Transtemporal Discrimination in America

While pundits and politicians fuel the media fire storm surrounding the bathroom rights of transgenders, another “trans” group sits neglected in the shadows. They have walked among us for decades – if not centuries – hidden in plain sight at battle reenactments, theme parks, and cosplay conventions. They frequent their preferred watering holes like That 70s Bar or Pirates’ Cove Tavern and eat at establishments like 25th Century, a trendy molecular gastronomy restaurant in Soho. Who are these people? They are the transtemporals and they sense that their time for equality has come.

“Most Americans are oblivious to our plight,” lamented Archibald Pruner, president of the Past|Utopic|Transtemporal|Retro|Instants|Dystopian+ Society (PURTID+S), an advocacy group for all transtemporal and time-challenged minorities. “While the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 made great strides in protecting Americans of a certain age[1], it did nothing to help those of us who do not identify with the generally agreed upon time frame.” Mr. Pruner is serious and it is difficult not to take him as such dressed as he is his impeccable Victorian schoolmaster’s garb. “I don’t know what I would do if I didn’t have this job,” he confessed. “I couldn’t degrade myself to wear the ridiculous clothing that sequentials call ‘business casual’. To me, it is the ultimate oxymoron. Why should business ever be casual?”

In case you missed it, “sequentials” is how those in the PUTRID+ community refer to those in the general public who maintain their ideals of straight timelines that flow from the past through the present to the future. What may seem obvious to most is not necessarily the reality accepted by transtemporals. Even their patron saint, Albert Einstein[2], appears to agree. He is often quoted as stating that “the distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”[3] This has become a mantra of sorts for many in the PUTRID+ community who feel that Einstein gives scientific gravitas to their temporal relativism.

“Frankly, we are tired of being made fun of,” confesses Cleve Zertron. We are sitting in Cleve’s basement apartment in his parent’s home. Cleve is a self-employed software developer who has been forced to freelance because no IT company will hire him, not even for a helpdesk position. “They love my résumé and my educational credentials are impeccable,” he tells me. “The phone interviews always go well. But the minute I walk in, it’s all snickers.” Zertron is dressed in a silver colored, reflective Zentai that covers him like a second skin from head to toe. “This is what we wear in 2215 se. I shouldn’t be denied employment because I’m from the future. You would think that IT companies would appreciate having a real futurist on their team. But they refuse to acknowledge my right to dress in accordance with my temporal identity.”

Mr. Zertron’s plight is unfortunately typical, especially for future transtemporals, or FTTs. While PTTs (past transtemporals) have been able to access public employment through historical theme parks like Colonial Williamsburg, FTTs are generally viewed as crazy even among many in the PUTRID+ community. “Were it not for the FTTs,” explains Ingrid Oldkirk, “our community would be referred to as PTRI [pronounced pee-tree, like the dish], which is much more clinical and less offensive. But FTTs come in two main varieties: Utopic and Dystopian. When they are not disagreeing with each other about what the future looks like, they are disagreeing with us about what the past was really like. Giving them the U and D in our society was the only way to make peace, even though most of us think it stinks.”

Dr. Malcolm Synclair is the H. G. Wells Professor of Transtemporal Ethics and Justice at Yale University. In 2014 he won a milestone concession from the trustees to provide time-appropriate restrooms for transtemporal students and staff. “For some PTTs, a flushing toilet is terrifying,” he tells me. “One should be able to have a bowel movement because one needs to, not when one is scared to.” A survey of the student body found that 65% of them were in favor of the outhouse installations popping up around campus, though only 5% said they would be willing to shake hands with a transtemporal exiting one. “It’s not just restrooms,” Dr. Synclair continues. “Our culture takes continual jabs at transtemporals. Why is it that in most movies, time travelers lose their clothes? From The Terminator to The Time Traveler’s Wife the unwritten rule seems to be that transtemporals must be stripped of their dignity and forced to scrounge for clothes appropriate to the sequential era.” His face is flushed and his gaze intent. Synclair feels the pain of the prejudices that transtemporals bear every day.

“It wasn’t easy coming out of the clock,” Sally tells me. Even now she is cautious, allowing me only to use her first name. “My mother was always offering to take me to the mall to go shopping for the latest styles. She was concerned that my closet had nothing but vintage clothing and claimed that all my friends were Goths pretending to be vampires. I finally had to tell her that I was a transtemporal, that I no longer identified with my assigned birthdate.” After that initial encounter, things were a little less tense in the household, but not by much. “They are convinced that I am delusional. One night in exasperation, my father pulled out my birth certificate and made me read it out loud. I told him it didn’t matter what sequential society thought I should be. What was important was that I identified as someone born in the 1880s, not the 1990s and that he should respect that.” She said that her father stormed out and remains a chronophobe to this day.

The recent monumental gains made by the LGBTQ+ community in redefining marriage and making the idea of sexually segregated public restrooms and locker rooms the icons of the new civil rights movement have given those in the PUTRID+ community hope. And progressive municipalities and religious organizations are starting to move in their direction.

