Only One Week Left: Help Protect Rights Of Faith Based Child Service Agencies!

There is a lot going on right now in Virginia: An ever earlier presidential race, an earlier than ever U.S. Senate campaign, a vitally important State Senate election only five weeks form now, a phenomenal annual gala this Saturday, not to mention spectacular early fall weather in which to experience great Virginia festivals. But there’s something vitally important to add to the check list that won’t take long and which you can do from the comfort of your home computer.

There is only one week left in the 30 day re-opened public comment period regarding a proposal that would allow the government to discriminate against faith-based child placement agencies by forcing them to adopt children to homosexuals despite their deeply held faith beliefs and principles. This not only is discrimination, it violates conscience protections and religious liberty…..Read More

I just received an email reminding me to comment. We have only until tomorrow (October 11) midnight? Have you commented? No? Then what are you waiting for?

Please contact the Board of Social Services by following the instructions below and urge it to reject any regulation that discriminates against faith-based child placement agencies.

» Click here.

» Click “Enter a comment.”

» Type “Preserve religious freedom” in the subject line.

» Type and submit your comments.

Do you have children? The National Organization For Marriage (NOM)has a post on its blog that you should read.

Unfortunately, we live in less discrete and mannerly times.  Thus, the following blog post includes explicit language (not vulgar): Queerty: Can We Admit That We Do Want To Indoctrinate Kids? The publication it reference includes both explicit and vulgar language. So please view NOM blog when your kids are not around to watch.

To learn more about this battle, Family Research Council Action (see Tom McClusky at FRC’s The Cloakroom blog) will host a live national video Webcast tomorrow, December 2, at 1:00 p.m., entitled, Mission Compromised: How the Military is Being Used to Advance a Radical Agenda. (continued here)

This is the third part in a four part series.  What were the first two parts?

• HOMOSEXUALS IN OUR MILITARY: THE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES
• HOMOSEXUALS IN OUR MILITARY: ARE HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS A SIN?

This post will attempt to answer the following question: Is homosexuality a right?

Why The Confusion?

The purpose and function of Law has never been a settled question. That is why when we look around the world we always find different kinds of governments that use the Law for different purposes. In fact, the confusion begins with confusion over the purpose of government. Some governments exist to serve the People. Other governments allow one group of people to oppress another.

Our government supposedly exists to serve the People. However, we do not all share the same concepts about Law.  For example, if you go to the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, you can read a high-brow discussion, The Nature of Law, that will make your head spin. In a society where government and the laws it enforces exist to serve the People, rulers find it expedient to consider multiple points-of-view. Therefore, our experts approach the subject of Law from a variety of very different perspectives.

The complexity of society itself also creates confusion. The problems of governance must be confronted both at multiple levels and with different types of expertise. In a relatively brief article, The Role and Functions of Law in Business and Society provides an overview of our legal system, observing that:

Although the general functions of law appear to be rather simple, the United States legal system is actually very complex. Laws are broken down into several different types. These include constitutions, statutes, common law, administrative regulations and decisions, treaties, ordinances, and executive orders.

What Is An Individual Right?

In a society where government serves the People, one of major functions of the Law is to protect the rights of the People. Unfortunately, we have trouble defining individual rights. The high-brow “experts” have not helped. Consider again a lengthy article from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Rights. We have used the term “rights” in so many contexts and in so many ways that the term has almost become meaningless. When a word can mean almost anything, what does it mean?

So how should we define the term “rights”? The blog, Classic Liberal, provides an excellent discussion, observing:

Rights are an inherent part of a human being. Rights are yours at birth, given to you by nature or God, and permit you to act in your own self-interest with total control over your own life and property, so long as you do not infringe upon the same rights of others. Rights are not granted by the State. A legitimate government can only guarantee that the rights of all are equally protected. (from here)

I would add one more observation. In a government of the People, by the People, and for the People, the People are the Government. Therefore, it is the People who protect each other Rights.

Is Homosexuality A Right?

Behavior defines whether or not someone is or is not a homosexual. Does anybody have the right to behave as a homosexual? That is, is the right to behave as a homosexual a right government is obligated to protect?

In a simple world, we would just ask a simple question: Why should anyone else care if two consenting adults want to have sex? Then we would observe that nobody should care and leave it at that. But the world is not that simple. Sexual relationships in particular pose complex questions.

Consider this expression, “recreational sex.” Is sex a recreational activity like baseball, skiing, swimming, bird watching, gardening, reading, and so forth? Just because someone puts “recreational” in front of the word “sex,” should we absolved the participants of individual responsibility and consequences?

