Obergefell v. Hodges

Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ham has a constitutional right to be kosher.
Any business that refuses to confess that ham is kosher can now be shut down by the government, and the owner will lose everything she has worked for her entire life.

---

Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and every single person who was present in the state Constitutional ratifying conventions, believed that homosexuality was contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." No agency of the federal government should say that two men can be "married." No state government or agency should be compelled by the Federal Government to confess that a homosexual relationship is a "marriage."

In centuries of Anglo-American common law history, up until 2003, courts have unanimously acknowledged that marriage is an institution created by God, not by government. In 1913, the Texas Supreme Court reflected the views of the Founding Fathers when it declared: "Marriage was not originated by human law."

• Marriage was created by God.

Choosing the Path of Coercion
The Court could have ruled that every federal agency is free to acknowledge as "married" anyone who claims to be "married" even without any license from any state to that effect. This would have been a "libertarian" solution to the conflict. Instead, the Court decided to use coercion to compel states to confess that two men can be "married," contrary to the democratic will of the People expressed through referenda and legislatures, contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," and contrary to the Constitution, which without doubt by any sane and educated person, did not give the U.S. Supreme Court authority to compel states to confess that two men can be "married."

I admit I have not yet read the Court's full opinion:

• http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Nor have I read Justice Scalia's dissent:

• Scalia burns the Supreme Court as a group of ‘unrepresentative’ elitists in gay marriage ruling - The Washington Post

I'll probably enjoy the latter more than the former.
Here are a few notable quotes from the Court Syllabus:

"A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples." p.3

The Court claims that a cultural revolution has occurred, such that same-sex "marriage" is now recognized culturally, and the Court should give its imprimatur to the new cultural consensus. But here the Court says that unless it compels states to legally bless popular trends, children hijacked into same-sex "marriages" will suffer a "stigma." This is contradictory. The Court has already said that people don't think this way any more. That's how people thought back when America was a Christian nation. The Court is actually trying to compel a cultural consensus.

"The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs." p.2

" the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." p.3

Marriage is not about "personal" or "individual autonomy."
Marriage is not about love.
Marriage is not about sex.

• Is Marriage about Love? | Stand to Reason

Marriage is about God' creating human beings "male and female," as Jesus said (Matthew 19).
Marriage is about commitment to God's order.

"The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize same sex marriages validly performed out of State. Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. Pp. 27–28."

Not a single person alive in America when the 14th Amendment was proposed, debated and allegedly ratified, believed that the 14th Amendment conferred or was intended to confer upon the federal judiciary the authority to order states to repudiate God's institution of Marriage.

Dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas and wife Virginia Thomas
POLITICO.com

---

Marriage Amendment

This morning on the President's Radio Address, President Bush endorsed "a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the United States as the union of a man and woman."

From a historical and constitutional perspective, such an amendment is completely unnecessary.

Marriage is not defined by a State or a constitution. The Declaration of Independence says that our nation and its laws are subservient to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Marriage is an institution created and defined by God. For the first 300 years of American history, and for centuries of English common law before that, marriage laws in this country were based on the origin of the marital union in Genesis. It was only in the last few years that judges who had taken an oath to "support the Constitution" declared the entire legislative process and the process of popular amendment of constitutions to be "unconstitutional." Overwhelming electoral and legislative majorities have passed laws and amendments to affirm the traditional view of marriage. Judges that negate constitutional processes violate their oath to support the constitution, and should be impeached.

No judge, no court, no government has the right to compel anyone to hold that any but a man and a woman can be united in "marriage." This is the position of America's founding charters.

In 1913, the Texas Supreme Court reflected the views of the Founding Fathers when it declared:

Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband. . . . When Noah was selected for salvation from the flood, he and his wife and his three sons and their wives were placed in the Ark; and, when the flood waters had subsided and the families came forth, it was Noah and his wife and each son and his wife . . . . The truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage . . . which created homes, and population, and society, from which government became necessary [sic] . . . . [Marriages] will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. . . . It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation "a civil contract" to such a marriage. It is that and more; a status ordained by God.
Grigsby v Reib, 153 S.W. 1124, 1129-30 (TxSupCt 1913)

This opinion hearkened back to an earlier decision by the Texas Supreme Court in 1848, which declared that the legal contract of marriage

is the most solemn and important of human transactions. It is regarded by all Christian nations as the basis of civilized society, of sound morals, and of the domestic affections. . . . The mutual comfort and happiness of the parties are the principal, but not the only, objects of the engagement. It is intended also for the benefit of their common offspring and is an important element in the moral order, security and tranquility of civilized society. The parties cannot dissolve the contract, as they can others, by mutual consent, and no light or trivial causes should be suffered to effect its recision. . . . [A]ccording to the experience of the most enlightened nations, the happiness of married life greatly depends on its indissolubility.
Sheffield v. Sheffield, 3 Tex. 79, 85-86 (TxSupCt 1848)

These courts were articulating the position of America's Founding Fathers. Alexander Hamilton lamented the anti-Biblical, anti-Family evils of the French Revolution:

Equal pains have been taken to deprave the morals as to extinguish the religion of the country, if indeed morality in a community can be separated from religion. It is among the singular and fantastic vagaries [freaks] of the French Revolution that . . . a new law of divorce was passed which makes it as easy for a husband to get rid of his wife and a wife of her husband as to discard a worn out habit. . . . [T]hose ties . . . are the chief links of domestic and ultimately of social attachment.
Syrett, Harold C., et al., eds. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, 27 vols. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1974, vol. XXI pp 402-404, "The Stand No. III." New York, Apr. 7, 1798.

James Wilson, who was a US Supreme Court Justice after he signed the Constitution, emphasized the importance of a Biblical concept of the family:

Whether we consult the soundest deductions of reason, or resort to the best information conveyed to us by history, or listen to the undoubted intelligence communicated in Holy Writ, we shall find that to the institution of marriage the true origin of society must be traced.
By that institution the felicity of Paradise was consummated . . . . Legislators have with great propriety . . . provided as far as municipal law can provide against the violation of rights indispensably essential to the purity and harmony of the matrimonial union. . . . By an act of the legislature . . . all marriages not forbidden by the law of God shall be encouraged . . . . But of causes which are light or trivial, a divorce should by no means be permitted to be the effect. When divorces can be summoned . . . a state of marriage becomes frequently a state of war.
Works, McCloskey, ed., Belknap/Harvard Univ Press, 1967 II:598-603

In James Kent's Commentaries on the Constitution, one of the greatest legal works of the 19th century, we are reminded:

All Christian states favor the perpetuity of marriage, and suspicion and alarm watch every step to dissolve it . . . . Unlike other contracts, marriage cannot be dissolved by mutual consent . . . . The laws of divorce are considered as of the utmost importance as public laws affecting the dearest interests of society . . . . The domestic relation . . . of parent and child . . . [and] the duties that reciprocally result from this connection are prescribed . . . by the positive precepts of religion and of our municipal law.
Kent, Commentaries on American Law, DeCapo Reprint of 1st ed., 1826-30, II:96-98,159

Adulterers and polygamists were quick to seize on ambiguous language in the constitution and attempt to legitimize their anti-Biblical acts with the protection of the First Amendment. Courts didn't buy their arguments:

[The Founders] did not mean that the pure moral customs which Christianity has introduced should be without legal protection because some pagan, or other religionist, or anti-religionist, should advocate as a matter of conscience concubinage, polygamy, incest, free love, and free divorce, or any of them . . . . No Christian people could possibly allow such things.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Commonwealth v. Nesbit 84 Pa. 398 (1859)

These views were echoed by the US Supreme Court in the anti-polygamy cases.

