Ruth Institute Blog

Metaphorically, that is. There is an empty seat in District 9, Anthony Weiner’s Congressional old seat, which he had to give up in disgrace due to his lack of sexual discretion. (understatement. LOL.)  Anyhow, one of the candidates for that seat is a guy called David Weprin.  While in the NY state legislature, he voted in favor of redefining marriage. He describes himself as an orthodox Jew.  Here is a news release NOM, our sister organization put out, wherein an Orthodox rabbi, Rabbi Zecharia Wallerstein, tells people to vote against David Weprin, specifically because of his vote to redefine marriage.

This race will be interesting to watch.  It will be an indication of how much voters care about the marriage issue. According to the Washington Post,  ”Democrats are already blaming New York Democratic nominee David Weprin’s vote for same-sex marriage from when he was in the state Assembly for alienating Jewish voters.”

This is ordinarily a safely Democratic district.  Maybe the politicos will learn something….

You would be amazed at how often I hear some version of this one: “You say marriage is about attaching mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.  What about adoption?”  Or, “you say kids need a mom and a dad. I had a stepfather who was better than my biological dad.” Or the worst version of this I ever heard, “you broke the bonds between your adopted son and his biological parents. How can you say biology is important?”  This last comment is particularly idiotic because my son was in a Romanian orphanage for over two years before we had ever heard of him. The bond with his biological parents had Read more…

When I went to San Francisco last week to cover the Prop 8 trial, I indicated that I would be watching for something specific from the Marriage Redefiners.  Will they try to distinguish their case:

That is, will they try to come up with some argument that distinguishes the Proponents of Prop 8 from Proponents of other potential ballot initiatives.  If they make no attempt to do that, we might conclude that they don’t care whether they destroy the initiative process. They just want what they want, and they don’t care about collateral damage.

            I knew that I cared about this, as a fundamental issue of fairness and good government. Will the Marriage Redefinition Crusaders gut the initiative process, just to get the outcome they want? I wasn’t prepared for the extent to which the justices of the CA Supreme Court cared. Read more…

My earlier post, called “Rob Reiner, the Founder of the Feast,” prompted a call for citations.  How do I know that Rob Reiner is bankrolling the Prop 8 legal challenges?  Basically, because he has said so, and because Ted Olsen thanked him for it.

Look at the website for the American Foundation for Equal Rights.  The president of that organization claims to be the “sole sponsor of the Perry case,” in the video on the lower right hand corner. Also, you can see Rob Reiner in the video at 6:30. Ted Olsen thanks him and his wife for their support around 7:30 on the video.

Rob Reiner is proud of his involvement and has never hidden it.  See articles here:  and here.

You can also look at the 990 form for the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Read more…

The justices seemed to be concerned about over-reaching on both sides. On one side, they asked, suppose we adopt your theory, Mr. Olsen, and rule that the Prop 8 proponents do not have standing  to defend the measure?  What will be left of the initiative process?

On the other side, they asked Chuck Cooper, suppose we adopt your theory that the Proponents do have standing? Do the Proponents act as agents of the state, in place of the Attorney General?  How far does that ability to represent the state’s interest extend? Cooper made it clear that he thought it was possible and proper, for the Proponents’ right to speak for the state should be limited to the specific ballot issue, and nothing  more.

Ted Olsen, on the other hand, seemed to be completely uninterested in the question of the long-range consequences of his legal theory on the future of the initiative process.

They did indeed take our electronic equipment when we entered the courtroom.  Our friends over at the NOM blog were watching the broadcast on TV. They were able to comment in real time, and I wasn’t, even though they were in DC and I was right in the courtroom! Oh well!

I really appreciate everyone coming back over here to the Ruth Blog and checking in with us throughout the day. I will try to make it up to you!

I did try to capture some images and interviews that wouldn’t be available on TV. I will be adding those throughout the evening, while I’m waiting for my plane back to So Cal.  I was able to e-mail a few pix to Betsy, which she uploaded in earlier posts. I’ll go back and provide a bit of commentary on those photos later on.

Bottom line: the judges of the CA Supreme Court were not nice and gentle to Ted Olsen.  I think there is little doubt that they will rule in favor of the proponents having standing to defend Prop 8. The only question is what the vote count will be, what the reasoning will be, and how many individual concurring opinions there will be.

There was a celebrity sighting at the Prop 8 trial today.  That grey-haired guy in the center of the photo is Rob Reiner. He stood at the podium next to Ted Olsen during the press conference after the hearing.  He should. He has been funding these legal challenges.

Power to the people. The rich and beautiful people.