Because sex is not merely a recreational activity, men and women have frowned on fornication for thousands of years. Because sexual relations have serious consequences, we celebrate marriage and condemn adultery. Because we expect men and women to control their sexual impulses, we make crimes of inappropriate sex such as rape and pederasty. Therefore, a man can find himself in jail just for dropping his pants in public.

In addition to protecting individual rights, society must promote certain values. To ensure that people fulfill their responsibilities, stable societies find the means to efficiently reward good behavior and to punish bad behavior. Otherwise, some individuals tend to luxuriate in their rights and avoid fulfilling their responsibilities.

As demonstrated in HOMOSEXUALS IN OUR MILITARY: THE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES, same-sex sex produces health problems. At best, the behavior is self-destructive and unhelpful to the participants. At worse, same-sex sex leads to an increase in societal disorder. Therefore same-sex sex is not a right any more than suicide is a right.

A right to suicide? Granted, some people think we do have a right to commit suicide. However, government is notorious for its excesses. Once we admit a right to suicide, it seems there will be enthusiasts who insist we exercise this right — to end our right to life. Similarly, once we admit a right to homosexuality, it seems the enthusiasts will insist that we normalize the behavior — and will be forced to accept that which would otherwise deem immoral.

Therefore, we must remember why the Founders called our rights inalienable, pre-existing any government. God, who alway was and always will be, endowed us with our Rights. Does God approve of self-destructive behavior such as suicide or homosexuality?  If we think the answer “No,” then why would We the People want to be obligated to protect such a thing as suicide or homosexuality as a right?

–Tom Salmon

What Is Sin?

To some extent the definition of sin depends upon who we ask.

• The Catholic Encyclopedia provides a detailed explanation philosophical in Sin. This explanation starts with an important point.
  

  Since sin is a moral evil, it is necessary in the first place to determine what is meant by evil, and in particular by moral evil.

• Dictionaries (see here, here, here, and here), oddly enough, seem curiously reluctant to mention the connection between sin and evil. Where they do they reference Bible dictionaries.
• Since the dictionaries referenced Bible dictionaries, that indicates that Bible dictionary probably provides the most appropriate definition. Here is a link to the definition of “sin” from the Easton 1897 Bible Dictionary. How does the definition begin?

Sin
is “any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God” (1 John 3:4; Rom. 4:15), in the inward state and habit of the soul, as well as in the outward conduct of the life, whether by omission or commission (Rom. 6:12-17; 7:5-24). It is “not a mere violation of the law of our constitution, nor of the system of things, but an offence against a personal lawgiver and moral governor who vindicates his law with penalties. The soul that sins is always conscious that his sin is (1) intrinsically vile and polluting, and (2) that it justly deserves punishment, and calls down the righteous wrath of God. Hence sin carries with it two inalienable characters, (1) ill-desert, guilt (reatus); and (2) pollution (macula).”, Hodge’s Outlines.

The moral character of a man’s actions is determined by the moral state of his heart. The disposition to sin, or the habit of the soul that leads to the sinful act, is itself also sin (Rom. 6:12-17; Gal. 5:17; James 1:14, 15)

Sinning is something we all do. However, just because we all sin that does not excuse sin or make sinning something we should do.

What Does The Bible Say About Homosexuality?

The Bible unambiguously condemn homosexuality as a sin. These websites list and comment upon the relevant passages.

• What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?
• Is Homosexuality A Sin
• What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

These passages condemn both sexual relations between individuals of the same sex. The Bible only approves a sexual relationship between a married couple consisting of a man and woman. Here is a list of the relevant passages.

• Genesis 19:1-13 tells of Sodom and Gomorrah.
• Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus  20:13 offer straightforward statements explicitly condemning homosexuality.
• Romans 1:24-27 explains that when we refuse to acknowledge and worship God we will commit unnatural and evil acts.
• 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 tells us that homosexuality is just one of many evil acts that men can and commit. This passage also reminds us we can repent.

Why Is Homosexuality a Sin?

The mere fact that the Bible says something is wrong is not enough to convince some people that that something is wrong. That is why many point to the health issues. And that is why we began this series by discussing the health issues, showing that homosexuality involves self-destructive behavior.

Part 6 of The Catholic Education Resource Center (CERC) six-part article, Homosexuality: The Untold Story, describes the criteria for authentic love.

Because humans have a soul, their union should far surpass the mere sense level of animals, and should involve the spirit as well as the body. In other words, it should be love that unites them, not just a physical urge. And this love that unites man and woman is meant to mirror God’s love, which has certain characteristics: it is free, total, faithful and fruitful.

