ESC research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed. To conduct ESC research, ESCs must be derived from an embryo. The process of deriving ESCs from an embryo results in the destruction of the embryo. Thus, ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo.

Note to O-Team: Don’t mess with Dickey-Wicker.

Ecumenical News International
News Highlights
16 August 2010

Church bells to ring out in September for species protection

London (ENI). Support for United Nations talks on biodiversity will be marked in Britain by the biggest nationwide peal of bells since celebrations to mark the eve of the third millennium, organizers say. “Ringing the church bells is a great way for the wider community to be reminded and to celebrate the beauty of creation,” said Jill Hopkinson, the (Anglican) Church of England’s national rural officer, in a 10 August statement. The denomination is urging cathedrals and several thousand parish churches to ring their bells to mark the talks at the U.N. general assembly on 22 September in New York that will address the international failure to meet targets on species conservation. [402 words, ENI-10-0567]

No word from Ms. Hopkinson how those hearing the church bells will identify the distinct sound with attending to the habitat of furry woodland creatures. There was a time when Brits associated the ringing of church bells with the hours of prayer and attending Mass.

No more.

[On Monday] the Ninth Circuit took the first step in doing the right thing for the people of California and the tens of millions across the United States who not only believe in true marriage but also in the rule of law.  ‘Tony Perkins praises the Ninth Circuit’ is not a headline I thought I would ever live to see, but even the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit understood the chaos Judge Walker had recklessly unleashed.

“The next step for the court, if it wants to keep its streak of sobered judgment, is to throw out Judge Walker’s entire ruling.  Ultimately, we are confident that the courts will recognize marriage, as correctly defined, has never violated any constitutional provision.”

I wonder what’s next. So far, we have drugs that contracept/abort one day after intercourse and now one week after intercourse. Will the next drug be the “month-after” pill? How about the “year-after” pill?

And at this rate, why not just sterilization?

Seriously, if some women don’t want babies this badly, perhaps they shouldn’t have them.

Ever.

Part of Walker’s shoddy reasoning includes the attempt to analogize past irrational bans on interracial marriage and contemporary bans on same-sex marriage. If part of “real” marriage includes the possibility of procreation, then there is no analogy. An interracial (aren’t we beyond this language?!?) male-female couple, normally, possesses all the right accoutrements for procreating a child. Here’s CNN quoting part of Walker’s rationale:

“Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre,” he added. “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”

Don’t even get me started on the contemporary sociological definition of “gender.” “Gender” is society’s construct of roles and behaviors based on “sex” (male or female); gender is not “sex,” per se. Note how there is no rational recognition of the physical reality of sex differences, the societal fruits of marriage, or the societal harms caused by illegitimate sexual activity in Walker’s reasoning.

(Special Note: Do not use the word “gender” unless you are going to explain the sociological definition, which is what is being used in many quarters today.)

Such reasoning only seeks to legitimize, via the state, preferred sexual pleasure. Behold, The Abyss!

This issue isn’t at all about “rights” or “equality,” y’all. It is about legitimizing illegitimate sex, and all that comes with it.

The churches–any of them who wish to remain able to practice their faith in relative freedom–will have to seriously consider getting out of the business of acting as “duly recognized” agents of the state in legalizing marriages. The alternative will be inevitable lawsuits charging “discrimination” for disallowing church weddings, a diminution of our constitutional right to free worship, and a further emptying of church coffers as settlements and fines are levied.

After I tried passing through the line of protesters, a young policeman forbade nearby my entrance to the actual pro-traditional marriage event, saying, “We’ve had a lot of trouble. . . I can’t let you go in there.” The “trouble” must have occurred before I arrived. I showed the officer my ID and explained who I was. Following that exchange, he allowed me to pass.

There were about three speakers, the names of whom I didn’t catch. The crowd was supportive, but subdued. I don’t think that the mood was due to the balmy weather; St. Louis has cooled off to a “very warm” since a storm passed through yesterday evening. It was, nevertheless, surreal to say the least, on a variety of levels. First, it was my first experience to be in the “minority” at a public event with so many protesters nearby. Second, every time a motorist passed by and honked, the protesters would raise up a loud cheer, which sometimes made it difficult to hear the speaker.

I picked up a “One man, one woman” tee-shirt, which I plan to wear to work tomorrow. By the way, before I left I introduced myself to Mr. Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage. This nice young fellow bragged to an acquaintance nearby, “Yeah, we just had number six [children].” The acquaintance replied, “Well, we’re still trying to catch up with five.”

Gotta love Catholics when it comes to kids! Would that orthodox Lutherans would follow suit.

Here is a picture of Mr. Brown and I after the event. Apparently, invoking the name of Todd Wilken is strong kung fu.

Responding to the 71% of Missouri voters, who approved Proposition C which seeks to exempt Missourians from Obamacare, The Hill reports Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) as saying:

“I certainly noticed the vote on Prop C, the healthcare law, and: message received.”

“I think there has been … a lot of noise about the mandate that people have gotten so focused on that they don’t realize that there’s going to be more access and affordability and more choices.”

I guess voters in The Show Me State are dumber than a Missouri jackass. Right, Senator?

Image appears to be an official government photo, which is in the public domain.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, in a 136-page ruling, said California “has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.”

“The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples,” Walker wrote. The ruling struck down Proposition 8 as a violation of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

Of course, the judge’s statement above completely ignores nature. Parsed, only “moral and religious views form . . . the basis for [traditional marriage]” is what he is saying. The irrationality of this statement is simply stunning.

The Times reports further that the judge stayed his order until Friday, allowing for the filing of appeals. No word yet when or where same-sex marriage licenses will resume in The Golden State.