In today’s hearing, I will be watching for the Marriage Redefiners to try to distinguish their case. That is, will they try to come up with some argument that distinguishes the Proponents of Prop 8 from Proponents of other potential ballot initiatives.  If they make no attempt to do that, we might conclude that they don’t care whether they destroy the initiative process. They just want what they want, and they don’t care about collateral damage.

On the other hand, if they do make an effort to limit the impact of their request to Prop 8 and only Prop 8, that would at least show some good faith on their part.

I will be watching.

I have been told by a veteran of these hearings that I may be asked to give up my electronics before entering the courtroom.  In that case, I will have to file my posts later.  The hearing begins at 10 AM Pacific Time, and will probably run through noon. 

Watch this space….

I am in San Francisco today, observing the Prop 8 hearing on behalf of NOM. The issue in today’s hearing is standing: who has standing to defend Prop 8 in court against legal attacks.

This issue is significant for several reasons. First, the State of CA has the responsibility of defending its laws in court. That’s right: Proposition 8 is a duly enacted law of the State of CA. The people passed this initiative in a highly visible election that was not even a close call, 51% to 49%, approximately the same percentage of the vote that elected Barack Obama President of the United States.

Second, the elected officials charged with this duty, the Attorney General and the Governor, have consistently refused to perform their constitutional duty. They only enforce the parts of the law they like, I guess. Read more…

Cato Institute scholar Doug Bandow has a column on the rise of religious persecution around the world. Basing his column on a report by the Pew Forum on Religion, Bandow notes that

According to Pew’s new study, “more than 2.2 billion people — about a third of the world’s population– live in countries where government restrictions or social hostilities involving religion are increasing. About 1% live in countries where government restrictions or social hostilities are decreasing.”

In many cases these restrictions are not minor. Explained Pew: “The number of countries in which governments used at least some measure of force against religious groups or individuals rose from 91 (46%) in the period ending in mid-2008 to 101 (51%) in the period ending in mid-2009. This violence was wide-ranging, including individuals being killed, physically abused, imprisoned, detained or displaced from their homes, as well as damage to or destruction of personal or religious properties.”… Read more…

Jeff Cain, President of American Philanthropic, has an interesting review of a book called, Do More Than Give: The Six Practices of Donors Who Change the World.  He doesn’t like it. He is deeply suspicious of what the authors breathlessly call, “catalytic philanthropists.”

Having conquered the world of business, come into a great inheritance, or stumbled upon a sweet foundation gig, catalytic philanthropists, the authors report, enter the nonprofit fray bulging with business acumen, insider government contacts, and high-level social and political connections. Sure, they could simply make grants. But they don’t.

They leverage their assets by breaking down traditional distinctions between the private and public sectors. … Read more…

Honestly, you really ought to stretch and warm up a bit before jumping to conclusions. You guys jumped so far and so hard, I’m worried you might hurt yourselves!

I am referring of course, to my now notorious anal sex post. You will recall I made a simple statement: Read more…

We let infertile couples get married: why shouldn’t we allow same sex couples to get married?  Why should a 65 year old opposite sex couple be allowed to marry, and a 65 year old same sex couple not be allowed to marry?  

 The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. These two questions are addressing the situations where no children are likely to result from the union.

First, there is a clear difference between what same sex couples do and what infertile married couples do. No one could have children by performing same sex sexual acts. Yet, this is not true of the type of act performed by sterile married couples when they engage in vaginal intercourse. The lack of complementarity in same sex couples is a condition that renders it impossible for them to perform the kind of act that makes them organically one. If a married couple discovers that they are infertile, this obviously does not change what they have been doing in bed. They still perform the same kind of act they have been doing, perhaps for years. The difference is not in what they do—the kind of act—but in a condition that is accidental or extrinsic to what they do, namely the fact of having become sterile.

In fact, married couples who live a normal lifespan will all become infertile eventually, just through old age. This obviously does not take anything away Read more…

We have been habituated to think that the most pressing issues of life and death are really just issues of choice.  “Abortion is a woman’s choice.”  A choice to do what? is the question never quite answered.  People should have the “right to choose” to use contraception, even if they are young and unmarried, as if there is ever a situation in which sexual intercourse is age-appropriate for a 14 year old.

I have long maintained that the issue isn’t about “choice” and never has been. The issue is creating a new moral universe, with ethical norms and social expectations that could not be defended on their own. So the issue of “choice” is thrown in as a smoke screen to cover up what is actually being done and advocated.