Homosexual unions cannot be fruitful. Because it is unnatural, homosexuality can only be form of fornication. When people have sex just amuse themselves, their amusement generally turns upon them. The Apostle Paul explained.

1 Corinthians 6:12-20 (New Living Translation)

Avoiding Sexual Sin

You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is good for you. And even though “I am allowed to do anything,” I must not become a slave to anything. You say, “Food was made for the stomach, and the stomach for food.” (This is true, though someday God will do away with both of them.) But you can’t say that our bodies were made for sexual immorality. They were made for the Lord, and the Lord cares about our bodies. And God will raise us from the dead by his power, just as he raised our Lord from the dead.

Don’t you realize that your bodies are actually parts of Christ? Should a man take his body, which is part of Christ, and join it to a prostitute? Never! And don’t you realize that if a man joins himself to a prostitute, he becomes one body with her? For the Scriptures say, “The two are united into one.” But the person who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him.

Run from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body. Don’t you realize that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself, for God bought you with a high price. So you must honor God with your body.

Think about it: “The two are united into one.” Is that not what literally happens? When we have sexual relations, we share our body with another person. If we choose to engage in sex frivolously, then we profane that gift. We make our own body cheap and worthless.

–Tom Salmon

Different people respond to their problems in various ways. Some look for technical solutions.  Others pray. Many deny that any problem exists. This post begins a series that will deal with the last “solution,” denying that a problem exists.  Here are the posts I expect to publish on this subject.

• THE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES
• ARE HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS A SIN?
• IS HOMOSEXUALITY A RIGHT?
• SHOULD HOMOSEXUALS BE BANNED FROM OUR MILITARY?

THE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES

What is homosexuality?

homosexual

Date: 1892

1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

The dictionary defines homosexuality without moral judgment.  The dictionary addresses neither the behavioral nor the anatomical consequences. The anatomical consequences are obvious. Because our sexual organs cannot function properly with a person of the same sex, same-sex sexual intercourses poses “technical challenges.”  Nonetheless, even though the anatomical challenges are obvious, the dictionary does not define homosexual sex as a sexual perversion.

Fortunately, there are plenty of Internet articles that relate to the health consequences of homosexuality.  The health consequences, both mental and physical, can be severe.  What follows is a small sample.

• In 2004, The Catholic Education Resource Center (CERC) published a six-part article, Homosexuality: The Untold Story. Part 3, which covers the health risks, begins with this quote.
  

  As a nurse, I watched 100 of my friends and acquaintances die of AIDS and AIDS related illnesses. After that, I stopped counting. (from here)

  The article list many physical and mental health issues related homosexuality.  One surprising problem is an increased rate of anal cancer.  I checked that issue out on government websites.  Sure enough it is a real problem. The earliest article I saw turned up in 1983, “Seminal fluid excretion of cytomegalovirus related to immunosuppression in homosexual men”. Later articles focus on how HIV/AIDS increased cancer rates. For example, HIV Infection and Cancer Risk.

• A 2006 World Net Daily article, Homosexuality: A public health disaster, cited a Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study that shows substantial health problems with same-sex sex. A CDC Press March 2010 release updated a portion of the study, CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men.
• Because of its name, the National Association of Research & Therpy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has an obvious focus. Because NARTH seeks to fight the perception it is “anti-gay,” the organization has a curious set of position statements. Nonetheless, NARTH has a clear mission, and it is worth reading about the purpose of the organization, Our Purpose: Defending True Diversity.  This article, The American Journal of Public Health Highlights Risks of Homosexual Practices, cites research showing the problems of same-sex sex.

There are, of course, some strange assertions to be found on the web.

• Buzzle.com, a news website, has an article on the Health Hazards of Homosexuality. It leads with this definition of homophobia.
  

  Homophobia, the socialization of heterosexuals against homosexuals and concomitant conditioning of gays and lesbians against themselves, is a legitimate health hazard. You can find the detailed analysis of this topic at www.ohanlan.com.

  Undoubtedly, homosexuals do face significant social pressure, but, in recent years that social pressure has relaxed considerably. Have the health and mental issues declined as a result?  Not likely.  For example, consider buzzle.com’s Sexual Health guide.  These people do not advocate commonsense self-restraint.

