From Ann Althouse on the subject of marriage:

Legal marriage isn't just about love, it's an economic arrangement. Having the state authorize your union is not the same thing as having your friends and neighbors approve of you and your religious leaders bless you. It affects taxes and employee benefits -- huge amounts of money. A gay person with a pension and a health insurance plan is incapable of extending those benefits to his (or her) partner. He (or she) can't file a joint tax return. That's not fair. A polygamous marriage, however, puts a group of persons in a position to claim more economic benefits than the traditional heterosexual couple. That doesn't appeal to our sense of fairness.

That suggests something of a problem with the concept of "legal marriage." I think of my parents as, well, parents, not as two corporate entities that created a joint venture to raise me, with the option of getting out as soon as it was no longer profitable for them. Quite frankly, looking at marriage in an economic sense is disastrous for children, since we are never on the plus side of the ledger of people thinking sheerly in terms of money. We're the $500,000 or whatever financial drain that they have to support for at least 18 years, if not longer. No wonder families are so small these days.

But this argument of fairness somewhat misses the mark. As a single guy, I can't pass along any insurance benefits or pension programs that I may pick up along the way. In essence, this happens simply because I have chosen not to get married - there are still people I love, but they can't benefit because I haven't chosen to marry them. My situation is largely the same as it is for a gay couple - they have chosen not to enter into the traditional marriage structure, and don't have an inherent right to pass along benefits simply because they may happen to love each other. I can't arrange that for my parents, even though I love them a lot. If we're going to knock this down to mere economic arrangements, the only fair way to do this is to allow everyone to simply name someone of their choice - but then, that's not really marriage. Economics may be the best argument going for gay marriage, but I doubt gay activists are simply after economic parity, otherwise, they'd support something that would bring parity regardless of the nature of the relationship.

Honestly, I do think there is a problem with the current system of joint returns - preferably, I would rather that whole system be available solely for the benefit of parents, since ostensibly, the rearing of children is the main reason the state has any business recognizing marriages in the first place (which may be why things like marrying close relatives are illegal). The rest of it is merely a residual function from when church and state happened to be relatively linked. If you doubt that, consider that New York still has laws on the books allowing an annulment if it's discovered that the spouse is impotent - something paralleled in Canon Law.

On to polygamy, there is no legal basis to stop it. Polygamy has a long tradition in world history, and Christianity seems to be one of the few exceptions to that idea. Also, the fact that we don't consider it a crime for a man to have sex with multiple women at the same time means that the only thing illegal is the fact that the guy tries to enter into multiple marriages with the state. If a guy just kept three houses and three wives, and they married in some sort of ceremony, but for all legal purposes always acted as individuals, I doubt there would be any legal crime. De facto, most sorts of sexual relationships are already legally okay, except for things like prostitution and sex with minors, and I wouldn't be too sure those will stay illegal forever. A marriage certificate does nothing to change the essence of such relationships, but it does degrade the value of marriage traditionally so-called, just as has no-fault divorce.

Bottom line - there is not going to be any sort of middle ground here. Either the government defines marriage as it is traditionally intended to be in the Christian West - a man and a woman who commit to each other for life, with some possibility of having kids - or this is simply going to devolve into a sort of "anything goes" system, toward which it has been increasingly headed. In the past few years, I've already heard of Jacques Chirac marrying someone to a dead person, a man being forced to marry a goat, and I wouldn't be surprised if I heard that someone got the bright idea of marrying two corpses on the premise that it's what they would have wanted.

- Posted by at 11:46 PM

Professor Reynolds:

All actions in life are choices. Some are good, and some are bad - and usually, the determination of that comes from the analysis of the act itself, not the motivations. Some choices out there are illegal - and when someone chooses to do them, intentions and circumstances may increase/decrease the penalty, but they don't change the basic fact that a crime was committed. No one is fundamentally opposed to the idea of choice as an exercise of free will - but some of us have very different ideas on what choices we will praise, excuse, or punish.

Abortion simply is not one of those issues where there is a middle ground - either it's objectively not a bad act at all, in which case only the US policy of on demand makes sense, or it's objectively a bad act, in which case, it should be illegal. While it might be possible to legislatively craft some sort of dividing line, it dodges the issue, setting up an arbitrary boundary line instead of asking the difficult question - what satisfies the criteria of personhood?

- Posted by at 1:43 AM

I suppose this marks a new low in the claims of discrimination lawsuits - the state of California's state high-school exit exam is being called discriminatory in a lawsuit that seeks to keep the test from preventing students from graduating.

Well yes, all exams are discriminatory, in that they seek to find out whether or not the student knows the material. If an exam can't do that, it's not worth bothering. I can sympathize with the fact that kids are being left behind by a failing public school system, but high school degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on if the system doesn't have an effective mechanism for weeding out those who can't meet the minimum standards.

As for the idea that the state's denying students an equal education, there's a point there, but that's due more to the nature of the public education system itself and the apathy in parts of society toward education. Lousy teachers are protected by tenure rules - and really, if oversight is anything like it was back home in a pretty good district, they could probably get away with mass ceribricide without anyone noticing - although in fairness, if the parents haven't done their job before their kids get to formal schooling, they're already starting way behind the curve.

- Posted by at 11:14 AM

The March for Life was pretty good. I think it would have been better had there been better organization, both on our part and on the march organizers' part, since I didn't get a copy of the schedule until we were already in DC (and hence brought too much in terms of food/drink), we were pretty much on our own most of the time there, the march seemed somewhat haphazard (I was chasing the Franciscan banner half the day), and the sound system at the rally was so low, it was all but impossible to hear what the speakers were saying.

But otherwise, it was nice being there for the sake of being there. There wasn't a lot of opposition that I saw, except a small party in front of the Supreme Court itself, so I don't have any tales of combat there. EWTN briefly stopped our group, so it's possible they may have shown us on TV. I was holding a blue Knights of Columbus sign toward the front right of the Franciscan group, if anyone saw us. I also saw a contingent of the Buffalo marchers, which was nice.

Oddly enough, unless I happened to be in a heavily Catholic pocket of the demonstration, I saw very few non-Catholic groups present (Eastern Orthodox, Orthodox Jewish, and traditionalist Catholic groups were the few I did see). Hopefully there was a much broader spectrum present, though it was nice to be among a bunch of rosary and St. Michael prayers. I only noted one dingbat among our ranks Monday (some guy who ripped the idea of pledging to the flag quite loudly), which was also good. Nothing hurts pro-lifers more than our own when they act stupidly.

- Posted by at 9:51 PM

These are two of the better pieces of writing that I've seen in a while.

First is Mark Steyn's piece on the West's demographic suicide, linked to by many on my blogroll.

Second is a piece by Michael Crichton demolishing a lot of misconceptions about the environment, via Polipundit.