Now, comes Wesley J. Smith, with an example I would never have thought of, from his area of expertise, euthanasia. The “right to die,” means a person’s ”choice” to die is just as ethically valid as the choice to live under difficult circumstances.  He quotes this report from the Netherlands:

A priest in the parish of Liempde in North Brabant refused to conduct the funeral of a man who had chosen euthanasia, news agency ANP reports. Norbert van der Sluis said he was following the advice of bishops that people who choose euthanasia have no right to a church funeral. ‘Nor will my conscience allow me to have a colleague conduct the funeral in my church,’ he told ANP. The church council is so concerned at the refusal it has stopped a campaign for the repair of the church organ and is demanding an apology from Van der Sluis.

Smith continues:

That will teach him to follow his faith. Let the organ stay off key!

Refusing a funeral wouldn’t be my preference, but it was the priest’s, and doesn’t his conscience deserve at least equal respect to that of the decedent’s to receive doctor-injected death?  Here’s the bottom line: All of this talk of “choice” in the culture of death is just talk.  It is really about enforced moral conformity. (my emphasis)

Exactly so. Unfortunately, in this case, it is the priest’s own community giving him a hard time.

My first response to this story Betsy posted earlier this week about “Twin Reductions” at IVF clinics was to be appalled. But as I have reflected on it, there is more to the story than the outrageousness of it all.

To be sure, twin reduction is intrinsically appalling. Fertility doctors routinely implant multiple embryos in a woman’s womb, in the hopes that at least one of the babies will survive.  “Selective reduction” is routine in the fertility industry, if “too many” babies survive.

“Twin reductions” is the next step in the process of killing for convenience.  Women abort one of a pair of twins, not for medical or health reasons, but for “social reasons”, that is, for convenience. There is no particularly terrible risk to carrying twins.  These mothers just can’t quite imagine taking care of two babies. They feel like they are too old to handle twins.

And by and large, doctors perform these abortions.  The procedure itself is slightly creepy. Read more…

Oftentimes our FrieWIs (that’s Friends With Wrong Ideas) suggest that we are obsessed with all things gay. Why don’t we work on abolishing divorce? Why don’t we care about all the other atrocities perpetrated by straight people?

In the light of that continual carping, I find it interesting to notice which posts generate the most comments and discussion over here at the Ruth blog.  In the past week or so, we have had posts on the high costs of divorce, (you see Sean, we care about this issue) on the selective reduction of even twins in IVF clinics, (done by primarily though not exclusively by straight women) on sterilization targets in India, (an atrocious invasion of people’s liberty and privacy perpetrated by the government), and on an various instances of malfeasance by the IVF industry, here and here, (an industry we dislike, no matter who is using it.)

But none of these posts generate the same discussion as my posts on symbolic issues that the Life Style Left deems important.

We think the sexual revolution is an on-going train wreck. We are ready willing and able to talk about all those issues. Will you join us? Or are you simply obsessed with yourselves?

Just asking.

Tomorrow on my regular Issues Etc segment, I will talk about David Cameron’s recent speech on the importance of the family.

Some of the worst aspects of human nature tolerated, indulged – sometimes even incentivised – by a state and its agencies that in parts have become literally de-moralised. So do we have the determination to confront all this and turn it around?  I have the very strong sense that the responsible majority of people in this country not only have that determination; they are crying out for their government to act upon it.

I will be drawing on these sources:

My book review of Patricia Morgan’s book, The War Between the State and the Family.  This is still a good and timely book, which you can purchase through the IEA in the UK.

A 2011 Report detailing the taxpayer cost of out of wedlock childbearing in the UK.

Tune in, and listen live!

Vulgarity alert: don’t read this post out loud in front of your kids or your grandmother.

The news of a popular teacher in Florida losing his job over Facebook comments could have a chilling effect on free speech.  As one of our commenters pointed out, the people of Florida do not agree that marriage is the union of any two persons.  They voted quite decisively to protect the definition of marriage as the
union of a man and a woman.  In other words, this teacher may lose his job for saying that he agrees with the legal definition of marriage in his state.  Go figure.

So, let me say a couple of things that may one day, become  illegal.  In my humble opinion:

1. Kids need a mother and a father. Read more…

The response to my post, A Word on Terminology has confirmed my intuition that I am correct to abstain from using the term “same sex marriage.”  Three things have led me to conclude that my instincts are correct about this:

1. The wailing, weeping and general indignation meeting being held all around the Left side of the Blogosphere.

2. My friend, Bill May, of Catholics for the Common Good, confirms my opinion. (I always listen when Bill talks.) He pointed me to a tract that his organization has written on the subject, a tract which I highly recommend to all Regular Ruth Readers, Friends with Wrong or Right Ideas.

3. Finally, and most importantly, in the aforesaid wailing and indignation, advocates of the redefinition of marriage have, perhaps inadvertently, revealed just how radical they really are.  See for instance, comment #12, which states  in part: Read more…