The Seventh Commandment was the basis for American Family Law.

The State of California recently considered adopting legislation on sex-education for public schools requiring that:

Course material and instruction shall stress that monogamous heterosexual intercourse [one man and one woman] within marriage is a traditional American value.

The ACLU was outraged:

It is our position that monogamous, heterosexual intercourse within marriage as a traditional American value is an unconstitutional establishment of a religious doctrine in public schools. . . . We believe [this bill] violates the First Amendment.

Those who wrote, debated, and ratified the First Amendment did not. Heterosexual marriage is a part of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"; homosexuality is contrary to it.

As a Libertarian, I oppose all government laws regarding marriage. I believe the Mafia should not recognize the moral legitimacy of homosexuality, and I would say the same thing about the federal government. I am also working for the abolition of both institutions. Homosexuals who seek the licensure or approval of the State for their relationship seek that which is unconstitutional and against their own interests.

I believe heterosexual marriage is essential to the flourishing of humanity, and government recognition of homosexuality impoverishes us all. As long as any proposed marriage amendment which recognizes marriage as defined by the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God does not advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals, I would vote for it.

There is much that could be said about this issue, and I hope any who oppose my views (or can't exactly figure them out) will post their comments.

Marriage Redefined

The first edition (1828) of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language defines marriage:

MAR'RIAGE, n. [L. mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.
1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt.22.
2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.

A few years ago dictionaries started adding to the original definition. The new definition now states that marriage includes "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."

In 1945, George Orwell wrote Animal Farm, and one of the characters in the book was the pig, Squealer, who arbitrarily redefined words so that they would mean what he wanted. As Orwell explained about Squealer, "he could turn black into white" as part of his attempt to get the other animals to accept his message; the same tactic is apparently being used in modern dictionaries.

If atheists should decide they want to be "baptized," should dictionaries change the definition of baptism? Who created "marriage?" Who created "baptism?"

In 1913, the Texas Supreme Court answered: "Marriage was not originated by human law. It is ... a status ordained by God."

James Wilson, who was a US Supreme Court Justice after he signed the Constitution, emphasized the importance of a Biblical concept of the family:

Whether we consult the soundest deductions of reason, or resort to the best information conveyed to us by history, or listen to the undoubted intelligence communicated in Holy Writ, we shall find that to the institution of marriage the true origin of society must be traced.

George Washington reminded the nation:

And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—

Marriage: A God-Ordained Institution

Marriage Amendment

Sacred Civil Institutions

Republicans Legalize Homosexual "Marriage"

Cult Threatens Religious Liberty and Property Rights

Gay-Bashing and Christian-Bashing

Sex Education

Newsweek Attacks Marriage

Client 9: Elliot Spitzer

My grandparents would have been angered that a governor would violate the oath he took to God and his wife by spending nearly $100,000 for prostitutes. Bill O'Reilly, in contrast, said on Wednesday's show, "Prostitution is no big deal."

Spitzer did not resign because he adulterated his marriage; that's "a private matter" we're told, proving once again that America is no longer a Christian nation. It once was, and America's criminal code relating to adultery was based on the 7th Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

I've had people tell me that American Law was not based on the Ten Commandments, nor was it explicitly Christian, but was "deist." They're wrong.

The easiest way to prove this is by citing the anti-polygamy cases, which I have done elsewhere. The US Supreme Court rejected "religious freedom" arguments from Mormons who wanted to practice polygamy. The Court said this was a Christian nation, and polygamy is forbidden in all "Christian nations."

Marriage laws were based on the origin of the marital union in the book of Genesis. In 1913, the Texas Supreme Court reflected the views of the Founding Fathers when it declared:

Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband. . . . When Noah was selected for salvation from the flood, he and his wife and his three sons and their wives were placed in the Ark; and, when the flood waters had subsided and the families came forth, it was Noah and his wife and each son and his wife . . . . The truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage . . . which created homes, and population, and society, from which government became necessary [sic] . . . . [Marriages] will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. . . . It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation "a civil contract" to such a marriage. It is that and more; a status ordained by God.
Grigsby v Reib, 153 S.W. 1124, 1129-30 (TxSupCt 1913)

This opinion hearkened back to an earlier decision by the Texas Supreme Court in 1848, which declared that the legal contract of marriage

is the most solemn and important of human transactions. It is regarded by all Christian nations as the basis of civilized society, of sound morals, and of the domestic affections. . . . The mutual comfort and happiness of the parties are the principal, but not the only, objects of the engagement. It is intended also for the benefit of their common offspring and is an important element in the moral order, security and tranquility of civilized society. The parties cannot dissolve the contract, as they can others, by mutual consent, and no light or trivial causes should be suffered to effect its recision. . . . [A]ccording to the experience of the most enlightened nations, the happiness of married life greatly depends on its indissolubility.
Sheffield v. Sheffield, 3 Tex. 79, 85-86 (TxSupCt 1848)

This court was articulating the position of the Founding Fathers. Alexander Hamilton lamented the anti-Biblical, anti-Family evils of the French Revolution:

Equal pains have been taken to deprave the morals as to extinguish the religion of the country, if indeed morality in a community can be separated from religion. It is among the singular and fantastic vagaries [freaks] of the French Revolution that . . . a new law of divorce was passed which makes it as easy for a husband to get rid of his wife and a wife of her husband as to discard a worn out habit. . . . [T]hose ties . . . are the chief links of domestic and ultimately of social attachment.
Papers, Syrett, ed., Columbia Univ Press, 1974, vol. XXI pp 402-404, "The Stand No. III." New York, Apr. 7, 1798.

James Wilson, who was a US Supreme Court Justice after he signed the Constitution, emphasized the importance of a Biblical concept of the family:

Whether we consult the soundest deductions* of reason, or resort to the best information* conveyed to us by history, or listen to the undoubted intelligence communicated in Holy Writ, we shall find that to the institution of marriage the true origin of society must be traced.
By that institution the felicity of Paradise was consummated . . . . Legislators have with great propriety . . . provided as far as municipal law can provide against the violation of rights indispensably essential to the purity and harmony of the matrimonial union. . . . By an act of the legislature . . . all marriages not forbidden by the law of God shall be encouraged . . . . But of causes which are light or trivial, a divorce should by no means be permitted to be the effect. When divorces can be summoned . . . a state of marriage becomes frequently a state of war.
Works, McCloskey, ed., Balknap/Harvard Univ Press, 1967 II:598-603

*How does one determine which deductions of reason are "sound" or which historical facts are the "best?" Ultimately, the answer is found by comparing their conclusions with the Bible.