- Posted by at 5:26 PM

Helpful hint to the Boy Scouts when sending out fundraisers - it sends mixed messages when you try to promote the strength of your organization in the mailing but get weak-kneed and can't bring yourselves to use "Christmas" instead of "holiday season". Ditch the PC language, most of those who insist on it are already against you anyway.

- Posted by at 12:30 PM

I'll admit, I have mixed feelings over the death penalty in general, but I think this call with Stanley Williams went in the right direction. The basic facts of the case aren't in doubt, and there doesn't seem to be much repentance on his part. Also, I cringe seeing how much influence a gang leader who killed four people has over so many major personalities and the media. That by itself tips me in the direction of thinking the Catechism's exception in 2267 is fulfilled here with regard to the people's safety. I respect John Paul II's idea that if the state can contain a person from causing harm, they should be spared the death penalty - but in this case, the man has been so constantly pumped up in the media, I'm pretty sure he could cause harm with the media's complicity, particularly given the gang connection. If the man hadn't been heard from in the last 24 years, I'd feel differently about it.

I'd be willing to support ending the death penalty, but in return I'd like some provisions like no interviews, no book deals, no TV, no internet or computer, no communication of any sort with the outside world other than unrecorded person to person meetings for people like this. Just give them a windowless cell and let them read books. Then I could feel pretty confident they couldn't cause harm to the outside world. So long as they're allowed access to the media frenzy though, I think there can be a justification for using the death penalty so long as guilt is certain.

UPDATE: Why must the anti-death penalty crowd latch onto the absolute worst possible cases to make a stand over? Out of all the possible people to make a plea for, why on earth was it a case where the guilt was not in doubt, the man was unrepentant, a gang founder, and any reasonable person could see this was being played from both sides? Why not a case that would win genuine sympathy like this one? All I kept hearing was all this talk of reform, and then the dimwits who witnessed the execution had the gall to say the man was innocent, along with Williams himself - HOW CAN SOMEONE REFORM IF THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG?! Can we use a little logic? It's almost like you're trying to convince the public that you're a bunch of hysterical maniacs who don't deserve to be taken seriously.

- Posted by at 12:28 AM

I was out earlier this afternoon for the first round of Christmas shopping. This was more about searching for possible items to put on my list, since I went in having only three specific things on the list, two of which were practical items that need to be replaced, a winter jacket and sneakers. I'm hoping Wal-mart's going to have something similar to my current coat, as close to the $20 it cost last time. I ended up finding a small collection of items, including Anne Rice's new book, Christ the Lord, a 13th century musical work that seemed intriguing, and a couple older movies to put on the list.

Meanwhile, a definite plug has to go out to Finish Line, about the only major retailer that was running an ad campaign using Christmas (you can see it on their web site as well). "All I want for Christmas..." is the header, and on other posters in the store and on the bag, they finish with "Peace, Joy, Happiness, Hope, and Love." I hadn't planned to shop there, but those ads drew me in and Finish Line got a modest sale out of it. It doesn't hurt for retailers to acknowledge Christmas in their ads - after all, that's what generates their big sales, and it usually doesn't pay to bite the hand that feeds.

Littman Jewelers earns the Scrooge award of the day for not only saying they wouldn't do repairs on my rosary, they also couldn't refer me to anyone else in the mall who could. The local jeweler repaired it later today in exchange for some prayers, an arrangement I find works out quite well for both of us. Suggestion to the big chain jewelers - do you honestly think I'm going to shop in your stores for something expensive if you keep turning me away when I show up with a simple 1-minute or less repair while the little guys cheerily do the job at no cost?

- Posted by at 8:03 PM

Somehow, it was fitting that yesterday was also the feast day of St. Martin of Tours, a Bishop and monk who had a prior career as a soldier in the Roman army.

The entire week, the campus's main sidewalks have been lined with hundreds, if not thousands, of little American flags, as part of the College Republicans' Support the Troops Week. They withstood the vicious winds of the week pretty well (tornado watches were issued not far to our east), but fortunately had no vicious twits to deal with, as the display was left in peace all week.

I'll post some images tomorrow.

P.S. - The reason for the lack of the College Democrats is simply that we don't have them here, nor would they find much welcome given the prevailing atmosphere of the university, as John Kerry found out last year.

EDIT (11/14) - I forgot to mention we also had an Adopt a Soldier drive ongoing, in which students were asked to adopt a fallen soldier to pray for, as this is traditionally the month in which the departed are remembered. The number of fallen soldiers has also been posted in the main hall, which I imagine will be staying for the forseeable future.

- Posted by at 1:15 AM

Regarding this post made about the two straight Canadian men who plan to get married for the benefits, a reader posed a pair of questions:

How is that any different from men and women who only marry for money instead of love (or, as you so eloquently put it, "the love of money")? Or all the people who marry strangers just to get a green card? Those aren't out of love, either - do those make a mockery of all straight marriages in the same way that these two straight guys make a sham out of all gay marriages?

Generally speaking, these instances do strike me as a mockery of the institution of marriage. The problem, however, is that the offenses listed are hard to prevent since they all deal with the intent of one or both spouses in contracting the marriage. We can't say for sure that green card marriages are shams, or that apparent marriages for money are only about the money, because we're not mind readers. If they say they intend to fulfill their marriage vows, it's hard to raise an objection. It comes down to the vows in these cases because opposite sex pairings meet, generally speaking, the essential requirements to contract a marriage - a man and a woman, neither of whom is bound by a previous marriage, who together are capable of the conjugal act.

Unlike these instances, same-sex marriage presents an impediment which is both permanent and also plainly on display. The problem here is not with vows, which for all I know may be quite sincere. Rather, such an arrangement doesn't meet the design requirements of marriage, thereby automatically precluding any possibility of the conjugal act, which is where God gets to enter the intimate relations of the married life.

Did your parents marriage become less valid when Anna Nicole Smith married that old oil tycoon just to get his money right before he died? That wasn't about love, either. It was a meaningless, emnpty sham marriage. Why don't you ask your parents - did they love each other any less because of it? Do they have any less of a right to be married because two other people used the same institution irresponsibly? Did their marriage go from being valid to "valid", just like you claim all the gay marriages will?

The problem is not one of validity. Objectively, marriages are either valid or they are not, and that designation does not change, since validity is determined by the circumstances in place at the time a marriage was contracted. Once valid, always valid, in the eyes of the Church anyway. The civil institution differs greatly here, both dissolving valid marriages and recognizing as valid unions that never were.

My point here though was about the significance or meaning of the marriage from the civil standpoint. It is most certainly impacted by people abusing it for money, the ease of breaking marriage vows through divorce, and also the society extending it to cover any conceivable partnership between two people or, if polygamists have their way, as I expect they will, any number of people. Reducing marriage from its family-structure ideal to mere living, sexual, or financial arrangements will have this effect in time.

