From: Washington Examiner by Timothy Carney
Today's talk of tolerance and acceptance of gay marriage will soon give way to intolerance and rejection of those who hold a traditional view of marriage.
The next offensive in this culture war will involve wielding government to force individuals to accept the new definition of marriage, falsely invoking analogies to civil rights.
As a prototype, consider the assault on the liberty of Elaine Huguenin, the wedding photographer in New Mexico. In 2006, a couple asked her to photograph their wedding. When she learned the couple were lesbians, she declined, explaining that pursuant to her faith, she only photographed man-woman weddings.
The couple got a different photographer, but they sued Huguenin. In New Mexico, there is no gay marriage. In a recent poll, most New Mexicans said they oppose gay marriage. But the state outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The New Mexico Human Rights Commission found Huguenin had broken the law, and ordered her to pay $7,000. Huguenin, with the aide of the pro-bono civil liberties law firm Alliance Defense Fund, has sued and the case is now before state Supreme Court.
Try to live your own life according to traditional values, and the state will come after you, and compel you live according to its values.
Florist Barronelle Stutzman owns Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Wash. A gay man, who was a long-time customer of Arlene's, asked Stutzman to arrange flowers for his wedding. She declined, citing her belief that marriage is a union between a man and woman. Now Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson is coming after Stutzman, saying, in effect, she must participate in this gay wedding.
How does Ferguson justify using the power of the state to impose his morality? "If Ms. Stutzman sells flowers to heterosexual couples," the Seattle Post-Intelligencer quotes Ferguson saying, "she must sell them to same-sex couples."
But obviously Stutzman did sell flowers to same-sex couples, happily - that's why this particular client was a long-time customer. What she refuses to do is participate in a ceremony that the state calls marriage, but which she doesn't consider to be marriage.
This is why the civil rights analogy doesn't work. Huguenin's case and Stutzman's case aren't about small businesswomen refusing to serve gay people. They are about businesswomen refusing to endorse the novel definition of marriage.
Now that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has asserted that the only reason to object to gay marriage is to "demean" gay people, expect this offensive in the culture war to escalate.
President Obama promised that he won't try to force churches to administer gay weddings. That's very kind of him. But Obama's contraception mandate has shown us how narrowly he views religious liberty.
Maybe Obama or his successor won't use an executive order to rewrite the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, but government will go after churches all the same. The Cardinal O'Boyle Hall that your parish occasionally rents to outside groups? Better allow gay wedding receptions there or face the wrath of the state.
You're allowed to be religious, of course, but only on the Sabbath. If you dare step into the world of commerce or public service, the government will impose its morality on you.
You see it in Obama's rhetoric: he talks of "freedom of worship" rather than freedom of religion. It's a push to bring to heel all rivals of government. Liberal writer Kevin Drum made it pretty explicit during the contraception mandate debate:
"I'm tired of religious groups operating secular enterprises (hospitals, schools)," he wrote, "hiring people of multiple faiths, serving the general public, taking taxpayer dollars -- and then claiming that deeply held religious beliefs should exempt them from public policy."
The thrust: religious groups should only do religion--they shouldn't feed the poor, clothe the naked, educate the young.
And individuals who adhere to religions? Leave your faith at the church door. The Obama administration has argued in the contraception mandate cases that we lose our freedom of conscience the second we enter into commerce with other people.
The Left has long been the aggressor in the culture war. The crushing power of government has long been their weapon.
Many politically involved writers and advocates concerned with liberty and equality fought to open marriage to gay couples. Now that they've won, here's hoping that those who care about liberty will defend the liberty of cultural conservatives to live their lives according to their faith.
Showing posts with label Washington Examiner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington Examiner. Show all posts
Monday, July 01, 2013
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
New York town removes flag as ‘offensive’ Tea Party symbol
From: WashingtonExaminer.com
A veterans organization in a New York town is fighting for its right to fly a patriotic flag after the city council refused to let the group display the flag, calling it a symbol of the Tea Party with right-wing connotations.
The United Veterans Memorial & Patriotic Association replaced a tattered American flag at the New Rochelle Armory, flying the Gadsden flag underneath it. The bright yellow “Don’t Tread On Me” flag has been used by the Navy and Marine Corps since 1775.
