said.

Well, she would’ve supported her right to choose, but unfortunately the little tyke had the temerity to be conceived at the wrong time. So no “right to choose” for her. As for Josephine’s declaration that she “would’ve died for that right,” that’s clearly a lie, since she wouldn’t even suffer the inconvenience of an untimely birth in order to insure that her kid had the right to choose….anything.

In the next rhyming line, she addresses her unborn daughter: “I’m sorry, but you came at the wrong time.”

And since you “came at the wrong time,” Josephine has every right to take away, not only your “right to choose,” but your right to make any and every decision you ever would have made–the choice of who to love, who to serve, what to believe, what kind of work to do, what kind of education to get, where to live, who to bless, whether to have children. Your timing was bad, Baby Josephine, so you had to die. But hey! If your timing had been better, your mother would have defended to the death your right to do to your child what she did to hers.

“I am not ashamed. I am not ashamed. I am not ashamed,” she continues – a phrase she repeats a total of six times. She repeats the phrase “This is my body” three times.

In other words, she’s horrendously ashamed, and knows she has killed another human being. Modern technology being what it is, she refuses to do the decent thing and grieve privately. Instead, she wants to tell the whole world what an self-centered, self-absorbed, nitwit she is, so her heinous sin can then be celebrated by one of the most read Web sites on the planet.

In the early part of the video, she describes her belief that her child was a girl and imagines a life where she had given birth to her daughter.

“I know she was a she,” she says. “I would have made sure that there was space on the walls to measure her height,” she adds. “I would have made sure I was a good mother.”

If the video is any indication, she’d have been a horrible mother–incapable of putting her child first, consistently subordinated the child’s best interests to her selfish desires, and demanding that her child bow down to her obscene god. But that’s just my guess.

LSN writer Ben Jonson hits just the right note when he says:

That intimation that her daughter died for “choice” – that she offered her baby as a living sacrifice on the altar of abortion – confirms the darkest rhetoric of the pro-life movement: That for some in the movement, abortion is sometimes regarded as an idol.

Rarely has the cult-like nature of the abortion movement been better illustrated.

(Embedding has been disabled. If you really want to see this, you can go here. Via Hot Air.)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71 other followers