The impact is not so much on those already married but on those who have yet to marry. Someone who has already married doubtless was influenced by what society said a marriage should be at the time they married, but changing views won't really change their opinion toward their spouse. But someone born today, who grows up under the prevailing notion that a marriage is just any mutually beneficial partnership is likely to place less significance in a marriage than someone who grew up with the notion that a marriage was supposed to be a family composed of a loving husband and wife with children.

The individual meaning depends of course on what the spouses bring to it. I don't know for certain what my parents think marriage means, how much of themselves they put into it, or what their view of their own marriage is to them, nor do I think it relevant to the discussion. I don't believe individual examples of couples belong in these sorts of arguments. A woman marrying a rich old man for money is no more an argument against the traditional understanding of marriage than the devoted gay couple is an argument for allowing same-sex marriage.

- Posted by at 7:45 PM

In a scenario which probably didn't occur to the average Canadian, a pair of straight men plan to get married to take advantage of all the fringe benefits that come with it. The pair are nearing retirement age (56 and 65) and don't see themselves finding wives anytime soon. It's hard to blame them really. Divorcing would be a piece of cake, especially if they didn't mix any assets, and the monetary rewards are kind of alluring.

In an ironic twist, Bruce Walker, a gay rights activist, is criticizing their action, claiming marriage should be about love. Well, I've got news for him, it is about love in their case - love of money. The logic doesn't hold well for Walker either - if gays can marry the same sex or the opposite sex (nothing prevents the latter if they opt for it), it's impossible to try and bar straights from marrying the same sex - equality issues would certainly arise, which is what he pushed his case on in the first place.

And herein lies the whole argument by the people who were opposing same-sex marriage, that permitting it would lead to the institution falling into ruin. It's hard to imagine marriage can mean much in a society where two male retirees can simply hitch up for financial incentives with little or no investment required by either party and little or no obligation placed on them by the society to give anything back.

I hope those marriage certificates were worth it, because their significance drops to just about nothing when put against the equally "valid" certificate of this straight pair of guys.

Via LifeSite

- Posted by at 11:51 PM

After President Bush's remarks earlier this week in favor of exposing students to more than one viewpoint on the origins of life, there's been a heated discussion about evolution versus intelligent design.

The whole discussion brings to mind Chesterton's statement about liberals and conservatives, except this time reversed - the ID people attempting to go on making mistakes about science and the evolution people to prevent old mistakes from being corrected.

Science, properly speaking, is the domain of observation and experimentation. Neither evolution nor ID satisfies either criterion. It is impossible to observe the past forces that brought life from its origins to the present state. This can be called the "time machine" problem - it's impossible to observe the past of this world. As for experimentation, neither theory gives much to test - for evolution, one would need to show a creature evolving - rather difficult given that the theory posits that thousands of years or longer might be needed for it to happen; ID would require some test to prove or disprove a designer's existence, an experiment I cannot even begin to design, since I have no idea how one would go about it.

So what to do? One idea would be consigning the two theories to their proper subject - philosophy. Evolution and intelligent design both talk about the same essential thing - the theory of the origins of life. Critics are correct that intelligent design doesn't belong in a science class, but they fail to see that that's because evolution also doesn't belong in a science class - both touch on a subject which science is incapable of answering, as no mortal was on hand to witness the beginning of life or the process by which life progressed to its present state. Origin of life theories most properly belong to philosophy or theology.

Does this mean that biology should be scrapped as a class in the schools? Certainly not - there is much about biology that we have directly observed and can hence speak intelligently about. But if we really want biology to be strictly about science, it must be limited to empirical observation and experimentation. In practice, the vast majority of biology education would be unchanged by this restriction. There's no problem with cellular structure, cellular processes, DNA, reproduction, genes, dissection, organic structures, organic processes, life cycles, food chains, pharmacology, the environment, or anything like that. None of them depend on evolution to be true as they are grounded in fact. Even the archaeological record does not depend on evolution, although I'm aware that there's a dating controversy among some intelligent design proponents. For the sake of this argument, I'd say that even dinosaurs, the fossil record, and the dating given to them are all fine. The only thing that doesn't belong in biology class is "man came from apes" and "everything evolved from lower species or a primordial slime," or anything like that.

Kids are in general smart and inquisitive people. If presented merely with all the factual scientific dots without Those Who Know having already connected them for them, they might just come up with some new theories which would be great advances for science in trying to tie them together.

The bottom line, however, is that evolution and intelligent design are both best suited for a philosophy class, not a high school science class.

EDIT: On an aside, my biggest problem with macroevolution is gender. It's not found in the lowest organisms, but is found in higher ones. How such a thing came to be is difficult to explain - it would require two non-gendered beings to evolve at the same instant, into the two different genders of the same species to work. That seems to imply a coordinated change, not a random one.

- Posted by at 9:30 PM

I was probably going to bed right around when the first bomb went off last night, and due to the day's schedule, I really didn't see much coverage of the London bombings.

My prayers go to all the victims of the attack, which thankfully is a smaller number than I would have expected if I had been told me terrorists would be setting off 6 bombs in the subway and 1 on a bus.

I can only hope Europe will take this latest attack as a wakeup call where it failed to do so in the wake of last year's attack in Spain. Pacifism toward an enemy that isn't interested in peace (unless, of course, everyone in Europe is on their knees five times a day aiming at Mecca and following strict sharia law) is utterly useless. Europe should know better by now, having tried the same tactic 70 years ago when dealing with Hitler.

I really hope Europe has the will to deal with the threat it's facing. The last thing anyone wants to see is more attacks in Europe by terrorists, but since at last check they seemed more outraged over American troops mistreating the religious texts of suspected terrorists than they did about those same terrorists wanting to kill people, I'm worried that they still might remain asleep at the switch.

- Posted by at 2:50 AM

Now that there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court, I expect a rather fierce battle to confirm a new justice. Thus far, to read media accounts, only two questions are likely to matter as far as the left is concerned - Roe v Wade and gay rights issues. Roe is likely to play as large a part on the right as well, but with so much attention focused on one case, people on both sides might miss things that they'd rather know about before they vote on the nominee.

There is a pitfall for both sides in focusing too much on such a small number of issues. Particularly for the right, there's no guarantee that someone who would vote to overturn Roe will be a conservative on other social issues. One can certainly want to overturn a bad piece of jurisprudence on legal grounds while being sympathetic to the practice which it legalised. And given the nature of the state courts and legislatures at present, even if Roe were overturned, it's doubtful how far any bans would get except in the most deeply red of states.

What's more important is ensuring that a given pick will not be prone to making future social blunders on the magnitude of Roe. Reversing Roe is a good goal to work toward, but I'd rather look toward preventing more of the same before trying to undo damage already done. For example, I think it is, at this juncture, more important to make sure a justice will not be in favor of imposing gay marriage than it is to pick one who favors overturning Roe. Repairing a gaping wound does little good if in the process another is opened elsewhere.