The Portland, Oregon school board has ruled that the omnitemporal verbs iz, waz, and bilbe will replace the classic sequential verbs is, was, will be in all official documents to avoid transtemporal discrimination.

Ashville, North Carolina has enacted an ordinance that requires all restaurants to provide outhouses for PTTs and zero-gravity toilets for UFTTs. When City Council was asked about the financial burden this would place on restaurant owners, they replied that perhaps the owners should enlist the help of the Utopic Future Transtemporals for ways of building space toilets cheaper than the ones NASA currently builds. Regardless, if the restaurants don’t have the toilets in place by January 2018, they will be subject to punitive sanitation fees from the City. Ashville City Council plans to use the money to provide costume and housing subsidies to transtemporals.

Determined not to be left out of the progressive party, the 2nd Baptist Church of Mayberry, North Carolina is the first church in the country to ordain openly transtemporal ministers. Jamie Demple is the senior pastor at 2nd Baptist and he led his congregation’s move away from the Southern Baptist Convention soon after taking the pastorate there ten years ago. “The church should be about tolerance and inclusivity,” Demple says. “Our church is diverse enough for both old time religion and progressive relativistic messages.” Can I get an amen?

[1] The ADEA and several other facts in this post are real. I leave it to the reader to decide what is not.
[2] The great physicist was posthumously honored with the title Patron of PUTRID+ Relativism at the 3rd 5th Annual Beta PUTRID Convention in San Francisco in 2011 se. (I feel an explanation is necessary as the name of this convention might be confusing to the reader. It is referred to as the 3rd 5th Annual because that was the best consensus that the transtemporals at the convention could arrive to regarding which convention they were all actually participating in. SE is the transtemporal designation for the Sequential Era and corresponds to what is classically referred to as AD – anno Domini, “in the year of our Lord” – but has become in many militant secular environments CE, or “of the common era”.)
[3], accessed 5/14/16.


Obergefell v. Hodges: A Primer in Same-sex Legislation

(1) Whereas, the right to personal choice – be it to murder an unborn child or to cohabit with another of the same-sex – is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy;[1]

(2) Whereas, the right to marry is fundamental because is supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals[2] and despite the fact that it has been understood for millennia to be a union between two people of the opposite sex;[3]

(3) Whereas, the right to marry safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education[4] (and regardless the facts that same-sex unions can’t procreate and that children reared by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised in intact biological families);[5]

(4) Whereas, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make it clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order[6] (which we hereby determine to dismantle by judicial edict);

BE IT ENACTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES that the Constitution read as follows: Same-sex couples have the right to marry and their pretense of traditional family life must be recognized and protected in and by all States and all who oppose such unions shall be vilified and prosecuted for seeking to disparage the choices of same-sex couples and thus diminish their personhood.[7]

Formatting the Court’s opinion regarding same-sex marriage in the fashion of a legislative bill would be humorous were it not for that fact that most of the language above formed the basis of the majority’s decision to find within the Constitution a radical redefinition of marriage and enforce its acceptance in what once was one of the most religiously conservative nations on earth.

The opinion handed down on June 26, 2015, is already old news in our twenty-four-seven media culture. Since then, a lone shooter has accomplished in one murderous rampage what the Union Army could not even after the expense of over 600,000 American lives;[8] the Obama administration has given the Republic of Iran a clear path to develop nuclear weapons in a deal that not only bans U. S. inspectors, but also commits us as a nation to help Iran safeguard its program against sabotage;[9] and Mohammond Youssuf Abdulazeez has murdered four Marines and a sailor in Tennessee and the FBI thinks it “premature to speculate on the motives of the shooter at this time.”[10] Though all of these events are momentous in their own right; their significance pales in light of the societal shift that the Court has imposed upon America.

Liberals, Libertarians, Secular Humanists, and Evolutionary Atheists (who refuse to admit the inconsistency to their philosophy that same-sex unions pose) all have cause to celebrate the Court’s decision. But Conservatives, Constitutionalists, and yes, even Christians have much to be concerned about because the country they grew up isn’t the nation their children are inheriting.

Obergefell v. Hodges,[11] its opinion and dissents, should be required reading for all civic minded Americans. I offer the following synopsis as a primer to its framework.

Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Keagan joined. The Court delivered this opinion with a slim majority of one.[12] The other four justices – Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito – all wrote dissents. All the dissenters were nominated to the Court by Republican presidents. All those in the opinion were nominated by Democrats with the exception of Kennedy; which is evidence that being indoctrinated as a California lawyer speaks more of one’s philosophy than any political affiliation might.