In James Kent's Commentaries on the Constitution, one of the greatest legal works of the 19th century, we are reminded:

All Christian states favor the perpetuity of marriage, and suspicion and alarm watch every step to dissolve it . . . . Unlike other contracts, marriage cannot be dissolved by mutual consent . . . . The laws of divorce are considered as of the utmost importance as public laws affecting the dearest interests of society . . . . The domestic relation . . . of parent and child . . . [and] the duties that reciprocally result from this connection are prescribed . . . by the positive precepts of religion and of our municipal law.
Kent, Commentaries on American Law, DeCapo Reprint of 1st ed., 1826-30, II:96-98,159

Adulterers and polygamists were quick to seize on ambiguous language in the constitution and attempt to legitimize their anti-Biblical acts with the protection of the First Amendment.

[The Founders] did not mean that the pure moral customs which Christianity has introduced should be without legal protection because some pagan, or other religionist, or anti-religionist, should advocate as a matter of conscience concubinage, polygamy, incest, free love, and free divorce, or any of them . . . . No Christian people could possibly allow such things.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Commonwealth v. Nesbit 84 Pa. 398 (1859),

These views were echoed by the US Supreme Court in the anti-polygamy cases.

The Seventh Commandment was the basis for American Family Law.

---

Years ago the State of California considered adopting legislation on sex-education for public schools requiring that:

Course material and instruction shall stress that monogamous heterosexual intercourse [one man and one woman] within marriage is a traditional American value.

The ACLU was outraged:

It is our position that monogamous, heterosexual intercourse within marriage as a traditional American value is an unconstitutional establishment of a religious doctrine in public schools. . . . We believe [this bill] violates the First Amendment.

The Framers of the First Amendment did not.

They more likely would have agreed that every law in some sense "legislates morality" and establishes "religious doctrine." The question is not whether, but whose religion and morality will be imposed. One religion or another will be imposed as long as "the government" exists.

---

But today's government will not prosecute Spitzer for what he did to his wife, to the institution of marriage, and ultimately to God. (King David, after seducing his neighbor's wife and then murdering his neighbor, admitted that his sin was primarily against God, not just a private matter between adults.) Spitzer's crime will not be adultery, but "structuring."

I wonder what percentage of Americans know what "structuring" is.

The "crime" involves (for example) making two separate withdrawals of $5,500 from your own bank account when deep down in your criminal heart you actually wanted to withdraw $11,000 all at once.

Of your own money.

That's a "crime."

Adultery is not.

In our modern atheistic dictatorship, "offenses" against the IRS are more important than offenses against God, marriage, and one's wife.

But there's "poetic justice" here, because Spitzer climbed the ladder of political success by prosecuting crimes more than he prosecuted actual sins.

Here are some commentaries on Spitzer's record as a prosecutor. He has not been fighting for people like his wife and daughters. He has been fighting for the government. Now Spitzer has been hoist on his own petard.

---

Houston's Clear Thinkers: What's the big deal with the Lord of Regulation?

Spitzer the Thug -- Spitzer Watch

Of Prostitutes, Prosecutors, and Other Miscreants -- Pro Libertate

---

Cato-at-liberty » Eliot Spitzer

Ken Langone Reacts to Spitzer - CNBC Video

Spitzer's Rise and Fall - WSJ.com

Fake Crimes by Paul Craig Roberts

How the Protection of Law Was Lost by Paul Craig Roberts

The Patriotic Bust of Spitzer

Those Dangerous Prostitutes

Boudreaux's Commentary -- July 2004

Why Payola Doesn't Matter

Dave Lindorff: Bringing Down Spitzer

Once Upon a Time...: As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap...But Oh! The Outrage!

Chris Floyd Online - The Abuser Abused: Eliot Spitzer Meets the Real Governor of New York

SPITZER'S TWISTED GAS CRUSADE by TOM ELLIOTT - New York Post Online Edition: Postopinion

LewRockwell.com Blog: The Remnant Takes on Spitzer

Payola Unbound by Michael S. Rozeff

Cato-at-liberty » Power Corrupts: Elliot Spitzer’s Record as N.Y. Attorney General

---

Spitzer Caught in His Own Reign of Terror - Mises Economics Blog

Spitzer and the Myth of Independent Analysis - James Sheehan - Mises Institute

Spitzer Charges Against Wall Street Were Baseless - Mises Economics Blog

Eliot Spitzer Finds WMD - Mises Economics Blog

Finally, Someone Challenges Spitzer - Mises Economics Blog

Spitzer Continues Wall Street Purge - Mises Economics Blog

Spitzer Central Plan for Stock Research Backfires - Economics Blog

Spitzer: Anti-Sedition Crusader? - Mises Economics Blog

Broker Acquitted of Spitzer Late Trading Charges - Mises Economics Blog

Harassing Hedge Funds Subsidies for Stock Pickers - James Sheehan - Mises Institute

Finally Someone Says It: Investors Are Responsible for Losses - James Sheehan - Mises Institute

Let Freedom Sing … Properly - C.J. Maloney - Mises Institute

Why Fear Hedge Funds? - Christopher Mayer - Mises Institute

Corporate Governance Standards Harmed the NYSE - Mises Economics Blog

The Genius and Struggle of PayPal - William L. Anderson -- Mises Economics Blog

Mozilla: Meet Sarbanes-Oxley (and Henry Blodget) - Ludwig von Mises Institute Economics Blog

Save or Else - Mises Economics Blog

---

Free New York Blog » Governor Sptizer

Not Spitzer's Job Not Spitzer's Job

Spitzer’s Shakedown: His rough game was always about money and politics

Trial by Press Release Trial By Press Release

Calling the Dogs off on Wall Street

Mutual Fund Fee Fantasy

Who Killed PayPal?

Libertarians, Beware the Rigid Reign of Rudy

---

Eliot Spitzer's Attack on the Securities Industry by Don Luskin -- Capitalism Magazine

Eliot Spitzer Should Investigate Paul Krugman by Don Luskin -- Capitalism Magazine

Arbitrary Power and Legal Mass Destruction: Eliot Spitzer's Frightening Powers by Paul Blair - Capitalism Magazine

Business versus Statist Government: Whose Side Are You On? by David Gulbraa -- Capitalism Magazine

SEC Should Support Markets and Not Central Planning by James K. Glassman -- Capitalism Magazine

Mutual-Fund Industry's Campaign Against Independent Analysts by Don Luskin -- Capitalism Magazine

Bush's Regulatory Crackdown on Business Has Harmed the Economy by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein -- Capitalism Magazine

Spitzer's Real Scandal - Free Market News Network

---

The Addiction of Eliot Spitzer

Whoreable Behavior - Ann Coulter

Republicans Legalize Homosexual "Marriage"

Another thing I find "morally repugnant" is the civil government telling citizens that two (or more?) homosexuals have a "right" to be "married."

Republicans on the California State Supreme Court have done that today.

The Los Angeles Times, speaking of "the Republican-dominated court," alluded to the fact that 6 out 7 Justices were appointed by Republican governors.

Republican voters in California passed a ballot initiative in 2000 ("Proposition 22") which limited "marriage" to a relationship between a man and a woman (passing handily, 4,618,673 votes for versus 2,909,370 against).

But it seems that whenever Republicans are elected to political office (or appointed by other Republicans), they lose touch with voters, the Constitution, and the principles upon which America was founded. Republicans on the California State Supreme Court have utterly disregarded the unambiguous intent of California voters.