When a city council member complained to the city manager that he found the flag offensive, the city manager initially decided to let the flag fly anyway. But the city council overruled him, and the flag was taken down. On Wednesday, the council voted 5 to 2 to keep the veterans from putting the flag back up.
The council objected to the flag because they said Peter Parente, the president of the veterans group, is a member of the Tea Party and the group wants to use the flag to make a political point.
But Parente said at the council meeting no one in his organization is a Tea Party member.
“I’m a proud Republican,” he told the council.
Once council member compared the flag to the rainbow flag used to symbolize gay pride, according to local news website Talk of the Sound. Another has compared it variously to the Nazi flag, a Mickey Mouse flag and graffiti.
The veterans group has retained the Thomas More Law Center to regain the right to fly the flag. They have not yet filed a lawsuit.
“Using the City Council’s reasoning, they would remove the Stars and Stripes from flagpoles because both Democrat and Republican Parties, as well as most political candidates, use the Stars and Stripes in their campaign messaging,” said Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center.
A veterans organization in a New York town is fighting for its right to fly a patriotic flag after the city council refused to let the group display the flag, calling it a symbol of the Tea Party with right-wing connotations.
The United Veterans Memorial & Patriotic Association replaced a tattered American flag at the New Rochelle Armory, flying the Gadsden flag underneath it. The bright yellow “Don’t Tread On Me” flag has been used by the Navy and Marine Corps since 1775.
When a city council member complained to the city manager that he found the flag offensive, the city manager initially decided to let the flag fly anyway. But the city council overruled him, and the flag was taken down. On Wednesday, the council voted 5 to 2 to keep the veterans from putting the flag back up.
The council objected to the flag because they said Peter Parente, the president of the veterans group, is a member of the Tea Party and the group wants to use the flag to make a political point.
But Parente said at the council meeting no one in his organization is a Tea Party member.
“I’m a proud Republican,” he told the council.
Once council member compared the flag to the rainbow flag used to symbolize gay pride, according to local news website Talk of the Sound. Another has compared it variously to the Nazi flag, a Mickey Mouse flag and graffiti.
The veterans group has retained the Thomas More Law Center to regain the right to fly the flag. They have not yet filed a lawsuit.
“Using the City Council’s reasoning, they would remove the Stars and Stripes from flagpoles because both Democrat and Republican Parties, as well as most political candidates, use the Stars and Stripes in their campaign messaging,” said Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center.
Friday, April 05, 2013
Newtown and Gosnell: A tale of two massacres
From: WashingtonExaminer.com
You might not know it, but there's a mass murder trial going on in Philadelphia. There has been plenty of courtroom drama, and the death penalty remains a possibility.
The media are seldom shy about such sensational affairs, but they have been with one. Perhaps it's because the accused mass murderer is an abortion doctor, who along with his medically untrained staff is accused of killing a female patient and several babies who had already been born, alive and breathing.
Doctor Kermit Gosnell's preferred method of killing these latter, according to witnesses, was to sever their spinal cords. Upon his arrest in January 2011, his urine-scented and blood-soaked clinic was deemed a "house of horrors." (I will spare readers further details, which are far worse.)
This trial's gruesome revelations are emerging at almost the same time as new details about the loathsome and cowardly murderer who killed his own mother and then 26 others at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., late last year.
Some will find the comparison inappropriate, but from a political perspective, Gosnell's trial is to abortion what Sandy Hook is to gun ownership.
Both are emotional cases with horrific details that cry out for public policy debates. And in each case, the debate pits public safety against something widely considered a constitutional right.
The two cases are different in that Sandy Hook received wall-to-wall coverage and thus facilitated a national conversation about mental health and gun control -- a debate whose outcome is yet to be determined.
Not so with the Gosnell trial, which has been completely blacked out by the media. The American people are now like a jury, shielded from relevant information because judges (read: editors) decided it might prejudice their views -- in this case, against lightly regulated abortionists.
Whatever one's position on gun control, the appropriately heavy coverage of the Sandy Hook massacre at least served a public purpose by starting a discussion about mass shootings.