- Posted by at 11:02 PM

The Supreme Court decided to dabble again in supreme idiocy, deciding today that some Connecticut homeowners can be evicted by eminent domain by their government, with the property to then be turned over to a private developer for commercial redevelopment.

The key quote from the majority opinion, by John Paul Stevens:

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue."

Translating Justice Stevens into layman's terms, the government is the one who has the final authority over how to utilize land within its jurisdiction. All any government has to do to trounce on private property rights is propose a plan which it thinks will either add more tax money or jobs, or any other thing, tangible or not, which it believes falls under the "by no means limited to" part.

That sort of power has all sorts of applications for abuse. I can imagine small towns deciding to plan a commercial center on the land of someone the people at large dislike, powerful politicians exacting revenge on opponents' homes or businesses, or, mirroring a local case, a developer deciding that a current low-income neighborhood sits on valuable land and lobbying to be given the land to knock it all down and build a new upper-income subdivision or gated community while kicking out the poor folks.

Churches and NGOs, particularly the non-profits, will also face problems. Churches don't pay any taxes, so even a flat-surface parking lot would generate more tax revenue. I doubt governments will try moving against any of the major churches at present, given the outcry that would result, but one can imagine more marginal groups, e.g. Branch Davidians, finding themselves getting eviction notices. In more conservative towns, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU may find their offices under the gun, while in more liberal areas, crisis pregnancy centers and the Boy Scouts may face the same troubles.

This really isn't surprising coming from the Court's liberal wing, who all voted in favor of this nonsense. The left has long felt that the government is the best determiner of how to run our lives, and extending it to private property is only the latest move in that direction. It might be useful to remember what happened in Communist states when the government eliminated private property rights and redistributed things according to its desire - common devastation except to those in power.

Hopefully Congress or the states will take action against this soon. A word to the wise to Republicans - do so now while the opportunity presents itself, since you can bet the Democrats will exploit it to the full if they ever get the chance to further their social re-engineering projects.

- Posted by at 11:19 PM

Via Buffalopundit comes word that the city school district is spending some $697 million this upcoming year to educate 38,000 kids, a cost of over $18,000 per child. The cost of a university education at the University at Buffalo is currently $6,750 per year, and roughly $16,000 per year if an in-state student uses university room and board, plus costs for books, transportation, and their estimate of personal expenses.

There's something a little bit fishy in the works when it would cost the state less money to cover the cost of sending the average city school kid to a state college with full room and board plus some expenses than it does to send them to a city high school.

- Posted by at 11:38 PM

The following editorial appeared in the local paper, and is pretty much proof positive that the editorial board does not have one member even able to comprehend traditional Christianity and also that it's pretty darn hostile to it. Granted, it's not like I expect anything better from a paper owned by Warren Buffett, but this isn't even trying to hide the fact.

Heaven help us if this is what religion in America is coming to, but by the lights of one nominally religious organization, Christianity is less about faith, love and forgiveness than it is about anger, fear and spite. That, at least, is the apparent position of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group that has threatened to resume a boycott of Ford Motor Co. The reason: Ford is nice to gays.

Like General Motors and Daimler Chrysler, Ford provides benefits for same-sex partners. The Mississippi-based American Family Association saved its indignation for Ford because the automaker advertises in gay-oriented periodicals, has offered to donate $1,000 to a gay rights group for every Jaguar or Land Rover it sells and actively recruits gay employees (imagine that - giving American citizens the right to work).

Where to start with this? First, AFA's problem with Ford isn't that it's nice to gays. Their problem is with the domestic partner benefits they receive as if they were a married couple. Actively recruiting gay employees is discriminatory, since employers should NOT be making employment decisions on that basis. Imagine the outcry if Ford said it was actively recruiting heterosexuals. The donations fall into the same problem, since Ford doesn't donate $1000 to any charity of mine, like this one. Let's call a spade a spade, this is pandering. The AFA, as a Christian group, naturally opposes this special treatment, particularly the domestic benefits and charity donations to activist groups, as this promotes things objectively sinful according to Christianity.

The AFA, which claims to have about 2 million supporters, met with a group of Ford dealers this month and then suspended its boycott until at least Dec. 1. But the threat was clear: Treat gay Americans like other citizens and suffer the economic consequences.

Let's see, gay Americans get benefits for being partners while not married, even though the same is not true of heterosexual partners. They get donations to charity even though other groups don't. They're given favoritism in employment. Does that qualify as being treated like other citizens? Or is there supposed to be an implied "oppressed/disadvantaged/minority" adjective floating in there?

Let's be blunt. The AFA's problem with Ford is that it is treating homosexuals with the same respect it would offer any potential segment of the car-buying population. The company is treating them as just another group, and to the AFA, that is a threat. Why? Because it helps gays to leave the political and social isolation that has provided unchristian comfort to schemers like Donald Wildmon, chairman of the AFA.

Let's be blunt, these policies don't treat them as just another group. I doubt Ford has special deals for women, Latinos, Blacks, diabetics, or most other groups one could name that are based on a genetics. Social isolation comes only from the conscious choice to reveal to all the world something which is best kept in one's close circle of trusted friends or altogether private. As far as political isolation, since when does the News expect that a group that comprises a very small segment of the population and whose so-called leaders espouse views that the vast majority of Americans disagree with is going to be anything but isolated?

What other explanation is there? Even the country's most prominent evangelist, Billy Graham, has said that while he considers homosexuality a sin, it's no worse than idolatry or adultery. So why is the AFA so exercised about homosexuality when other "offenses" do much greater damage to families? Surely murder, which shows up in the Ten Commandments, is worth some outrage. What about corporations that avoid taxes with elaborate accounting schemes, making the rest of us shoulder an unfair burden? Surely that is better cause for a boycott than sex between consenting adults.

And we know what the News thinks of idolatry and adultery, no big deal, right? Graham's not exactly a universal spokesman on this either, as I would say idolatry is always worse than either of the other two and sodomy does have a particular distinction of crying out to Heaven for justice, a distinction adultery does not have. Also, the throwing out of murder and tax evasion are disingenious, since NO corporation officially sanctions murder and legal accounting schemes aren't exactly the crux of the country's moral problems.

We hope Ford and its dealers don't overreact to this extortion. They should recall the effect the AFA boycott had on the Walt Disney Co. The group boycotted Disney over its decision to extend benefits to same-sex couples and promote gay-related events at its theme parks. During the boycott, Disney reported higher earnings and increased attendance at its parks.

Extortion? Sorry guys, the AFA's not trying to obtain any money or benefits. What they are protesting are actions by Ford which essentially reward a group for, depending on your viewpoint, their genetically determined sexual nature or their chosen lifestyle, the latter of which is sinful to Christians and the former of which is often associated with sin, thanks to a public image the media has helped shape. I mean really, when we hear homosexual, do people ever think of a man not having sex with another man (the sinful bit) instead of a man who merely likes or is attracted to men? Nope, and the media never even begins to pretend they exist, which I know they do (I know at least 3). The only gays the media can ever seem to find are the ones who want to get married or the ones shouting the bigot label as Christians.