They have also disregarded God's intent. Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787) believed that homosexuality is contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The rights we have are only those with which we have been endowed by our Creator, who also ordained "marriage," and who also defined who we can and cannot be "married" to.

For the government to declare that a man can be "married" to a barnyard animal is as ludicrous as the government declaring that an atheist can be "baptized." "Marriage" and "Baptism" are not defined by the State. The rights with which human beings have been endowed by their Creator are also not determined by Republicans on the California Supreme Court.

On March 4, 2008, Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, presented oral argument at the California Supreme Court in defense of the marriage laws. The court hearing lasted more than three hours, as each side debated the issue.

Commenting on today’s ruling, Mathew Staver said: "This ruling defies logic. It is a gross departure from the rule of law. It is outrageous. Traditional marriage is common sense. Yet, this decision is nonsense. No matter how you stretch California’s Constitution, you cannot find anywhere in its text, its history, or tradition that now, after so many years, it magically protects what most societies condemn. Same-sex marriage is not part of our history nor is it woven in the fabric of fundamental freedom. The California Supreme Court has defied logic, undermined the will of the people, and weakened our future. This decision will ignite California voters to amend their state constitution to protect marriage and prevent judges from wrecking marriage."

The presence of such an initiative on the November ballot could have an effect on the Presidential race.

Republican voters in Southwest Missouri need to realize that both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the moral and political chaos that grows darker every day in America. In November, Southwest Missouri voters have a chance to stop wasting their vote and send a clear message to the rest of America: "Liberty Under God" is the moral and political philosophy that made America the most prosperous and admired nation in human history.

New York's Expansion of State Power

'Gay Marriage,' Libertarians, and Civil Rights
Untangling Several Confusions
George Weigel
National Review Online
June 27, 2011

"Gay marriage" in fact represents a vast expansion of state power: In this instance, the state of New York is declaring that it has the competence to redefine a basic human institution in order to satisfy the demands of an interest group looking for the kind of social acceptance that putatively comes from legal recognition.

There is a curious rhetorical fact that has usually gone unremarked in these debates, but which is worth pointing out. That what the New York state legislature approved has to be described, not as marriage, but as "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" is itself a verbal indicator that what is being done here is counterintuitive. We all know, or thought we knew, what marriage is, and to add the qualifier "gay" or "same-sex" is a tacit admission by the proponents of the practice that it requires an appeal to authority to enforce what seems strange, odd, not right. The verbal tic of "gay marriage" or "same-sex" marriage is thus itself a rhetorical warning sign that what was done in Albany was an exercise in raw state power, the state's asserting that it can do X simply because it claims that it has the power to do so.

And that is an exercise of power that libertarians ought, in theory, to resist, not support.

http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.4503/pub_detail.asp

"Lawsuits" and "Marriages"

Smith comes up to me and says he's really angry at Jones. Smith asks me if he can sue him. I prefer working out conflicts peacefully, without asking for the State to initiate force against anyone, but it appears Smith does have a case against Jones.

The next day Smith says he's filed his lawsuit against Jones. Curious as to whether Smith made "a federal case out of it," I ask Smith where he filed his lawsuit.

"WalMart," he says.

I knew that WalMart SuperStores also had a Pharmacy, Banking, Optometry, and other services, but I hadn't heard about courts.

Smith says he wrote up his lawsuit and gave it to the woman at the "Customer Service" desk. As Smith related the ensuing conversation, I can imagine that the Customer Service Representative was quite confused.

I tried not to be insulting to Smith. Courteously and respectfully, I tried to explain that there are certain traditions surrounding this thing called a "lawsuit," certain formalities that are expected, certain requirements that must be met, and that Smith hadn't actually initiated a "lawsuit" at all.

Smith insisted that he had in fact filed a lawsuit, and that he was going to win his case.

He asked me why I wasn't on his side. I said his grievance against Jones may have been justified, but eventually I convinced him that really, technically, a genuine "lawsuit" doesn't exist at this point. Smith didn't have a "lawsuit" going yet.

I tried to help Smith overcome his anger against Jones in other ways, and he was thankful for my time.

The next day Smith told me that he and Jones had reconciled, and in fact the two men had gotten married!

I didn't even want to know if they had gone to WalMart.

I tried not to be insulting to Smith. Courteously and respectfully I tried to explain that there are certain traditions surrounding this thing called "marriage," certain formalities that are expected, certain requirements that must be met, and that Smith and Jones weren't "married" at all.

Smith insisted that he had in fact gotten married, and that he was going to live happily ever after in matrimony with Jones.

He asked me why I wasn't on his side. I said his admiration for Jones may have been justified, but eventually I convinced him that he really, technically, wasn't married to Jones, and never could be.

I went back to an early decision on marriage by the Texas Supreme Court, which said:

Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband. . . . When Noah was selected for salvation from the flood, he and his wife and his three sons and their wives were placed in the Ark; and, when the flood waters had subsided and the families came forth, it was Noah and his wife and each son and his wife . . . . The truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage . . . which created homes, and population, and society, from which government became necessary [sic] . . . . [Marriages] will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. . . . It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation "a civil contract" to such a marriage. It is that and more; a status ordained by God.
Grigsby v Reib, 153 S.W. 1124, 1129-30 (TxSupCt 1913)

I explained to Jones that God prohibits incest, homosexuality, and other sins, and that these relationships cannot be labeled "marriage." Jones reminded me that many governments were calling these things "marriages." I explained that decades ago, there were some who were quick to seize on ambiguous language in the constitution and attempt to legitimize their anti-Biblical acts with the protection of the First Amendment. Courts didn't buy their arguments back then, and shouldn't today:

[The Founders] did not mean that the pure moral customs which Christianity has introduced should be without legal protection because some pagan, or other religionist, or anti-religionist, should advocate as a matter of conscience concubinage, polygamy, incest, free love, and free divorce, or any of them . . . . No Christian people could possibly allow such things.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Commonwealth v. Nesbit 84 Pa. 398 (1859)

Smith insisted that government is now "secular," and many government agencies more recently have officially recognized same-sex couples as "married." I reminded Smith that just because a government entity says something is true does not make it true. "Marriage" was invented by God before conquerors and looters invented "the State." "Governments" have occasionally been more respectful of the Bible, but their shift in allegiance does not change reality. Reality is determined by God and revealed to us in the Bible. "Governments" and other organizations should acknowledge God's Word.

I tried to help Smith see that nobody is forced to engage in homosexual activities (except, ironically, those imprisoned for committing sodomy by conservatives in "the government"). It's a voluntary choice that should be changed. I pointed Smith to resources that show repentance is possible, and that many have experienced victory over sin.

Smith and Jones are now good friends.

---

Call this "The Parable of 'Smith' and 'Jones.'"
Everything else is factual.

The Seductive Lure of Internet Pornography

Libertarians oppose government censorship of pornography. There are some libertarians who have a positive view of porn, and support its presence in our society. I do not. I would like to see it eliminated.

Wanting it "eliminated" is not the same as wanting it banned by the government. I want pornography eliminated in a libertarian manner.

Some voters -- staunch opponents of pornography -- believe that if you don't want government to ban it, then you don't really want it eliminated; you secretly want pornography to be available.