At its most thoughtful, the debate considered what measures might have prevented the massacre and which could be squared with Americans' constitutional rights.
At its worst, the debate suffered from media cheerleading for panic gun control legislation -- as in, "pass something, anything!" -- including but not limited to such left-leaning figures as CNN's Piers Morgan.
In stark contrast, television coverage of Gosnell's trial has been "hard to find," as the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan put it very charitably last Sunday on "Meet the Press."
In fact, not counting Noonan's allusion, Gosnell's case has not been mentioned even once on any of the three major networks in the last month (his trial began March 18).
It has received only seven mentions on cable television since it began, one on CNN and six on Fox News. In print, Gosnell's case has been largely ignored outside of local media outlets in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
It's not as though there isn't an obvious connection between the Gosnell case and public policy. Legislators in some states (including Pennsylvania and now Alabama) have acted since Gosnell's arrest to crack down on the next abortion quack.
The media have collectively and perhaps deliberately failed to draw the obvious connection between the two stories.
The month after Gosnell's arrest, Virginia's legislature approved new health and safety rules for abortion clinics on a nearly straight party-line vote in 2011.
Gov. Bob McDonnell, R, approved the new rules three months ago. Last week, amid Gosnell's trial, abortion rights groups unashamedly announced they had submitted thousands of comments in opposition. The state Board of Health is expected to hand down a final decision next week.
Many have asked what kind of law they could pass to prevent the next Newtown. Few are writing about how to prevent the next Kermit Gosnell.
Given the frequent claim that abortion is safer for being legal, and the eagerness of the abortion rights lobby to distance itself from Gosnell, why such incredible and inflexible resistance to basic safety regulations?
The gun lobby is often accused of resisting any new gun law as if it were the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. The liberal editors who are keeping Kermit Gosnell's case off the air should ask themselves whether they aren't taking sides in the culture war.
Or can public health, public safety and public debate be subordinated to the question of whose camel's nose is going under whose tent?
You might not know it, but there's a mass murder trial going on in Philadelphia. There has been plenty of courtroom drama, and the death penalty remains a possibility.
The media are seldom shy about such sensational affairs, but they have been with one. Perhaps it's because the accused mass murderer is an abortion doctor, who along with his medically untrained staff is accused of killing a female patient and several babies who had already been born, alive and breathing.
Doctor Kermit Gosnell's preferred method of killing these latter, according to witnesses, was to sever their spinal cords. Upon his arrest in January 2011, his urine-scented and blood-soaked clinic was deemed a "house of horrors." (I will spare readers further details, which are far worse.)
This trial's gruesome revelations are emerging at almost the same time as new details about the loathsome and cowardly murderer who killed his own mother and then 26 others at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., late last year.
Some will find the comparison inappropriate, but from a political perspective, Gosnell's trial is to abortion what Sandy Hook is to gun ownership.
Both are emotional cases with horrific details that cry out for public policy debates. And in each case, the debate pits public safety against something widely considered a constitutional right.
The two cases are different in that Sandy Hook received wall-to-wall coverage and thus facilitated a national conversation about mental health and gun control -- a debate whose outcome is yet to be determined.
Not so with the Gosnell trial, which has been completely blacked out by the media. The American people are now like a jury, shielded from relevant information because judges (read: editors) decided it might prejudice their views -- in this case, against lightly regulated abortionists.
Whatever one's position on gun control, the appropriately heavy coverage of the Sandy Hook massacre at least served a public purpose by starting a discussion about mass shootings.
At its most thoughtful, the debate considered what measures might have prevented the massacre and which could be squared with Americans' constitutional rights.
At its worst, the debate suffered from media cheerleading for panic gun control legislation -- as in, "pass something, anything!" -- including but not limited to such left-leaning figures as CNN's Piers Morgan.
In stark contrast, television coverage of Gosnell's trial has been "hard to find," as the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan put it very charitably last Sunday on "Meet the Press."
In fact, not counting Noonan's allusion, Gosnell's case has not been mentioned even once on any of the three major networks in the last month (his trial began March 18).
