The video above is a case in point of why I don’t care for Glenn Beck’s politics. It doesn’t matter to me that he is an economic and national defense conservative. He treats the greatest human rights crisis of our time (abortion on demand) as an afterthought, and he’s totally out to lunch on gay marriage. This is libertarianism, and I’m not a fan. Here’s a bit from the exchange on gay marriage:
-
-
Wendy Long on Prop 8
Wendy Long provided the best legal analysis I’ve heard of yesterday’s ruling in California. She calls the decision the “prime example of judicial tyranny.” Listen below. [audio:http://fetch.noxsolutions.com/laura/mp3/080510_wendy.mp3]
-
The End of Prop 8: A Moral and Legal Revolution
Yesterday, a federal judge overturned California’s ban on gay marriage—a measure that was added to the state’s constitution through a 2008 ballot effort called Proposition 8. Federal district judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (p. 109). The judge immediately stayed his own decision pending appeals, so gay marriages will not be performed until the issue is resolved in the higher courts. Read the decision here. The next stop for this case is the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—a court well-known for leaning left on social issues and which will almost certainly rubber-stamp…
-
Federal Judge Strikes Down Prop 8
This is a terrible decision, and I will have more to say about it later. For now, here’s a snippet and a link from the story in The New York Times: “Saying that it unfairly targets gay men and women, a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, handing supporters of such unions a temporary victory in a legal battle that seems all but certain to be settled by the Supreme Court. . . “‘Proposition 8 cannot survive any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause,’ wrote Mr. Walker. ‘Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a…
-
Slightly Modified Infanticide
In 1999, Senator Barbara Boxer said in so many words that fully a delivered baby does not have an intrinsic right to life. A baby only has a right to life when its mother decides to take the baby home. Until that time, the fully delivered baby can still be killed so long as the mother decides she wants it killed. George Will recently called Boxer’s position “slightly modified infanticide.” Boxer took issue with this characterization and fired-back that she had been taken out of context. Newsweek carried the exchange, and you can read the back and forth between Boxer and Will here. I just want to say that I…
-
Satirizing Moral Confusion
Sometimes satire can be a most effective polemical tool. That is why Joe Carter’s satirical conversation between two women talking about having a fetus is a must-read. Here’s a snippet: Jan: “Marsha! How are you girl? I haven’t seen you in ages.”Marsha: “Hey Jan, you’re looking great. How’ve you been?”Jan: “Just peachy. Hey, guess what? I’m going to have a fetus!”Marsha (excited): “That’s wonderful! Oh, I’m so happy for you. Isn’t it a blessing having parasites growing in us?”Jan: “Yes, but I have to confess—I’m jealous. I wanted to have twins too.”Marsha: “Oh, I only have one now. Greg didn’t get his promotion so we decided to selectively reduce one…
-
Mark Dever vs. Jim Wallis
Mark Dever has an informal dialog with Jim Wallis about the church’s responsibility to promote social justice. This video is part 1 of the conversation, and there are more videos to follow. As you might expect, Dever and Wallis markedly differ about the role “justice” ought to have in gospel ministry. This section of the conversation is about race relations. Dever’s point is that the church as the church should not confuse its mandate to preach the gospel with social justice concerns. Wallis argues that that gospel ministry includes efforts at racial reconciliation in the wider culture. What I find most interesting about this first segment is the differing ways…
-
“I’m a person not a condition”
Joni Eareckson Tada on the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ‘As I sat on the White House lawn 20 years ago and watched President George H.W. Bush sign the Americans with Disabilities Act into law, I knew it was a grand day for disabled people. However, I also knew that we still had a long way to go.
-
Manhattan Declaration 2.0
S. M. Hutchens says that the Manhattan Declaration needs to be revised. Even though he supported and signed the Declaration, he notes some weaknesses in it. In a lengthy blog post, he argues that the Declaration confuses “revealed religion with the natural law” and as a result has mixed “the oil of Christianity with the water of popular American religion.” Hutchens’s remarks were provoked in part by a recent video released by Chuck Colson and Timothy George on civil disobedience (see above). Hutchen’s concludes:
-
Doug Wilson Advises Sarah Palin
Doug Wilson advises Sarah Palin that she needs to work on three things in order to be a viable candidate in 2012. I have great respect for Wilson. He’s a first-rate Christian thinker, and I love to read his commentaries. I consistently find him to be on the side of the angels. If you’re not a regular reader of his blog, you should be. Nevertheless, I have to disagree with him on this one. I don’t think Palin’s problem is that she appears vapid (his word). I think she is vapid. Moreover, I disagree with Wilson about Palin’s viability as a leader and especially about the analogy that he draws…