That is certainly not true in my case. In addition to my passionate opposition to pornography, I oppose censorship in terms of political/economic theory: it would be like saying, "You don't want government to ban alcohol, therefore you don't really want alcoholism to be cured." Or perhaps, "You don't want shoplifting punished by the death penalty, therefore you don't really oppose shoplifting." One more, on the positive side: "You don't want government to run our farms and grocery stores, therefore you don't really want people to eat."

Government is the worst way to handle any problem.

Government is not a Christian way to handle any problem. Even pornography.

The first way to solve a problem is to become convinced that a problem exists.

I was moved to blog on this subject after hearing today's broadcast of Focus on the Family, to which I listen frequently. Here is a link to the show. I don't know how long that link will work, so I'll look for a more permanent archive.

Internet pornography is a real problem.

You should listen to the story told by Focus on the Family counselor Joann Condie, which begins at about 3:00 into the program. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable that this story is being acted out on a growing scale across the nation.

Joann Condie - The Seductive Lure of Internet Pornography
James Dobson - Focus on the Family
Before children are taught and really understand the positive -- the sacred vows of marriage and the relationship God created between a man and a woman -- teenagers, and even children, are being exposed to the negative -- the dark world of pornography.

The effects of pornography on children are horrifying, traumatic, and life long. One writer speaks of "Soul Murder."

But this is not a police problem, a military problem, or a government problem. It is a spiritual problem, and giving government the power to try to solve this problem will only make the problem worse in the long run.

The pornography problem is related to the marriage problem. The American view of Marriage from 1600 to World War II was that sex takes place only within marriage, which is a life-long commitment between a man and a woman. At the same time the government was building the A-Bomb, the government was funding the pro-pornography "research" and propaganda of Alfred Kinsey, whose goal was to change the American view of Marriage, a goal accomplished with the help of Kinsey's Bulldog, Hugh Hefner. This is the origin of the "sexual revolution" of the 1960's.

The American view of Government, like marriage, is oath-bound. Too many people who get married, and too many people who become politicians, do not keep their oath. Oath-keeping is a major problem in America today.

Psalm 15
verse 1. Who may worship in your sanctuary, Lord?
Who may enter your presence on your holy hill?
verse 4. Those who keep their promises even when it hurts.

The call for government censorship is a call for one group of oath-breakers to help another group of oath-breakers. Politicians take an oath to "support the Constitution" and then promptly ignore that oath, leaving the Constitution behind. Not surprisingly, growing numbers of politicians, even (especially!) Republicans (the party of "family values") are leaving their wives behind, despite their solemn oaths.

Political oath-breakers are not good candidates for helping marital oath-breakers.

Additionally, asking the government to ban pornography is asking politicians to further violate their oaths of office. The spiritual and political parallels with alcohol prohibition could not be clearer. Alcoholism, a spiritual problem, was not a government problem because the Constitution gave no such power to the federal government. Prohibitionists rallied Americans to give that power to the government by amending the Constitution (the 18th Amendment), which gave government power it didn't have before, which gave the sale of alcohol to Al Capone and organized crime, revealing to America that the government cure is worse than the disease. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, removing from government the power to ban alcohol.

Washington D.C. has no Constitutional power to ban pornography, and asking politicians to do so is asking them to violate their oath to abide by the Constitution's limits on government, further destroying America's already-dwindling respect for oaths.

The answer to the pornography problem is not adding more powers to the government, but removing them all. We must end government education, government funding for planned parenthood, government AIDS research, government aid to the progeny of Kinsey and his "researchers," and government funding of pornography in the name of "art" -- all of which distort and corrupt spiritual values and promote the pornographic worldview -- and all unconstitutional programs which make a mockery of the politicians' oaths of office.

With government out of the way, Americans will have more money to give to organizations like Focus on the Family, which promote a healthy understanding of marriage and promise-keeping.

Pornography is the tip of the iceberg. Below the surface is a nation that has forgotten the "Faith of our Fathers" as set forth in the Declaration of Independence:

• that the existence of God is a "self-evident truth"
• that our rights are the product of intelligent design (not the government)
• that all Americans are obligated to conform their lives to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"
• that our actions must pass judgment with "the Supreme Judge of the world"
• that we should have "a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence."

As we approach the 4th of July, we must remember that the government prohibits public school teachers from teaching students that the Declaration of Independence really is true. Then the government mandates that teachers teach children that the pornographic worldview is the true one.

Libertarianism, like the Bill of Rights, is negative. It limits government, and does not seek to empower it. America became a great nation by fidelity and hard work by millions of people. This was permitted by limiting government. It was families, schools and churches that made Americans faithful and hard-working. Government will not make America moral. Government will not create a man who honors his wife as he should, "to have and to hold, to love and to cherish." Government can only destroy the institutions and associations that do create moral people, beginning with the family.

It is strong families that ultimately eliminate pornography, not strong governments. We need to strengthen families. We need to eliminate pornography. We need to elect libertarians to limit government.

A vote for a politician who promises to "clean up America" and also campaigns on a platform of expanding government programs is a vote for the cultural carcinogens that created the tumor of pornography in the first place.

Pure Intimacy®

Pink Pistols Survey

Jake just alerted me to the Pink Pistols candidate survey. Here is my response:

2006 Candidate's Questionnaire Page
This section lists questions for all political candidates to answer. Please respond to these questions and email them to questionnaire@pinkpistols.org. All answers will be made publicly available at www.pinkpistols.com.

Candidates please note: All answers _must_ be directed to the question asked. Answers that fail to answer the question will not be counted.

There are 10 questions with 10 points per question.

Candidate's Name : Kevin Craig

Political Party: Libertarian

Office you are running for: U.S. Congress, Roy Blunt's seat.

State: MO

County: Taney

District: 7

1) Do you believe that the Second Amendment confirms the individual right of every American citizen to possess and use (update of keep and bear) militia/military weapons for individual self-defense, as well as for the defense of the State / National defense?

YES/NO

YES re: "individual rights." The Second Amendment was not written for hunters or gun collectors. It was written to allow individuals to defend themselves against the State when it "evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" through "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object." The Second Amendment guarantees the right of The People to carry out what the Declaration of Independence describes as the "duty" to "abolish" "any Form of Government [that] becomes destructive of" our God-given rights. The Second Amendment is a right of "the People," not the State.

NO re: "defense of the State." The State does not have any right to defend itself against the People armed.

Wording: my update of "bear" would be "carry," not just "use." Without the right to "carry," one can only use a firearm at home (in "private").

2) If elected would you support legislation for the removal of firearm laws and regulations? If your answer is yes, and if you are elected, what specific legislation would you propose/support to ensure that this individual right is protected? Which current laws which infringe upon this individual right would you seek to repeal?

YES
I would support legislation authored by anyone of any party that removed infringements of 2nd Amendment rights. As a freshman Congressman from a third party, I would hesitate to get pushy by authoring sweeping legislation, but I'm open on that. ALL laws regulating, licensing, or infringing the right to keep and bear arms should be abolished. I try to take the Constitution seriously, and have a rather absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment.