It has received only seven mentions on cable television since it began, one on CNN and six on Fox News. In print, Gosnell's case has been largely ignored outside of local media outlets in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
It's not as though there isn't an obvious connection between the Gosnell case and public policy. Legislators in some states (including Pennsylvania and now Alabama) have acted since Gosnell's arrest to crack down on the next abortion quack.
The media have collectively and perhaps deliberately failed to draw the obvious connection between the two stories.
The month after Gosnell's arrest, Virginia's legislature approved new health and safety rules for abortion clinics on a nearly straight party-line vote in 2011.
Gov. Bob McDonnell, R, approved the new rules three months ago. Last week, amid Gosnell's trial, abortion rights groups unashamedly announced they had submitted thousands of comments in opposition. The state Board of Health is expected to hand down a final decision next week.
Many have asked what kind of law they could pass to prevent the next Newtown. Few are writing about how to prevent the next Kermit Gosnell.
Given the frequent claim that abortion is safer for being legal, and the eagerness of the abortion rights lobby to distance itself from Gosnell, why such incredible and inflexible resistance to basic safety regulations?
The gun lobby is often accused of resisting any new gun law as if it were the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. The liberal editors who are keeping Kermit Gosnell's case off the air should ask themselves whether they aren't taking sides in the culture war.
Or can public health, public safety and public debate be subordinated to the question of whose camel's nose is going under whose tent?
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Comcast pulls local stores’ commercials over gun policy
From: Washington Examiner
Comcast is slowly but surely erasing guns from all its advertising, and shop owners in Georgia are the latest to be told their ads will be pulled if they don’t take out all reference to weapons.
Ray Reynolds owns United Loan and Firearms, a pawn shop in Augusta. He told the Augusta Chronicle on Monday he was notified last week that his ads would bReynolweapons, musical instruments and other items.
Walden’s Outdoors in Martinez sells sells archery equipment and firearms, and has also advertised for several years with Comcast. Owner Eddie Walden found out Monday that his commercials also will be pulled if he doesn’t remove weapons from his ads.
“I think it’s wrong,” Walden told the Chronicle. “I look at it as a free-speech thing.”
Comcast has offered to redo Walden’s ad for free, but he said he’s unsure whether he’ll continue advertising with them.
“I’ve got to look at the principle of it,” he said. “Do I want to support them if they’re going to be anti what I’m doing?”
Advertisers in California and Michigan reported last month that their ads were being pulled or canceled for the same reason.
Comcast says their policy was put in place after the company purchased NBCUniversal in February. Comcast’s statement has been the same in every case from Los Angeles to Augusta:
“Consistent with long standing NBC policies, Comcast Spotlight has decided it will not accept new advertising for firearms or weapons moving forward. This policy aligns us with the guidelines in place at many media organizations.”
The company has not addressed why its policy addresses new advertising, but current advertisements are being pulled.
Comcast is slowly but surely erasing guns from all its advertising, and shop owners in Georgia are the latest to be told their ads will be pulled if they don’t take out all reference to weapons.
Ray Reynolds owns United Loan and Firearms, a pawn shop in Augusta. He told the Augusta Chronicle on Monday he was notified last week that his ads would bReynolweapons, musical instruments and other items.
Walden’s Outdoors in Martinez sells sells archery equipment and firearms, and has also advertised for several years with Comcast. Owner Eddie Walden found out Monday that his commercials also will be pulled if he doesn’t remove weapons from his ads.
“I think it’s wrong,” Walden told the Chronicle. “I look at it as a free-speech thing.”
Comcast has offered to redo Walden’s ad for free, but he said he’s unsure whether he’ll continue advertising with them.
“I’ve got to look at the principle of it,” he said. “Do I want to support them if they’re going to be anti what I’m doing?”
Advertisers in California and Michigan reported last month that their ads were being pulled or canceled for the same reason.
Comcast says their policy was put in place after the company purchased NBCUniversal in February. Comcast’s statement has been the same in every case from Los Angeles to Augusta:
“Consistent with long standing NBC policies, Comcast Spotlight has decided it will not accept new advertising for firearms or weapons moving forward. This policy aligns us with the guidelines in place at many media organizations.”