• The Body, on the other hand, seems more technically serious.  Unfortunately, the website appears almost obsessed with proving it is okay to have HIV/AIDS. After viewing the website, one comes away with a renewed understanding that many of its suffers do not view HIV/AIDS as a mere disease. To them HIV/AIDS is also a political movement. These days, political activism, unfortunately, is not an extraordinary way to deal with guilt.

–Tom Salmon

This year — this year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It’s the right thing to do. (from here)

Why is permitting homosexuals the privilege of serving openly in the military ”the right thing to do”?  Is “gay” who they are?  Do we now define people by their sex? 

All that was clear from this speech is that Obama wants homosexuals to serve openly in the military.  Nonetheless, with this speech, Obama initiated yet another battle to end a sexual taboo.  Since then the president’s spokesmen have come forth to advocate his cause before Congress.  Thus, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen spoke before a congressional committee, and Mullen called for an end to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

“No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

As a murmur swept through a hearing room packed with gay rights leaders, Admiral Mullen said it was his personal belief that “allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.” (from here)

Since current law (see here) does not require our military leadership to ask young men and women about their sexual preferences, it is not clear why Mullen thinks the current policy requires homosexuals to lie about who they are.  If a homosexual can keep his or her “sexual identity” a private matter, senior military leaders have already shown they have no inclination to inquire about the matter.

Gates proceeded more cautiously than Mullen, not giving his personal opinion. 

Early in his testimony, Mr. Gates made clear that he was acting at the behest of President Obama, who reaffirmed his opposition to the existing law in his State of the Union address last week. Mr. Gates then threw the final decision back to the legislative branch.

“We have received our orders from the commander in chief, and we are moving out accordingly,” Mr. Gates told the committee. “However, we can also take this process only so far, as the ultimate decision rests with you, the Congress.” (from here)

Would it be wise to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military?   Is our traditional attitude towards homosexuality more appropriate?  Should we end this taboo?  Given the track record of the people who lead us, probably not.  Let’s consider that record.  First of all, what is a taboo? 

The term “taboo” originated from among the Polynesians and other peoples of the South Pacific.  

If it’s taboo, maybe we shouldn’t discuss it. But we find it the world over, each culture having its own particular version. The English language acquired its taboo in the eighteenth century, from people who would seem least likely to have it, the inhabitants of the South Pacific kingdom of Tonga. The English explorer Captain James Cook, visiting Tonga in 1773 and 1777, received such a welcome that he called these the Friendly Islands. But he also noted that they observed strict prohibitions. In his account of his 1777 visit, Cook wrote: “Not one of them would sit down, or eat a bit of any thing…. On expressing my surprise at this, they were all taboo, as they said; which word has a very comprehensive meaning; but, in general, signifies that a thing is forbidden…. When any thing is forbidden to be eat, or made use of, they say, that it is taboo.”  (from here)

When the Polynesians restricted or banned a practice or object for religious reasons, that practice or object became ”taboo.”  In the orderly society that described late 18th century American, taboos were common. We Americans liked the simplicity and directness of “taboo”.  So we adopted it.  We now use “taboo“ either as an adjective or a noun.  The adjective describes something that is: ”proscribed by society as improper or unacceptable.”  The noun refers to: “a prohibition or interdiction of anything; exclusion from use or practice.” Synonyms include anathema, banned, beyond the pale, disapproved, forbidden, ….  

Apparently some people still consider many sexual practices taboo.  Google the terms taboo and sex together and you will get about 1,400,000 hits, mostly from porn sites.  Since the late 18th century, America has experienced a least a couple of “sexual revolutions.”  One occurred during the 1920′s and another during the 1960′s.  What were the results of these revolutions?  Since these revolutions were “successful,” we saw the relaxation of the relaxation of several sexual taboos. 

• Dress codes relaxed.  It became more commonplace for women to wear revealing clothing.
• Companies now make the most blatant use sex to sell their products.  Compare old commericals with their modern counterparts, and that fact becomes obvious.   
• Porn is now a legal “product” and commonplace. 
• We can “respectably” call prostitution a “profession.” In fact, some laud prostitution as the oldest profession.
• Divorce is “acceptable.”   About half of all marriages now end in divorce.
• Sexual relationships are “acceptable” outside of marriage.  Couples now “hook up” and even live together without marrying.
• Same-sex relationships are “acceptable.”  The taboos against homosexuality have become so relaxed that we now debate the legalization of same sex “marriage.”
• Many regard marriage as an outdated institution.