Ford, its dealers and all Americans should recognize the AFA threat for what it is - bald-faced prejudice, plain and simple. There was a time when some Christians claimed biblical authority for slavery and the racial bigotry that animated their lives. Today, they do the same with homosexuals, who are in the main, like anyone else: tax-paying Americans who have hopes and dreams for their own lives. We're for letting them do that, even if it means they get to drive Jaguars.

Figures the News would bring in slavery and race. Let's be honest, slavery was a fully accepted reality in much of the world for most of history, and when it finally was brought to an end, biblical Christians were behind that as well (back then, the West was populated with believing Christians whose faith informed their positions on these things). But the Bible never explicitly comes down and condemns slavery as it does homosexual sex.

Memo to the News - in your endless blind quest for diversity, try hiring, at some point, a conservative, a traditional Christian, or a gay man who isn't a supporter of gay marriage. That way, we could actually read people who understand, respectively, conservatives, Christians, and opposition to gay marriage, all 3 of which have a significant presence in the area.

- Posted by at 10:48 PM

There should always be a hint of danger in the air whenever anyone trying to push a policy tries to silence the opposition by claiming that they're trying to stop the alleviation of human suffering. The fact that the Embryonic Stem Cell debate now has people playing the suffering card scares me, especially with the incredibly hideous track record that sort of argument has had.

After all, the nightmare of Communism that swallowed the East claimed that it was supposed to eliminate the suffering of the proletariat, and look how that turned out. Hitler used this ploy to strong-arm his country into going along with the Final Solution, by claiming German suffering was brought on by a certain group. Even before these examples, we have known countless claims of panaceas promised by many, often times dishonestly, to make money (remember the 19th century's tonics?) or for other less than pure motives, like fame or ego. These claims deserve to be looked at critically, not dismissed because "experts" are promising the moon with embryonic stem cells.

If these scientists turn out to be wrong, the best-case scenario is that we'll have dumped billions of dollars and time into a fruitless cause. In that particular situation, expect the truly suffering to castigate those who convinced them to support that policy in the first place, since they'll probably find out in time that other stem cells were shown effective long before the embryonic stuff ever got to human trials, but that this was conveniently swept under the rug by an agenda.

Personally, I expect (and hope) embryonic stem-cell research fails in treating anything. I say this because, as I believe killing embryos for their stem cells is immoral and immoral actions always lead to evil in the end, this is the lightest possible negative outcome for humanity. I don't even want to think about any worse evils that might be unleashed from Pandora's box, though that's certainly quite possible. I doubt most IVF backers way back when ever foresaw that this research would provide a justification for deliberate embryo destruction, just as most Christians probably never foresaw what contraception was going to bring about.

The heart of the debate, however, is not a question of religion. Nor is it a question of ethics, science, or law. The principle question here is one of metaphysics, namely, what is the criteria of personhood? And then, once we have that, do embryos fall under the definition or do they not? If they do, ethically, it's wrong to engage in this sort of research, since in no case is the killing of innocent human beings ethical, no matter how great the good, supposed or real.

However, if we are unsure, it's also ethically wrong to engage in this sort of research. This goes back to the principle that, given uncertainty over whether an action is ethical or not, the action is not done. In other words, if we aren't sure if it's a person or not, we presume that it is unless we conclude otherwise (would anyone seriously like to make the opposite assumption, that one is not a person unless it can be firmly established?) Had the Supreme Court been following this principle, Roe v Wade's outcome, given the justices' inability to determine when human life began, would have been to outlaw abortion unless it could be shown that the unborn weren't human life.

The metaphysical question, however, is not easy in the secular sense. I do not believe anyone has successfully come up with criteria that include all beings who are persons and excludes all beings who are not without somehow involving religion or philosophy. Even if someone had, I doubt it would achieve consensus without extremely vigorous arguments, since there are different preconceptions about who are persons and who are not depending on ideology.

From the Catholic perspective, the question is relatively easy - every being which has a human soul is a person, regardless of how few or how many of the powers of the human nature are wielded by said being. It is also relatively easy to determine in practice, if not by definition, who has a human soul. These are all those beings which have a human genetic structure and are maintaining their life functions.

By this I mean having at least one organic process or system maintained without technological help. If the cells in general are maintaining the process of taking in food and expelling waste, the soul's still there. Only when every last system and life process has failed can it conclusively be said the soul has departed. This rule applies to the unborn as well as those already born. No cellular life functions can be sustained without a soul of some sort, so the mere fact that an embryo performs any of them at all says it has a soul, and it's ridiculous to suggest that it's any sort other than human unless one wishes to go into the difficulty of positing some pre-human soul for human embryos along with trying to definitively pin down when this other soul is replaced by a human one. Trying to say the mother's soul initially animates the embryo introduces the same problem of when a unique soul supplants the mothers.

Thanks to the development of genetic science, Catholic metaphysics and theology in union with science can effectively determine what is a human being, and also provide a means to establish this empirically, no soul detectors required. The only problem is that we include as living people those whom others would rather not be people because it would inconvenience them somehow.

This remains the reason why there is no middle ground on abortion, and why there will not be any middle ground on embryonic stem cells. The question of personhood is central to both, and there are only two answers - yes, or no, regardless of criteria. There's no middle ground, one can't be a demi-person, unlike in sci-fi - either one meets the criteria or not. The only people in the so-called middle are those who are conveniently ignoring the question of whether embryos are persons or not. They can get away with it because a good portion of the public has been ignoring it for years, and likely will keep on doing so. Excepting those who want abortion on demand with no restrictions and those want to see all abortions banned, no IVF, and no embryonic stem cell research, the populace at large hasn't decided.

- Posted by at 10:40 PM

The County's library system is in trouble again, as its available pool of money to buy new materials is expected to run out shortly. Unless the county floats it a $5 million capital improvements bond as it has in recent years, the library director is going to be forced to close branches or cut back hours or both in order to purchase new materials.

Part of the system's problem, however, is that it's just too large. There are 52 branches in the county, equating to about 1 library per 18,000 residents. In my town alone, there's a branch in each of the 2 villages, plus one in the Lakeview area. Because many of these branches are small, they're often not the best for research - from Middle school on, I always knew that if I needed something, the school library was more likely to have what I needed.

There was a plan some years back which would have consolidated the system somewhat, closing many of the small branches while opening several new, larger regional libraries. However, that ran into intense local opposition, so the plan was scrapped. And now, of course, the system will probably be forced to close most of the branches targeted back then anyway, and those residents will now get nothing. Looking at the present schedules should say just how tight funds are - West Falls is open 3 days a week, 10 hours total, and many branches are closed anywhere from 2 to 4 days per week during the summer. None, Central included, are keeping Sunday hours this summer.