The company has not addressed why its policy addresses new advertising, but current advertisements are being pulled.
Thursday, October 04, 2012
Ohio shocker: GOP closes early voting gap, boosting Romney
From: WashingtonExaminer.com
n a remarkable reversal of fortune for President Obama in Ohio, the GOP has closed the huge gap in absentee ballot requests used by early voters that favored the Democrats and the president in 2008, setting up what one state analyst said could be a Mitt Romney blowout on Election Day.
While in 2008, 33 percent of the 1,158,301 absentee ballots went to Democrats and just 19 percent to registered Republicans, a 14-point gap, this year 29 percent are being requested by Democrats and 24 percent by Republicans, a five-point gap.
And in a sign that the enthusiasm of 2008 voters is depressed, just 638,997 absentee ballots have been requested, according to American Majority Action, which culled the statistics together from Ohio college professors who are tracking the state's absentee ballots used for early voting. The group provided Secrets with the details.
Even more dramatic, while the GOP has cut the Democratic advantage in early voting throughout the state, the changes favoring the Republicans in certain counties has been huge. In Franklin County, home to Columbus, for example, a 2008 Democratic advantage of 5 percent is now a 5 percent GOP advantage. In Cuyahoga County, home to Democratic Cleveland, the GOP has shaved six points off the Democrat's 2008 advantage. And in Hamilton County, home to Cincinnati, Republicans have expanded their 2008 advantage to 13 percent.
University of Dayton Professor Larry Schweikart told American Majority Action President Ned Ryun that the GOP gains favor Romney. "Although it is early, we will soon be at a point where--assuming Republicans vote for Romney--the Democrats will have to overwhelmingly win all the remaining early voting just to be even on November 6. But, given Ohio's voting history, if the numbers are even close after early voting, Obama will lose, and possibly lose big."
Ryun, whose group has opened voter registration efforts in Ohio and other swing states, said that the Buckeye State's efforts to clean up voter rolls has also played a part in tightening the gap. He said that 450,000 dead voters and duplicate registrations have been nixed, and the majority were Democrats.
"Considering Obama won the state by 263,000 votes, Ohio's cleaner rolls could make a big impact," Ryun said. He added, "The five largest counties in Ohio have all shifted at least 6 percent and as much as 27 percent to the Republicans since 2008. While the polls show an Obama lead, these real votes--assuming registered voters vote for their candidate--demonstrate a Republican shift since 2008."
Ryun sent this to Secrets from his analysis of Ohio early voting:
In 2008, there were 1,158,301 total absentee ballots requested, 33 percent registered Democrat and 19 percent registered Republican--a 14 point gap. So far in 2012, 638,997 ballots have been requested, 29 percent Democrat and 24 percent Republican--only a five point gap.
The Republicans have shrunk the gap nine percent overall since 2008, but when we examine key counties in Ohio, the numbers become even more dramatic.
--Champaign County: Was +3% GOP, now +23% GOP - 20 point shift.
--Columbiana County: Was +9% DEM, now +9% GOP - 18 point shift.
--Crawford County: Was +3% DEM, now +12% GOP - 15 point shift.
--Cuyahoga County: Was +36% DEM, now +30% DEM (GOP already has 6,000 more requests than in 2008) - 6 point shift.
--Erie County: Was +24% DEM, now +7% DEM -17 point shift.
--Franklin County: Was +5% DEM, now +5% GOP - 10 point shift.
--Greene County: Was +4% DEM, now +19% GOP - 23 point shift.
--Harrison County: Was +22% DEM, now +5% DEM - 17 point shift.
--Hamilton County: Was +7% GOP, now +13% GOP - 6 point shift.
--Licking County: Was TIED, now +16% GOP - 16 point shift.
--Montgomery County: Was +29% DEM, now +5% DEM - 24 point shift.
--Muskingum County: Was +1% DEM, now +16% GOP - 17 point shift.
--Pickaway County: Was +12% DEM, now +15% GOP - 27 point shift.
--Seneca County: Was +1% DEM, now +13% GOP - 14 point shift.