Undoubtedly, we should not countenance some of the attitudes of the late 18th century.  Nonetheless, what cannot be denied is that the 18th century Americans who created this nation were mentally strong and healthy.  Instead of shying away from their troubles, they considered them thoughtfully and calmly.  These Americans solved their problems far more justly and compassionately than any other people of their era. Through their families and their communities, the Americans of the 18 century provided each other strong support.   Because they so highly valued the support they gained from marriage and the family unit, they had strong taboos against anything they regarded as destructive to the family.

Is homosexuality destructive to the family?  Biblical wisdom and common sense suggest that it is.  Except within the context of marriage, Christian teaching forbids sexual relations.  Marriage changes the focus of sexual relations from the immediate pleasure of a one-night stand to lasting love.  This love is necessaryfor a man and a woman to become one.  Joined and unified in marriage, a man and woman provide the safe haven required to birth and rear the next generation.  Same-sex relationships have never served and cannot serve such a purpose.

Because of their Christian heritage, 18th century Americans regarded homosexuality as taboo, and they looked upon those who practice homosexuality with a mixture of scorn and pity. They regarded homosexuals as unable to control their sexual passions.  They saw homosexuals as people who had failed to ask for and accept God aid in overcoming sin. Were they correct in their assessment?  Homosexual rights advocates argue that homosexuality is a genetic anomaly.  Therefore, they argue discrimination against homosexuals is equal to discrimination based upon race or sex.  What is the problem with that argument?  Here are several.

• We do not know what causes someone to behave as a homosexual. There is currently no way to prove homosexuality is a genetic anomality.  The argument that homosexuality is in the genes is based upon conjecture. Why should we believe it?  Is this not part of the same crowd that demands we believe in global warming? 
• We can only detect homosexuality as a result of behavior.  What we know is that the behavior of a homosexual is at odds with a homosexual’s sexual organs possesses. So when someone discriminates against homosexual behavior, they discriminate against that behavior, not against a sex or race.  Is discrimination against behavior the same or even similar to discrimination based upon the mere fact of a person’s sex or race?  Even if we assume homosexuality is based upon genetic influences, each of us still has the right to expect others to exercise reasonable control their behavior.  Who decides and how do we decide what is reasonable behavioral control?
• Human beings have a strong drive for sexual gratification, but good order and discipline requires that military personnel focus on their mission. While on the job, soldiers must set aside their sexual passions. Should soldiers regard each other as objects of gratification, particularly if officers have favorites, their units will not function as effectively.  Yet by their own admission, members of their own sex strongly attract homosexuals.  Doesn’t this admission of “sexual identity” suggest a problem? If a homosexual cannot keep his or her “sexual identity” a private matter, how will that person behave when there is no requirement for privacy?
• Although the requirement for strict military discipline makes it convenient for would be social engineers, using military personnel for radical social engineering experiments constitutes an abuse of power. Such experiments violate the trust of military members. Nonetheless, the social engineers among do experiment with military personnel.  We are in fact already experimenting with the idea of integrating women into our military forces.  That experiment has already produced notable difficulties and controversy. In light of the difficulties produced by integrating women into our military forces, what is the rush to integrate homosexuals into the military?  What is the material benefit to the military?

To make your opinion known, contact your members of Congress.

• Senate
• House 

What are the blogs saying?

Note:   Wherever there has been a vote on same-sex marriage, the public has made it clear idea is unpopular.  Similarly, the public does not appear to favor homosexuals serving openly in the military.  Thus, when President Bill Clinton took on the issue at the beginning of his administration, he got a black eye.  Nonetheless, as this informal poll of Virginia blogs suggest, the advocates for homosexual “rights” are much more vocal.   If you do not want your voice drowned out, contact the people who represent you. 

Call Your Senators Thursday to Repeal DADT ! represents the view of Michael in Norfolk.  Warning!  You may find some of the photos on Michael’s blog a bit hard to stomach.

If anyone needs to be discharged from the military, it is the homophobes who by their very prejudice fail to support the U.S. Constitution.

If the current administration has its way, we will most likely see Michael’s view become public policy.

In Another who supports DADT repeal, Vivian J. Page makes the comparison with racial discrimination.

Blue Virginia gets a congressional candidate’s view in Exclusive Blue Virginia Interview: Jeff Barnett (D-10th CD).  Blue Virginia also features a video, Video: Jim Webb at “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” Hearing.  Webb appears to be fence sitting.   The other senators in the video, however do give their positions.

In Kenny Golden (Republican candidate in the second district): People in the military are prohibited from having sex., Timothy at Virginia Virtucon finds the military’s policies against fraternization goes well over some people’s heads.

In Queer Eye Joe, Pen and Sword ridicules the opposition to homosexuals in the military.