This reality became rather obvious when I dropped by the annual book sale fundraiser at the local branch. There was a lot of activity, since the library's dumping its discarded and donated materials at $1 per DVD/CD/VHS/Hardcover, 50 cents per Children's Hardcover, and 25 cents per Paperback. But, since today is Thursday, the library proper was dark and closed, only the tent and meeting room were open. You know things are bad if you go to a library book sale when the actual building is closed. The situation might be repeated if the system is forced to sell off branch collections next year.

Anyway, since I went early today, I found a lot of good stuff, picking up 10 books for $5. They include:

- 3 of Ellis Peters' Brother Cadafel novels
- Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
- Leon Uris's Trinity
- Once Upon a More Enlightened Time, a humor book of politically correct fairy tales
- A collection of Chesterton's best Father Brown Stories
- The Firm
- The Cardinal, by Henry Robinson

Any St. Blogs readers familiar with the Brother Cadafel series or the Trinity and Cardinal novels should let me know. I invested pretty little in these, so even if they're junk, it's not a huge loss.

- Posted by at 11:10 PM

I've seen a fair number of employment applications over time, although today, I saw a first. On the hours section, a note was made that the employer, Payless, would make a reasonable effort to accommodate religious observances. Granted, I think most employers try to do this anyway, but they're the first ones to actually say so.

- Posted by at 11:04 PM

A Gallup poll out recently shows that US opposition to gay marriage is up strongly in the last year. Opposition now stands at 68%, up 13% over last year, and support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is at 57%, up 9% from last year. Assuming these numbers are reflective, that means that nearly 1 out of every 10 Americans changed their position, a rather sharp reaction for just one year.

This I think reflects the fact that gay activists misread the strength of their cards and overplayed their hand. Case in point, they drove away roughly one third of their supporters in a year over whether gay marriage should be granted the same rights as traditional marriage (down from 42% support to 28% support).

- Posted by at 7:43 PM

With a few comments about my post on Terri Schiavo's death yesterday, I'm going to expand on my thoughts a little bit more, and try to phrase it more logically, as one reader helpfully suggested.

I don't support euthanasia, and I have to say that anyone who thinks this is acceptable has a flawed view of the nature of and value of human life. Yes, this is a religious position, based very heavily on natural law and theological reasons. But the opposing side does not have a basis on which to proclaim a "right to die" since they have yet to answer satisfactorily where rights come from. As it was pointed out to me, one of the strongest tendencies in all of nature is self-preservation, which euthanasia intrinsically cuts against. But there is a second instinct which counters self-preservation, and that is the kill or be killed instinct. Anyone who has read Lord of the Flies knows how utterly brutal human beings can be against those who they see as either liabilities, threats, or outsiders.

The point of the Lord of the Flies analogy is that ultimately, rights cannot originate from mankind, since given half a chance, things will deteriorate back into a situation where it's survival of the fittest, which doesn't bode too well for significant portions of society which, in a purely materialistic sense, are drains.

So before there is any talk of a right to die, or any rights at all, it would be good to establish where they come from and how they are to be protected. It makes no sense to speak of rights or what is humane without first establishing the framework that determines what those are.

Now, in Terri's specific case, I do hold that the legal system was a complete failure here. A judge essentially ruled on her medical condition and what her wishes in her condition would have been, and throughout, those decisions were never revisited. This is why Congress asked a federal court to review the case afresh. Both rulings are particularly troubling - I can think of almost no case where the legal system can claim the right to determine what a person's wishes are, in the absence of any formal directions, especially in such a serious circumstance as one that results in death.

Furthermore, this smells a bit of an ex post facto situation, since when Terri collapsed in 1990, providing food and water was not considered an artificial extension of life. If her wish was solely not to be kept alive by artificial means, at the time she would have expressed such wishes, removing the feeding tube wouldn't have been artificial means. In other words, had this case been adjudicated in the early to mid 1990s, Florida law would have rejected Schiavo's bid. Any decision about being kept alive by artificial means should have been based on the standards in place at the time she was incapacitated, not based on Florida's legislature suddenly deciding that providing food and water constitute artificial means of extending life (I can think of nothing more natural to extend life than those, and it should be pretty obvious that these do not constitute a medical treatment of any sort. Food and water never cured anything besides hunger and thirst.)

A second problem is the diagnosis. It was made years ago and never revisited. Would it have killed the judicial system to ask for a second medical opinion, to make sure they hadn't botched it? The most common tests used to diagnose the condition were never done, and technology and knowledge about the brain have advanced a far cry from when Terri first collapsed. I sometimes wonder what the legal system would have done had the woman regained consciousness, but remained unable to communicate. In that regard, I'm reminded that one of the cripples healed at Lourdes was considered disabled by a British medical board, despite being shown the man restored to health. The attitude was one of "well, we said you would never get better, and we stand by our ruling." The main was paid his benefits for disability right up until his death. I mean really, if the courts were unwilling to reconsider the facts of her medical condition as it was, would they reconsider if she had recovered? Is the finding of fact more sacrosanct than plain reality that contravenes it? I don't want to know.

I don't find the case of preserving Federalism convincing, especially when outcomes like this occur. Modifying Professor Bainbridge's take slightly, I think that if Federalism is itself held up as an inviolable end in itself, then we have the rather dumb situation of worshipping a theory of government as a god. People are failible - and since Federalism is a human concept, it has innate flaws and in our present situation may no longer be a workable system. We can't go on defending it on the basis of "what is is right" as Charles Dickens so eloquently pointed out.

- Posted by at 11:36 PM

This last week or so has felt surreal. A lot of notable deaths have occurred, in conjunction with a host of other troubling happenings locally.

The high school shooting last week, Johnnie Cochran's death, Terri Schiavo's starvation, the Holy Father's illness, a death at Niagara University from illness, a plot to bomb a local high school less than a quarter mile from the University (materials had been obtained), Bishop Head's death...

Will the clouds of death please disperse and let some Easter sunshine in now? Please?

- Posted by at 11:22 PM

Terri Schiavo's life gave out after thirteen days without food or water, in a nation where starving to death is now a humane and peaceful way to die. For injustice this bad, I pray that something good comes of it.

As for the judicial system running amok and literally sentencing a woman to death in the absence of any definitive wishes in favor of that, and never allowing a revisitation of either the decision that ruled that she would want this or a second medical opinion using today's technology, I think the Rubicon has been crossed at this point. The judicial branch nullified all attempts by the legislative and executive branches to intervene, declaring itself sole emperor out of what is supposed to be a balanced triumvirate.