--Summit County: Was +33% DEM, now +6 DEM - 27 point shift.
--Wood County: Was +10% DEM, now +1% GOP - 11 point shift.
n a remarkable reversal of fortune for President Obama in Ohio, the GOP has closed the huge gap in absentee ballot requests used by early voters that favored the Democrats and the president in 2008, setting up what one state analyst said could be a Mitt Romney blowout on Election Day.
While in 2008, 33 percent of the 1,158,301 absentee ballots went to Democrats and just 19 percent to registered Republicans, a 14-point gap, this year 29 percent are being requested by Democrats and 24 percent by Republicans, a five-point gap.
And in a sign that the enthusiasm of 2008 voters is depressed, just 638,997 absentee ballots have been requested, according to American Majority Action, which culled the statistics together from Ohio college professors who are tracking the state's absentee ballots used for early voting. The group provided Secrets with the details.
Even more dramatic, while the GOP has cut the Democratic advantage in early voting throughout the state, the changes favoring the Republicans in certain counties has been huge. In Franklin County, home to Columbus, for example, a 2008 Democratic advantage of 5 percent is now a 5 percent GOP advantage. In Cuyahoga County, home to Democratic Cleveland, the GOP has shaved six points off the Democrat's 2008 advantage. And in Hamilton County, home to Cincinnati, Republicans have expanded their 2008 advantage to 13 percent.
University of Dayton Professor Larry Schweikart told American Majority Action President Ned Ryun that the GOP gains favor Romney. "Although it is early, we will soon be at a point where--assuming Republicans vote for Romney--the Democrats will have to overwhelmingly win all the remaining early voting just to be even on November 6. But, given Ohio's voting history, if the numbers are even close after early voting, Obama will lose, and possibly lose big."
Ryun, whose group has opened voter registration efforts in Ohio and other swing states, said that the Buckeye State's efforts to clean up voter rolls has also played a part in tightening the gap. He said that 450,000 dead voters and duplicate registrations have been nixed, and the majority were Democrats.
"Considering Obama won the state by 263,000 votes, Ohio's cleaner rolls could make a big impact," Ryun said. He added, "The five largest counties in Ohio have all shifted at least 6 percent and as much as 27 percent to the Republicans since 2008. While the polls show an Obama lead, these real votes--assuming registered voters vote for their candidate--demonstrate a Republican shift since 2008."
Ryun sent this to Secrets from his analysis of Ohio early voting:
In 2008, there were 1,158,301 total absentee ballots requested, 33 percent registered Democrat and 19 percent registered Republican--a 14 point gap. So far in 2012, 638,997 ballots have been requested, 29 percent Democrat and 24 percent Republican--only a five point gap.
The Republicans have shrunk the gap nine percent overall since 2008, but when we examine key counties in Ohio, the numbers become even more dramatic.
--Champaign County: Was +3% GOP, now +23% GOP - 20 point shift.
--Columbiana County: Was +9% DEM, now +9% GOP - 18 point shift.
--Crawford County: Was +3% DEM, now +12% GOP - 15 point shift.
--Cuyahoga County: Was +36% DEM, now +30% DEM (GOP already has 6,000 more requests than in 2008) - 6 point shift.
--Erie County: Was +24% DEM, now +7% DEM -17 point shift.
--Franklin County: Was +5% DEM, now +5% GOP - 10 point shift.
--Greene County: Was +4% DEM, now +19% GOP - 23 point shift.
--Harrison County: Was +22% DEM, now +5% DEM - 17 point shift.
--Hamilton County: Was +7% GOP, now +13% GOP - 6 point shift.
--Licking County: Was TIED, now +16% GOP - 16 point shift.
--Montgomery County: Was +29% DEM, now +5% DEM - 24 point shift.
--Muskingum County: Was +1% DEM, now +16% GOP - 17 point shift.
--Pickaway County: Was +12% DEM, now +15% GOP - 27 point shift.
--Seneca County: Was +1% DEM, now +13% GOP - 14 point shift.
--Summit County: Was +33% DEM, now +6 DEM - 27 point shift.
--Wood County: Was +10% DEM, now +1% GOP - 11 point shift.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