Below the Beltway notes Colin Powells “gear switch” in Colin Powell Supports Repeal Of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

FYII, Wednesday, February 3, 2010, Part 1 provide the position of ProgressiveDem in favor of homosexuals in the military.  Retaking My Stand on This Issue does the same for now at the podium.

Time To Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell reflects the opinion of Armchair Generalist.

–Tom Salmon

Here is a look at what the various blogs about Virginia had to say about the speech.  At the end, I offer a few observations.

Reviewing the Reviews

Crystal Clear Conservative had Congressman Bob Goodlatte provide a guest post, Real Solutions to Restore Confidence in Our Economy.  What did the congressman observe?  Effectively, our president has no plan to restrain taxes or government spending.  In fact, higher taxes and increased spending seems to be Obama’s solution.

Our economy continues to face historic and unprecedented challenges. Meeting these challenges with unprecedented spending of taxpayers’ dollars is simply not the answer to this current crisis. I remain committed to working with the President and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to focus on real solutions that will create American jobs and restore confidence in our economic future.

In “That was a step too far”, Virginia Virtucon cites an AP article that refers to this part of Obama’s speech. 

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.  (from here)

Yet the AP observes.

President Barack Obama and other critics say the court’s decision to let corporations spend their money to directly influence elections opened the floodgates to foreign involvement. In last week’s address to Congress and the nation, Obama asserted the court had allowed special interests, “including foreign corporations, to spend without limit on our elections.”

That was a step too far. At the moment, foreign corporations may not spend any money in U.S. elections under a provision of federal election law that was untouched by the high court.  (from here)

Perhaps that explains why Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. reacted with visibly suppressed anger to this portion of Obama’s speech.  See “Not true”: Alito mouths words as Obama hammers Supreme Court at A Catholic Notebook or Obama Attacks Supreme Court. Alito says,”Not True” at YankeePhil.  The Mason Conservative provides additional justification for Alito’s reaction in “Not True”.

In Not Climate Change Again……., Augusta Conservative lamented Obama’s reference to the weather.

Has anyone noticed how every time President Obama says, “Climate Change” we get blasted with snow?

In Barton Hinkle linked to Hot Air, Smash Mouth Politics observes the following.

Barton Hinkle go boom boom on President. President treat us stupid. Him talk down us peons. Him smart. Us stupid. Need HIM explain. Us no figure out what best for us. Go, Barton, go!

To get the full effect, read Hinkle: Talking Down to the Public Will Surely Work.

In Obama’s SOTU Address…Surgically Dissected, now at the podium gives way to The Humble Libertarian’s My Libertarian Notes on The Full Text of Barack Obama’s First State of the Union Address.  Perhaps the best way to summarize The Humble Libertarian’s attitude towards the speech is with this quote.

Wouldn’t you just love for Americans to be as scared and desperate as they were the day after 9/11? As willing now as they were then to let the government assume all kinds of unconstitutional powers and exercise unlimited authority? Don’t you just wish we were clamoring for our safety and willing to trade anything for your empty promise to keep us safe like we did with Bush? Yeah be honest- you really envy Bush. Never waste a good crisis, after all. Your own chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel said that didn’t he? Don’t you just wish you had such a juicy crisis upon which to predicate more expansion of executive power?

In Sabato on Obama, Fisherville Mike cited one of Virginia’s best known political commentators. 

Mr Obama’s mixed messages underline his need to please constituencies that are at odds — the moderates and liberals at war within the Democratic party, a handful of moderate Republicans he needs to achieve legislative success and the large group of independents who have voted against his candidates in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts and who threaten to deliver a drubbing to Democrats in the November midterm elections for Congress and state governorships. (from here)

Here in Beer goggle presidency Fisherville Mike cites Jules Crittenden.

This is beginning to look like the six beers and several shots presidency, where the voters eagerly went home with someone who looked pretty hot … and available! … in the darkness of that honkytonk Bush night. Can’t wait to see the polls, but I have to think at this point, beer goggles off, the president is starting to look coyote ugly even to those who loved him best, and they’ll be gnawing on their arms off to get out of his bed.

On the Right cites Keith Fimian, a candidate for Congress, email to his supporters, Keith Fimian responds to President Obama’s State of the Union Address.  Fimian says “it has to stop.”

“Tonight the President said he planned to make job creation and controlling wasteful spending a priority. I commend him for that and hope he carries through on his pledge. So far we have seen too many broken promises from this White House and members of Congress like Gerry Connolly. The problem is that the agenda in Washington is being driven by career politicians who cut their back room deals and leave taxpayers like you and me to pay for it all. Or worse, who borrow the money from China and obligate our children and grandchildren to pay it back. That’s just plain wrong and it has to stop.”