3) What do you consider are "legitimate" reasons to own a firearm?
Check as many as apply:
[x] Personal Defense
[x] Home Defense
[x] Defense of your country (Unorganized Militia)
[x] Hunting
[x] Farm Use
[x] Competitive Shooting
[x] Informal Sport Shooting
[x] Informal Target Practice and/or Plinking
[x] Collecting
[x] Constitutional Rights
[x] Just because. No reason is necessary.
[x] Other ____to "alter or abolish" the government per #1 above____
[x] All of the above
[ ] None of the above

4) Would you support the banning of some firearms or ammunition? (IE: Saturday night specials, "assault weapons", Hollow points, and "Safety Slugs") Why and to what extent?

NO. "The right . . . shall not be infringed."

5) Do you believe that firearm owners should be required to have licenses or permits to own or carry firearms? Do you believe training for such licenses should be mandatory? Why?

NO. "The right . . . shall not be infringed."

6) Do you believe that firearms and/or firearm owners should be registered? Which ones and why?

NO. "The right . . . shall not be infringed."

http://KevinCraig.US/guns.htm

7) Do you support equal rights for all citizens of the United States regardless of the person's sexuality / orientation and / or gender identity/expression?

I'm a Bible-believing Christian, so I'll answer your question fully, hoping you'll at least give me points for honesty.

a. Technically, I believe in duties, not "rights."

http://KevinCraig.US/rights.htm

I don't have a "right" to life, you have a *duty* not to kill me, according to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God:

http://KevinCraig.US/religion/nature.htm

b. These "self-evident truths" indicate that homosexuality (etc.) is immoral:

http://KevinCraig.US/homosexuality.htm

c. These same moral absolutes also make the initiation of force against homosexuals wrong, and I have taken the pledge of the National Libertarian Party: "I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." This means I oppose criminal sanctions against homosexuals:

http://KevinCraig.US/sanctions.htm

d. I have a background in the "Christian Reconstructionist" movement, and I personally know those who believe homosexuals should be executed. I strongly oppose this part of the "Religious Right" agenda.

http://KevinCraig.US/capital_punishment.htm

8) Which of the following would you be willing to support in regards to same-gender and/or polyamorous marriages and/or civil unions?
Check as many as apply:
[ ] Domestic partnerships for same-sex couples
[ ] Domestic partnerships for opposite-sex couples
[ ] Domestic partnerships for polyamorous (more than two consenting adults)
[ ] Same-sex marriages
[ ] Opposite sex marriages (What we have now)
[ ] Polyamarous marriages (between more than two consenting adults)
[ ] All of the above. Everyone should have equal rights under the law.
[ ] None of the above. Government has no role in defining a marriage. Leave it to the church, or private contracts.
[ ] Other _______"The government" has a duty to recognize monogamous heterosexual relations as the only legitimate form of sexual activity. "The Mafia" has the same duty. Both institutions should be abolished. See #10 below.________

http://KevinCraig.US/anarchism.htm

9) Do you support the right for people to act as they wish in a private setting, with other consenting adults?

I assume this question is not asking about card-games, but about acts which are prohibited by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
No, I do not "support" them, but I oppose the use of criminal sanctions (the initiation of force) to prevent or punish them. I am also as absolutist on the 4th Amendment as I am on the 2nd.

10) A number of states are currently in the process of enacting DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act) type laws. Do you support or oppose limits on the marriage laws that would further restrict who may and may not marry? Why?

"Marriage" was created by God, not the State. For the State to say that homosexuals can live in a state of "marriage" is as ridiculous as saying atheists have a "right" to be baptized. The State does not "define" marriage, and DOMAs are unnecessary, constitutionally speaking, because our "organic law" already recognizes God's definition. I support DOMAs as a means of blocking activist judges who act unconstitutionally.

http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2006/06/marriage-amendment.html

Do you have an additional statement to make that is not covered by this questionnaire? Use as much space as you wish.

I am a pacifist. I hate guns.

http://vftonline.org/TestOath/pacifist.htm

I oppose all "gun control" laws because they can only be enforced through acts of violence, and tend to monopolize guns in the hands of the institution most likely to use them to the greatest and most violent degree: the State.

http://KevinCraig.US/violence.htm

Based on a very cursory look at your website, and especially this statement:

We no longer believe it is the right of those who hate and fear gay, lesbian, bi, trans, or polyamorous persons to use us as targets for their rage.

I conclude that your goal is to endorse or practice acts which I believe are abominations in God's eyes, and one of your strategies is to use lethal force against those you consider to be "bashers."

Jesus taught, "Love your enemies, bless them that bash you" (that's the New Kevin Craig Translation). So it might appear that you and I are poles apart on the most central issues animating your organization ("gay" and guns).

I believe thoughtful consideration of my campaign as a whole would lead you to conclude that Kevin Craig is not just the "lesser of evils" among a bleary pack of candidates in Missouri's 7th Congressional District, but a paradigm-shifting candidate whose victory in November would completely re-direct the national conversation in a way that will benefit your constituents in the long-term. Your armed, vigilate strategy will only polarize your adversaries, and neither the mainstream Demoblicans nor the Republicrats would stand in the way of serious, organized, passionate gay-bashing, should that become a formidable voting block (which they intend to become).

Thank you for your consideration of my candidacy.



Kevin Craig
Libertarian Party Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives, MO-7th
Powersite, MO 65731-0179
blog.KevinCraig.US
www.KevinCraig.US

Worldview

I have received some more internet website-generated letters (which presumably were sent to all the candidates in this race) on the subject of "worldview." Here's how they go:

> [name]
> [address]
> [City], MO [zip]
>
>
> August 20, 2008
>
> Kevin Craig
> PO Box 179
> Powersite, MO 65731
>
>
> Dear Mr. Craig:
>
> Recently, the presumptive presidential nominees of
> both major political parties participated in a
> nationally televised forum at which they discussed
> not only their positions on a number of important issues,
> but also answered questions that revealed their worldview.
>
> As a member of the Center for Moral Clarity, a national
> Christian grassroots organization, I am convinced that
> a leader's worldview is the most important thing a
> follower can know about him or her. To that end, I
> want to ask you some of the same questions that were
> asked at the recent presidential forum:
>
> • At what point does a baby get human rights?
> • How do you define marriage?
> • Does evil exist? And if it does, what should we
> do to counter it?
> • Should all citizens have the right to publicly
> profess and observe their religious faith?
>
> I look forward to learning your responses to these questions.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> [name]

Here's my answer:

Dear [name],

Thanks very much for asking about my worldview. I agree with you that this is a very important question. I'm confident I'm the only candidate for U.S. Congress who has an entire page on their campaign website specifically directed to this question:

http://KevinCraig.us/worldview.htm

You asked me four questions that came from the Saddleback Forum.

> • At what point does a baby get human rights?