With the balance of power this imbalanced, I think it's time to pray for a revolution. Yes, the Constitution is an old and venerable system of government. But it's been twisted so far out of shape that unless a major reform reduces the power of the courts, I would rather see it fall and be replaced by something new which explicitly keeps courts to their proper function - interpreting law and not making it. The whole stinky nonsense brings to mind a quote from Picket Fences, in which, after the Supreme Court had denied an appeal to them, the following exchange was made:

"I thought you told me the law was on our side!"

"What can I say? The law just changed."

Quite frankly, the Constitution is absolutely meaningless in the hands of the court system. They can read anything they like into any of the amendments, or read out certain protections, which undermines the stability of the whole thing. I hope the courts get battered enough thanks to this travesty that reform is possible.

In that light, despite what some have said, I am glad that Governor Bush did not try seizing Terri from the hospice. That would have led to such a reaction against him and everyone fighting for her, besides a reaction in favor of the courts. That would have been painted as an attack on the judicial system, making any talk of reform much more difficult.

In conclusion, I think the following prayer intention would be especially good in light of this tragedy:

Pray for Terri Schiavo's intercession. I think that with as much as that poor woman was put through on earth by the culture of death types, she'd make a good intercessor against it.

- Posted by at 1:42 PM

Today, Easter Sunday, marks the Resurrection, the sign of contradiction the world cannot accept.

Today however, as Terri Schiavo lays near death, it brings to mind how she is also a sign of contradiction in the present day, who reveals the Sadducees and Pharisees of our times.

By Sadducees, I mean to refer to those who have sided with having the tube removed, who think it's just time to let her die because she's a vegetable and they're considering her that way as not being a human being anymore. This refers more specifically to euthanasia and other culture of death activists, who, like their predecessors in error, deny the true nature and value of human life.

But then there are the Pharisees - those whom those of us fighting for Terri may have looked up to before this. We considered them our allies, for they proclaimed to uphold the law, and appeared to us as sheep. But then along comes Terri, who casts away the sheep's clothing hiding the wolves. She reveals that they have replaced the Truth of God with a lie, who uphold their own laws above that of God, to the infliction of grave injustice. Playing on the words of Caiaphas so long ago, "it is better that she die, that the nation not have a constitutional crisis."

But just as Easter Sunday marked the beginning of the end of Christ's followers remaining within the Jewish nation, so too this will likely mark the beginning of the end of the union between those of faith who have fought for Terri and the Pharisees. Last time, the nation of the Pharisees was destroyed.

Father, forgive them, they know not what they have done. May they be converted rather than destroyed like their predecessors.

- Posted by at 2:39 PM

I don't often find myself agreeing with local columnist Rod Watson of the Buffalo News, but today, he's on target in his support of a dress code initiative being pushed by the parents and administrators of one of the city's public schools. The effort is currently being held up by the Board of Education.

The money quotes in this particular column:

"There are lots of students' rights that schools should protect. The right to look like a thug need not be on that list."

"They "free expression" themselves right out of the mainstream because they've never learned society's unwritten rules."

Hopefully the Board of Education will take his advice.

- Posted by at 9:30 PM

Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire...

For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat...

I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink...

They shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty...?

He shall answer them, saying: Amen: I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me...

And these shall go into everlasting punishment...

These words could not be more clear. Terri Schiavo is among the least, and those who would deny her food and water either deny the words of Christ or her humanity, either of which is terrible to contemplate.

May God have mercy upon this wicked generation.

NOTE: Slightly edited from the original.

- Posted by at 3:26 PM

Despite a flurry of activity from Congress this past week, including a rather extraordinary session where members were called back from recess for the express purpose of passing a bill to give Terri Schiavo another chance, the judicial system seems rather determined to kill her, almost as if they're trying to win a turf war with the legislative branch.

This is at least the third time a legislative body has tried to intervene and stop this madness, and it's the third time that the judicial system has either ignored it, or declared its action unconstitutional. When Florida tried to check it with Terri's Law back in 2003, that got struck down. When the House issued subpoenas, they got ignored. And, when the President and Congress worked at the wire to get a federal judge to rehear the case, it leads to a judge refusing to let the woman be fed while he hears the case. His logic is pretty pathetic - even if he thinks the Schindlers are likely to lose, exactly what good does it do to let the case proceed, admitting they might have legal grounds, if Terri gets to die meanwhile? And what happens should they win and Terri's already dead?

If the judge thinks they have any shot at all, not reconnecting the feeding tube is incredibly irresponsible, since that is what the Schindlers are looking for. And if he doesn't think they have any shot, it's cowardly and dishonest not to dismiss it outright, choosing to let time make the case moot for him.

Hopefully, the Schindlers find a judge with some sort of functioning moral conscience soon. All the powers of hell seem to be working against them right now in the court system, despite the efforts of politicians to help them. Granted, it would have been nice to see them step in before this was down to a race against the clock life and death situation, but I suppose a late rising is better than none at all.

Pray for Terri on this one. Satan is putting a lot of effort into winning this battle, which unfortunately it looks like he's winning now, with several of us late to the battlefield, and many more insisting that there is no supernatural battle going on here.

- Posted by at 10:19 AM

Almost 2000 years ago, Pontius Pilate made an offer to the people of Jerusalem. They could either choose to let live Barabbas, alternately described as a revolutionary and a murderer, or they could choose to let Jesus live. Pilate offered this choice because, so he rationally figured, no sane person would rather save a guilty murderer while condemning an innocent man. Probably to his shock, he discovered that day that he was wrong. The crowd not only wanted to spare the life of the murderer, they were about to become violent if they did not get their way.

Flash forward to the present. The cultural elites - for sake of argument, the judges, academic elite, and other "experts" - have been raising hell on behalf of some Muslim terrorists - murderers or revolutionaries, depending on whom you're speaking with - trying to save them from death. But when it comes to an innocent - Terri Schiavo in this instance - there is silence, even support for the idea that she can be killed by starvation, and that this is good. Present these people with a choice - Schiavo or a terrorist - and I'm inclined to say they'd pick the terrorist over her.

That takes the injustice of 2000 years ago to a new height. At least in that case, the workers of injustice knew they were doing wrong, but justified it, however weakly, as being "for the good of the whole". In this case, there is a complete denial of any wrong-doing. Somehow, it's not only legal, but humane and a favor to starve someone to death based on the hearsay of only one man - and the man who wants to kill her no less. Even God demanded two witnesses at least to condemn a man to death.

Even the reasoning fails on this one. So she needs to be fed to be kept alive - so do babies and a heck of a lot of the elderly. In no case do we say as a society of them that if they can't feed themselves, it's better for them to starve to death. Even the vegetative argument doesn't hold here - if the woman's brain dead, it's not a complicated matter to show it. But that's not the case here, since she can clearly survive on her own if fed. We've been shown nothing indicating her brain isn't functioning, and there are affidavits filed indicating she responds to taste as well as other stimuli. All of which begs the question no one is asking - if the world can still reach her in some fashion, what gives us the right to deny her that?