 Andrew Clem personally hacks through the speech in detail in Obama: “We can do it together”.  Nonetheless, at the end he cites Rush Limbaugh.

I happened to hear Rush Limbaugh’s take on the speech on Thursday afternoon, and it was about as brutal as you might expect: He sees Obama as a petulant, narcissistic man-child who can barely contain his rage at those who refuse to follow him. I don’t think I would go that far, and it will take years of study by psychologists and historians to come up with a clear assessment of Obama’s character and personality. Limbaugh did make an interesting observation, however: unlike most past presidents, Obama never really stopped to characterize the state of the union overall, other than to lament the continuing economic hardships.

Virginia Right has one of shortest and most pointed blog posts I have yet to see, Obama Pushes Money for High Speed Rail.  Since it is so short, here it is.

Very exciting news. We will now be able to move unemployed workers between jobless cities at unprecedented speeds.

Virginia Right provides a more detailed review here, State of the Union: A Speech to Nowhere.

With State of the Union and Response Post- Blog, RED NOVA took an interesting approach.  That blogger thought Obama’s speech unworthy of much attention.  So he focused on the Republican response.  In truth, our new governor, Bob McDonnell, gave an excellent speech.

Left of the Hill responded with one of the few reviews that even approached being positive, Video: Gerry Connolly Reacts to Obama’s State of the Union.  Left of the Hill wants health care reform passed as a means of fixing the deficit.  In the video, Connolly debates Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis (R).  Here in Obama Needs to Do More Than Just Mention DADT in a Speech Left of the Hill complains Obama needs to provide specifics on how he will end our military’s policy of “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell”.

Snapped Shot, in I’m Sure He’ll Blame Bush…, observes that Obama does not seem to know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

From On High, in That’s Not a Good Argument, takes issue with Obama’ contention that President George W. Bush governed as a free-marketeer.  Here in A Post Mortem On Obama’s Speech From On High quotes Peggy Noonan.

 The central fact of the speech was the contradiction at its heart. It repeatedly asserted that Washington is the answer to everything. At the same time it painted a picture of Washington as a sick and broken place. It was a speech that argued against itself: You need us to heal you. Don’t trust us, we think of no one but ourselves.

Coarsed Cracked Corn attacks Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s (VA-6) (see  Real Solutions to Restore Confidence in Our Economy) email in Look in the mirror, Bob by blaming Bush.

Rightside VA posted Obama threw out many dog bones…  Rightside VA also preferred McDonnell’s response.

The Virginian Federalist found itself especially irked with a particular portion of Obama’s speech.  With the Consent of the Governed provides a quote and a response.

“To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills.” That is, the President is telling the Congress that in writing and passing laws he supports, the opposition of the public should be ignored. What the President seems to have missed is the element of consent of the governed. Why should laws obnoxious to the public ever be enacted by their representatives?

Cathouse Chat observed Chris Matthews is an idiot – and probably a closet racist, too!

Yankee Phillip lists the Whoppers ! ! !  He references CALVIN WOODWARD over at AP,Fact Check’s The SOTU.

SWAC Girl also took direct issue with Obama’s truthfulness, Obama’s “Lies of the Union” address.  She begins thusly.

Unbelievable, pull-your-hair-out words came out of the mouth of Barack Obama during his “Lies of the Union” address before the American people Wednesday night.

United Conservatives goes through the speech point by point in Heritage Morning Bell-SOTU.  This post begins with this link A Speech Only Washington Could Love.

The Shad Plank in Left and Right angry over proposed “spending freeze” – Justice Alito “not true”… observes that Obama did not seem to make anyone happy with his speech.

Blue Virginia goes to CNN for positive reactions to Obama’s speech, Videos: Obama, McDonnell, Reaction to SOTU. 

We will Rock Dem provides Obama a small amount of positive feedback in State of the Union – Comments.

I watched the SOTU AND the response from Governor McDonnell tonight and a couple of thoughts come to mind: 1) Barack Obama continues to amaze me with his capable and humorous approach to what is clearly a legacy of economic ruin and mismanagement, and 2) Bob McDonnell has a heck of a haircut.

VA Social Conservative expresses unrelenting skepticism in Thoughts on the State of the Union Address.

Observations

Obama’s speech seems to have garnered very little support in the Virginia blogosphere.  By and large most political bloggers either did not believe him and doubted his ability to do what he claimed he would do. 