At conception -- but I am more pro-life than John McCain. I oppose all embryonic stem-cell research. I would not have voted in favor of appropriations to Planned Parenthood and other organizations that carry out abortions, as McCain did:

http://tinyurl.com/6mjlg2

I believe abortion is always murder.
No exceptions.
A child should not be put to death because her father committed a crime when she was conceived.

http://KevinCraig.us/abortion.htm#murder

I have been called "pro-choice" because I do not believe a woman who murders her child should be executed or locked up with a car-jacker and bank robber:

http://KevinCraig.us/abortion_sanctions.htm

http://KevinCraig.us/capital_punishment.htm

But I believe schools should teach children in age-appropriate ways that abortion is murder. Your current Congressman promised in 1996 (when he was first elected) to abolish the federal Department of Education because it prohibits teaching children that God says "Thou shalt not kill." But not only does that unconstitutional and wasteful bureaucracy still exist, your current Congressman has repeatedly voted to increase its budget, and it is now DOUBLE what it was under Bill Clinton:

http://KevinCraig.us/education.htm

> • How do you define marriage?

God defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life.

http://KevinCraig.us/marriage.htm

Again, parents should be free to send their children to schools which teach God's view of marriage. Your current Congressman has given secular bureaucrats in Washington increased control over your local schools.

> • Does evil exist? And if it does,
> what should we do to counter it?

I think Obama and McCain both agree that evil exists. McCain said "DEFEAT IT." He added:

"if I’m president of the United States, my
friends, if I have to follow him to the
gates of hell, I will get bin Laden and
bring him to justice."

Obama certainly agrees, I think, that terrorists are evil. But I liked Obama's answer better:

WARREN: OK, we’ve got one last time — I’ve
got a bunch more, but let me ask you one
about evil. Does evil exist? And if it does,
do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it?
Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?

OBAMA: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we
see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur.
We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our
cities. We see evil in parents who viciously
abuse their children. I think it has to be
confronted. It has to be confronted squarely,
and one of the things that I strongly believe
is that, now, we are not going to, as individuals,
be able to erase evil from the world. That is
God’s task, but we can be soldiers in that process,
and we can confront it when we see it.

Now, the one thing that I think is very important
is for to us have some humility in how we approach
the issue of confronting evil, because a lot of
evil’s been perpetrated based on the claim that
we were trying to confront evil.

REV. RICK WARREN, SADDLEBACK CHURCH: In the name
of good.

OBAMA: In the name of good, and I think, you know,
one thing that’s very important is having some
humility in recognizing that just because
we think that our intentions are good, doesn’t
always mean that we’re going to be doing good.

Especially when it comes to Islamic terrorism, I believe we need to remember that "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (2 Corinthians 10:3-5).

America's Founding Fathers faced terrorists, every bit as evil as Islamic terrorists. They were called "Indians." But America's strategy (back when America was a Christian nation) was not to "bomb them back to the stone age." They sent missionaries and Bibles to "civilize the heathen."

http://KevinCraig.us/iraq.htm

The U.S. federal government is responsible for the deaths of nearly two million innocent non-combatant men, women and children in Iraq -- people who probably didn't like Saddam Hussein much more than you and I do. The U.S. federal government gave financial aid to Saddam Hussein when he was at war with Iran in the 1980's. The total cost of violent armed force in Iraq is (so far) nearly a trillion dollars. That money could have converted the entire nation of Iraq to Christianity if America's Founders had spent it.

We must not be willing to destroy entire neighborhoods just because a politician shouts "EVIL!" I think this is what Obama was saying, and I think he had a good point.

> • Should all citizens have the right to
> publicly profess and observe their
> religious faith?

No.
Does that surprise you?
Imagine that the man across the street from you is a member of the Aztec faith, and he has built a stone altar in his front yard, and as you look out the window, you see that he is about to rip the beating heart out of his 14-yr old daughter and offer it to the sun-god. Will you allow him to practice his faith, or will you grab his daughter off the altar to protect her life? Who should the police arrest: you, for "infringing on his religious freedom," or the father for attempted murder?

"Pluralism" is a myth.
"Multiculturalism" is a myth.

All laws are based on one religion or another.
"Pluralism" simply means that a society is in transition from one religion to a new one.

A century ago, the United States Supreme Court said that in a Christian nation like America, people can BELIEVE whatever they want, but their ACTIONS must conform to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," which is a Christian concept with Christian meaning:

http://KevinCraig.us/religion/nature.htm

http://VFTonline.org/EndTheWall/mormons.htm

Just today I received a copy of IMPRIMIS, the monthly publication of Hillsdale College, with an article by Mark Steyn entitled "Lights out on Liberty." He describes Britain's on-going transition from a Christian nation that does not tolerate Islamic terrorism to an Islamic nation under Sharia law that will not tolerate Christians. You can read it here:

http://tinyurl.com/6cvc6j

Again, I don't believe in killing all the Aztecs, or locking them in prison with psychopaths. But I do believe in evangelism and promoting a Christian worldview, because that's what gave us "the blessings of liberty." Promoting a Christian worldview is really the whole reason I'm running for Congress. (Promoting the Christian worldview used to be a requirement for every politician.)

If you want to promote a Christian worldview, I'd like to suggest that you forward this letter to all your friends. Encourage them to vote for Kevin Craig in November, and to write to their friends as well.

And thanks again for asking the important question about worldviews.



Kevin Craig
Libertarian Party Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives, MO-7th
Powersite, MO 65731-0179
www.KevinCraig.US
blog.KevinCraig.US
www.STOPtheSPP.US


I would like to add a P.S. to this blog post:
The letter uses the word "follower."
That word sends shivvers up my spine.
"Voter" is bad enough.

More Republican Support for Homosexuality

According to David Boaz, the federal judge who recently struck down California's Proposition 8, which defined Marriage as a union between one woman and one man,

was first appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, at the recommendation of Attorney General Edwin Meese III (now the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation). Democratic opposition led by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) prevented the nomination from coming to a vote during Reagan’s term. Walker was renominated by President George H. W. Bush in February 1989. Again the Democratic Senate refused to act on the nomination. Finally Bush renominated Walker in August, and the Senate confirmed him in December.

Boaz adds:

Josh Green of the Atlantic notes a pattern: the federal judge in Boston who struck down a significant portion of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that it denied gay and lesbian couples the federal benefits afforded to straight couples, was appointed to the bench by President Richard Nixon. And the chief judge of the Iowa Supreme Court who wrote the unanimous decision striking down that state’s marriage ban was appointed by Republican governor Terry Branstad, who was just renominated for governor by Iowa Republican voters.

Republicans have also given us Roe v. Wade, and the murder of Terry Schiavo. Fringe Christian protesters in Colorado noted:

• almost all Republican judges are pro-choice [on abortion] and pro-homosexuality
• all six of the Reagan/Bush Sr./W. Bush judges on the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals voted for starving Terri Schindler to death.
• the Moral Majority/Christian Coalition/Focus on the Family quarter-century strategy of getting godly judges through Republican victories has utterly failed
• it was a Republican Supreme Court which legalized abortion
• Republicans have nominated seven of our nine Supreme Court Justices making it a solidly pro-abortion court
• even the “pro-life” Justices are actually pro-choice on abortion if passed legislatively,
• even they have never declared an unborn child’s fundamental right to life as a living human being and as a constitutionally protected class of “our posterity”
• a Republican-nominated judge wrote the U.S. 9th Circuit ruling against the words “under God” in the Pledge,
• Republican-supported judges issue so many of the most anti-Christian rulings in America

Conservatives must stop voting Republican if they wish to conserve Christian Civilization. True Christianity will not be preserved by more Republican victories at the polls and Republican bureaucracies in Washington D.C. True Christianity needs only liberty.