Even if one buys the argument that she's in a persistent vegetative state, which I don't, you have to wonder what the benefit of death is here. She can't be feeling any pain if in that state - if she could, starvation would hurt a great deal, since it's absurd to think she could feel any pain but yet not suffer any from starvation - so what exactly does she benefit from death? It's not a release from pain, and there's no conscious existence to speak of to end at that point. From the secular, areligious point of view, death is the end of everything, so even a tiny, miniscule hope of recovery trumps picking death, given Terri gets no distinct gain from death - unless of course, her life is treated as an inherent negative in this state, which is the worst sort of attitude for any government or person to take.

Personally, I think a lot of the "let her die" crowd displays a hidden bias against the seriously disabled that has been around for ages. They see her from their point of view and think they wouldn't ever want to be in that situation or, worse, see her as a worthless burden to society. But they are not in her place and cannot know what she feels and what she would want.

- Posted by at 10:30 PM

The Anchoress has written a very good post responding to some people having a crisis of hope now that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube has been removed for the third time.

It was somewhat to my surprise, given Congress's subpoena, that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed Friday afternoon. Republican Congressional leaders have said they will work this weekend to try to get around Judge Greer, and it's still possible the Florida legislature or courts might move to check things.

So this isn't over by a long shot. Terri still has at least a few days for the judge to be reversed, and last time, it didn't happen until the eleventh hour. God hasn't left the building, and we have no idea what He has planned for this situation. It may be that His plans ultimately include thwarting her husband's plans, or it might not.

It may be that His plan is for Terri to wake up with the tube out, and start talking about how none of this is what she wanted. If that did happen, it would be an incredible blow to the entire right to die movement worldwide, and especially at home. This would be a highly publicized case of a woman whom the press, a judge, court doctors, and husband all said was in a vegetative state, with no hope of recovery, being kept alive against her will. And for all of that to be repudiated by the woman herself would cause lasting damage to the euthanasia movement.

But while I personally hope that is where things go, I realize that might not be what God has in mind. It could be Terri does not survive, but that her death will be the spark good people need to ensure it does not happen again. Or it may simply be intended to shine the spotlight on the Enemy's plans, or it might even be that her final suffering is for the good of many others in ways we cannot see.

Whatever the outcome of this battle is, God will bring good out of it, even if we end up not seeing anything but defeat. But as the long as the fight still rages, we have to keep praying for a victory and not conceding the battle.

- Posted by at 2:53 AM

Many blogs have written about Terri Schiavo's impending date with Judge Dread - aka Greer - tomorrow, and the possibility that she could again have her feeding tube pulled and be allowed to die slowly over the course of several days. I think the specifics of the case are covered much better elsewhere, like here and here, so I'm going to write about the answers society is giving to questions regarding euthanasia.

One of the main reasons given for allowing Terri Schiavo to die is that it will end her suffering. In other words, what those advocating it are saying, albeit veiled, is that death is in her best interest. If that concept sounds uncomfortably familiar, it should - it has been made all throughout history, though usually not in this particular context.

The argument has been made many other times - for babies who have genetic defects, for the mentally retarded, for the severely injured, for the shamed, for religious infidels (in several religions at various points), and for various crimes.

But the big question, which nobody is bothering to ask in all of this, is what gives anyone the right to judge that a person should be left to die, particularly when they have done no crime to deserve it? The slew of liberals screaming "judge not, lest ye be judged" at the orthodox of us trying to fight gay marriage are strangely silent over the far weightier matter of judging that a suffering woman should be left to die because her unfaithful husband says that's what she wanted. Or perhaps it's not weighty to them because this woman is presently incapable of speaking out for herself, and doesn't have the fortune of knowing any of them personally.

It's not a great road to start travelling down, because there are many people in our society who are incapable of defending themselves against those who would wish to be rid of them. The mentally challenged, severely physically handicapped, and elderly are the most vulnerable groups I can think of. Do we really want to get into the business of judging without the input of the party in question what their fate ought to be? That sounds far more like the arbitrary justice of the Dark Ages than anything a principled society should be doing.

I fear the implications this has on the handicapped. As someone rather close to me has been so from birth, I have to wonder if society is headed for a place in which it will no longer want them. The problem is that, given the present selective abortions to kill children with birth defects, fewer and fewer people will be born with these conditions, which means that fewer and fewer people will be directly touched by their lives, which will in the end mean a general callousness by society. And in a society which increasingly does not hold life sacred, but merely measures its comfort and material value, this probably will lead to worse abuses down the road in short order. See my post about the friends speaking of having children as organ farms or clones for the same purpose.

Anyone reading this, consider offering extra prayers or a day of fasting on Terri's behalf. She will need them regardless of which way the judge decides.

- Posted by at 10:58 PM

The trouble with a lot of the social-liberal agenda is that the more scientific research is done on its policies, the worse they look as time passes.

Lifesite News reports that a new study is being published in the journal Human Genetics, done at the University of Illinois at Chicago, which reports that there is no gay gene. As its strongest finding, the study found three different regions of three different chromosomes which appeared to have some relation, but which all fall below a threshold of statistical significance common to genetic research, besides seeming to be contributed equally by both parents.

As the research continues to suggest there is no genetic link behind homosexuality, those pushing "gay rights" really need to pause and consider the implications of establishing rights based on a behavior which is the result of environmental factors and not genetically inherent. The entire movement is essentially making a rash judgment based on rather poorly informed common wisdom about the behavior. History should provide ample evidence that when this happens, inevitably poor policy decisions are made which do more harm than good.

The Salem Witch Hunts are more alike in this regard to the present movement than would seem apparent. It's essentially a group of influential people pushing an extreme point of view to the masses and winning support based on the ignorance of the people. With the media sympathetic, negative studies like this one aren't given much press. And then, eventually there comes a time when people are convinced what these people are saying is the truth and that's when things like laws, traditions, and common sense are stampeded in a rush to judgment. Later it turns out that the entire thing was based on evidence as flimsy as a house of cards, and sanity returns, though not without having wrought significant damage.

The basic point is that there is no definitive proof that homosexuality is anything other than a behavior which some people practice as a result of their upbringing and experiences. I don't think it's genetic at all and that no evidence will ever confirm this, but those who think it is should solidly establish their case before pressing ahead on little more than emotion. Basing rights on behaviors acquired in the course of life is a very flimsy basis that can lead to all sorts of trouble.

- Posted by at 8:16 PM

According to the estimates, about 60% of the registered voters in Iraq, or roughly 8 million people, turned out to vote today. Such a turnout is a success, given it at least matches American vote turnout in the election just gone by. Most elections here, we don't even muster 60%. The conclusion I draw out of that is that either Iraqis care more about democracy than we do or attempting to scare people into not voting has the opposite effect.

Iraqis