Several of the Conservative bloggers cited corporative new media sources such as the AP for fact checking.  Considering Obama’s dependence upon corporate news media’s support, one can only guess at the results if the news media follows its normal instincts for pack journalism.   Where the coverage of Obama has been almost uniformly positive, it could suddenly turn venemous.

Tom Salmon

The D.C. Council on Tuesday took the penultimate step to legalized same-sex marriage in the nation’s capital, what many members deemed a final milestone in the near 30-year march to equality in Washington.

The 11-2 vote in favor of allowing legally recognized gay marriages to be performed in the District was the expected outcome. Ward 8 Councilman Marion Barry and Ward 7 Councilwoman Yvette Alexander were opposed.  (continued here)

Does the average citizen want to recognize “same-sex marriages”?  No.  Thus, city officials refuse to consider putting the matter up for a referendum.  They know the proposal would lose.  That is why homosexual activists pursue their agenda through the courts and in aberrant legislative bodies such as the D.C. Council.  In fact, in such venues homosexual activists pursue their agenda with foolishly uncompromising fervor.  Consider this quote from former mayor Marion Barry.

Barry, meanwhile, claimed continued support for the gay and lesbian community “on almost every issue except this one.”

“In a Democracy, there ought to be the right to dissent, not be castigated as out of touch and out of step with the majority,” the former mayor said.   (from here)

What Barry observed is one of those simple, undeniable truths.  If democracy is not to become tyranny, then each of us must be entitled to hold and exercise our own opinions.  Even the majority (which Barry wrongly implies supports same-sex marriage), does not have the right to cavalierly stifle the beliefs of the minority.  Unfortunately, that is exactly what homosexual activists apparently want to do.

Look at the predicament of Catholic Charities.

On Nov. 17, Archbishop Wuerl stated that the same-sex “marriage” bill would cause the city itself to withhold contracts and licenses since Catholic Charities and other religious institutions cannot comply with city mandates to “recognize and promote” it.

The prelate clarified that even if contracts between the city and Catholic Charities end, “the archdiocese and Catholic Charities are committed to continuing to provide services in the District,” despite the fact that “the new requirements by the city for religious organizations to recognize same-sex marriages in their policies could restrict our ability to provide the same level of service that we do now.”

Catholic Charities currently assists 68,000 people in D.C. each year by means of shelter, food, medical and legal care, job training, immigration assistance and other services.  (from here)

If, with the passage of the same-sex “marriage” bill, DC arbitrarily changes its rules, Catholic Charities will not in good conscious be able comply.  In spite of that, the D.C. Council and homosexual activists would have us blame the Catholic Church for its stubbornness.   Such silliness even extends to the governors of Virginia and Maryland.

The governors of Virginia and Maryland blasted the Catholic Church over its threat to stop providing social service programs in the District, if the city’s proposed same-sex marriage law isn’t changed.

The criticism from the governors came on WTOP’s Hands Across the Potomac program Tuesday.

“I’m Catholic, and I think it’s wrong. I don’t think you take your ball and go home,” Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine said.

“I think the strategy of threatening to pull back, it doesn’t seem like the church I’ve come up in.”  (continued here)

It would seem our that many of elected officials have become busybodies.  They have the responsibility to keep us from harming each other, but they have no authority to force upon everyone else the beliefs of cherished constituents.  Nevertheless, in their quest to sanctify “same-sex marriage,” they would undermine services for the poor and tread upon religious liberty.    Why?  Because “same-sex marriage” is a “right.”  Why is ”same-sex marriage”  a “right”?  Because they say it is a right.  Even though the need and justification for this “right” of “same-sex marriage” just materialized out of the blue, we are also suppose to assume the D.C. Council has the “right” to forcibly impose the “right” of ”same-sex marriage” on everyone else.

Homosexual activists portray efforts to protect the institution of marriage as denying the basic right of same-sex couples to marry.   Yet there is no basic right to marry.  That is because marriage involves more than just a contract between two halves of a couple.  Marriage also make demands upon society.  When society recognizes a marriage, it affirms that union and announces its willingness to support it.  Before any community can commit itself to affirm and support a marriage, it has the obligation to set and enforce preconditions.   As the primary goal of marriage is to ensure the welfare of children, society has long accepted as self-evident the precondition that marriage involves the union of a man and a woman.  Moreover, to ensure its support for a marriage is merited, society also sets many other preconditions.  When elected officials and judges arbitrarily change these preconditions, they violate our rights.