In a libertarian world, no judge would have the power to rule that a priest or minister must baptize an open atheist, or "marry" a man and his horse.

I have not read the pleadings, but it appears that the Alliance Defense Fund, which defended the electoral majority behind Prop. 8, attempted to defend marriage on purely secular grounds, and opposed efforts by a more explicitly Christian group, Liberty Counsel, to intervene in the trial.

A Gavel Falls on Marriage: The Proposition 8 Decision - AlbertMohler.com

Stand to Reason Blog:
• Federal Judge Strikes Down Prop 8
• If Judge Walker Were Consistent

"Special Meaning" - Pyromaniacs

Cult Threatens Religious Liberty and Property Rights

Polygamists are using Big Brother to impose their religion. Civil libertarians should be alarmed.

For instance, a Methodist retreat center recently refused to allow a member of a polygamist cult to use a campground pavilion for a ceremony in which he would “marry” five women. The state of New Jersey punished the Methodists by revoking the center’s tax-exempt status—a vindictive attack on the Methodists’ religious liberty and use of their own property.

In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was ordered to accept polygamous “families” as candidates for adoption. Rather than comply with an order that would be harmful to children, and violated their own religious principles, Catholic Charities closed down its adoption program.

California public schools have been told they must be tolerant of polygamous “families.” But it will not stop with public schools. Just north of the border in Quebec, the government told a Mennonite school that it must conform to provincial law regarding curriculum—a curriculum that teaches children that polygamy is a valid lifestyle. How long will it be before the U.S. government goes after private schools?

Even speaking out against polygamy can get you fired. Crystal Dixon, an associate vice president at the University of Toledo, was fired after writing an opinion piece in the Toledo Free Press in support of traditional marriage . . . Fired — for exercising her First Amendment rights!

Every single person who signed the Constitution believed that polygamy was contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." They never intended their Constitution to be used as a hammer to impose polygamy on those who believe in traditional marriage. During the nineteenth century, The U.S. Supreme Court, on a number of occasions, affirmed that the First Amendment does not prohibit private parties and voluntary associations who support traditional marriage from "discriminating" against polygamous "families" by teaching traditional views or using their private property to promote traditional families exclusively. In one case, the Supreme Court noted of polygamy that, "It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the western world."

Opponents of traditional marriage appear to be left-leaning supporters of Big Government. They have no objections to expanding the power of the State to force others to recognize the legitimacy of their lifestyle. Federal Courts are acquiescing to their demands, and short-circuiting the rights of property and religious freedom to those who oppose polygamy. This movement represents a significant trend away from liberty and towards totalitarianism.

This is why I view a Constitutional Amendment defining "marriage" in accord with "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to be an essential step in preserving liberty and limiting the growth of government.

-----=====******O******=====-----
UPDATE: I've just been informed that I had all of the essential facts in error. None of the infringements of Constitutional liberties reported above -- which did in fact occur -- involved polygamous "families." Rather, the growth of tyranny is being promoted by proponents of same-sex "marriages." For the accurate facts and incisive analysis, see Chuck Colson's essay, The Coming Persecution.

Ruwart and Child Porn - Part 2

TIME Magazine offers some thoughts about the Libertarian Party and "last month's child-porn-gate." LP Presidential candidate Mary Ruwart, who opposes child pornography, says the government should not interfere with children who consent to participate in child porn. Nathan Thornburgh writes for TIME:

Ruwart's is a classic libertarian take — a defense of free will (even for "child performers") and an attack on government prohibitions of any kind. It's also political poison. As libertarian blogger Steve Newton put it, Ruwart and her allies run the risk of turning the party into "the poster child for NAMBLA and the aluminum hat brigade."

The party's executive director, Shane Cory, saw the danger as well, and rushed out a press release titled, "Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography." Cory was attacked by hardliners who saw the release as an endorsement of increased federal prosecuting power. The party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws. Cory resigned in protest, depriving a party in the midst of what may be its most promising election season of one of its most able organizers and fund raisers. But for many libertarian faithful, adherence to the most rigid of principles always trumps practical considerations about how those principles might be more broadly observed.

That rigidity has long been libertarianism's greatest asset. If the Democratic and Republican parties have any ideology, it's an ideology of power — their policies shift and twist in the wind according to what they think will appeal to the biggest slice of the electorate. Libertarians have no power, but they have consistency and principle. If they lose that — and, presumably, the general election as well — they may be left on November 5th with nothing at all.

Libertarians will lose in November -- unless Americans regain a commitment to the radical pursuit of happiness and liberty which animated America's Founding Fathers. What purpose does the Libertarian Party have if not to educate voters and shift public opinion from the lukewarm and moderate to the passionate extremism of John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and Sam Adams, who said:

Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say "what should be the reward of such sacrifices?" Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!
Speech, State House of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (1 August 1776)

Las Vegas gambling advocate Wayne Allyn Root was one Libertarian candidate who attacked Ruwart for her consistent libertarianism. "I'm trying to change mainstream libertarianism," Root told TIME's Thornburgh at Root's home in Las Vegas in early May. "I want to make us electable."

That's the choice Libertarians face:

• making their party fit the mold of voters who would embarrass the Founding Fathers,
• or raising Americans up to the high standards of 1776, who would then see the Libertarian Party as the only logical alternative.

Is Ruwart's position as nutty as her rivals allege?

All libertarians agree that unconsented sex is wrong.

America's Founding Fathers believed that all sex outside the sacred life-long commitment of heterosexual marriage is sinful. Today's legal system is founded on a belief that "anything goes."

Imagine you're on a jury, hearing a child porn case, and the 40-year-old defendant is arguing that the 6-year-old "consented." How easily will you be persuaded of this after hearing the testimony of the child and the child's parents?

On the other hand, suppose you are a 14-year-old who has consented to marry an older man you love and respect, and have already had a child by him, a child you love very much, and the government wants to take your child away to an institution, based on its claim that -- regardless of what you say -- you are deemed legally incapable of "consent," therefore your marriage is invalid, and your child belongs to the government. Should you be allowed to try to convince a jury that you knew what you were doing so you can keep your child?

Mary Ruwart says you should be able to do so. "Child Protection" authorities in Texas say otherwise.

In a more Christian nation, the 40 year-old would be quickly convicted because the sex was outside marriage, and marriages were usually contracted within an extended family, with ties to the community, sanctioned by an educated church. Easy decision.

Yesterday's crimes are today's "alternative lifestyles," but a "fanatic" religious belief in marriage can be criminal, as fundamentalist Mormons in Texas have found out. We're now living with the descendants of people who were educated in schools where it is illegal to teach "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to students. This not only produces polygamous cults, it produces "the cult of the omnipotent State."

I've been in the home of a couple who were married at age 14, and after more than 50 years of marriage, they have many children, grand-children and great-grandchildren who are glad the couple was not subjected to the wisdom of bureaucrats in our great nanny-state.

But What About the Children? by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

See comments on Christine Smith's Open letter to Shane Cory (LP Exec. Dir.) & Andrew Davis (LP Media Coordinator)

Another "child abuse" angle:
The all-powerful, all-wise state