Kennedy cited four “principles” which formed the basis of his decision. I have listed them above. I leave it to the reader to examine the original document and discover how much (or little) I have satirically added. Kennedy also relied heavily on three previous Supreme Court cases to make his point:

Loving v. Virginia, in which Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, sought to have their marriage recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia; Zablocki v. Redhail, in which Roger Redhail, a man in arrears on child support payments was denied a license to marry his pregnant girlfriend, a woman; and Turner v. Safley, in which Leonard Safley, a male inmate of the Missouri correctional system, fought the state’s prohibition to marry P. J. Watson, a female inmate. It is from these three cases of one man seeking the right to marry one woman that Justice Kennedy weaves the Constitutional right for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman; reason, tradition, or biology be damned.

I recognize that the cry against legislating from the bench is standard shtick for conservative commentators and politicians alike. But the accusation against this Court’s action comes from within the Court itself. Note the following from Chief Justice Roberts’s dissent:

“Allowing unelected federal judges to select which unenumerated rights rank as ‘fundamental’ – and to strike down state laws on the basis of that determination – raises obvious concerns about the judicial role.” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ____ (2015), Roberts, C. J., dissenting, at 11.)

“But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have the power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” (Ibid., at 2.)

“Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.” (Ibid., at 3.)

“The majority purports to identify four ‘principles and traditions’ in this Court’s due process precedents that support a fundamental right for same-sex couples to marry. In reality, however, the majority’s approach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking.” (Ibid., at 10; internal citation omitted.)

“The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial ‘caution’ and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own ‘new insight’ into the ‘nature of injustice.’ As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?” (Ibid., at 3.)

Just who do they think they are, indeed. Nine judges: five in majority, four in dissent. An opinion more personally enforced than legally achieved. A watershed moving more earth than the belief that privacy has greater constitutional protection than the precious produce of procreation should enjoy. A denial of fact, an imposition of falsehood. The adult child of the sexual revolution has finally come home to rule the roost.

[1] Adapted from Justice Kennedy’s Opinion of the Court, Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ____ (2015), at 12.
[2] Ibid., at 13.
[3] Ibid, at 3-4.
[4] Ibid, at 14.
[5] See some of the stats I shared in “Your Mama!”
[6] Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ____ (2015), Kennedy, J., at 16.
[7] Adapted from Justice Kennedy’s Opinion of the Court, Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ____ (2015), at 19.
[8], accessed 7/19/15; see also “Why We Have Mass Shootings in the United States”.
[9], accessed 7/19/15.
[10], accessed 7/19/15.
[11], 7/19/15. Though the Syllabus is a helpful overview, one should read the opinion as written by Justice Kennedy and then follow through on the dissents.
[12] Roe v. Wade was a 7-2 decision, a clear super majority.

I Was Born This Way!

I wasn’t born a poor black child in Mississippi; but had I been, I’d be one angry black man. While marchers chant “Black lives matter!” and young African Americans work toward assuming the mantle previously worn by the likes of Rosa Parks  and Martin Luther King, Jr., all seem oblivious to the fact that their cause has been hijacked and co-opted; stolen by thieves who choose to be oblivious to the obvious significance of their genitalia.

Consider for a moment the heavy lifting that Africans and African descendants did during the colonial decades leading up to the Declaration of Independence – independence of European colonials from their European overlords that is. Imagine, if you can, being the brunt of the continued brutality and inhumanity of chattel slavery that ended with the Civil War. Add to your contemplations the persistent injustices of American apartheid meted out during the Jim Crow era on a significant portion of our population for no other reason than who they were born to and what their skin color was.

water fountain

Such reflections are necessary, particularly if you happen to be white; doubly so if you happen to be a white conservative. The marchers of the 1960s risked life, limb, and their limited liberties to confront institutionalized racism that presented real disadvantages to people of color. In so doing, they pushed our culture closer to the true spirit of its founding ideals.

African Americans living in 21st century America are much better off than their grandparents were in the 20th century, but the work is far from done. Even though we have a black president, ruminate for a minute how it is that selling cigarettes illegally in New York, not paying child support in South Carolina, or making eye contact with law enforcement officers in Maryland can be a death sentence for a black man. Then think about a wedding cake denied to two grooms or citizens who demand their “right” to a government funded sex-reassignment surgery. Is it really the same? No, nowhere near. Regardless, the LGBT lobby has successfully co-opted our culture’s expressed abhorrence of prejudice that black people bled and died to build. They have done this by asserting that their condition is a matter of biological determinism. In other words, they were born that way.

Sex is a straightforward, biological reality. It is a reality that has been readily understood by mankind for millennia. We know this to be true even if we didn’t have history books. Our very existence is evidence of it. I was born as were you. We each had parents who recognized the purpose and ultimate potential of their reproductive organs and used them accordingly. Without such knowledge, there would be no human race. To make babies requires a man and a woman. Men don’t birth babies, women do. Men are men and women are women down to the cellular level. Women do not have Y chromosomes, men do. Simple.

Sex is a matter of birth. I have a copy of my father’s birth certificate. Under “SEX OF CHILD”, “Male” has been typed in. My father was born in California in 1931. I have a copy of my youngest child’s birth certificate. Printed in black for all posterity to see are the words “SEX: MALE”. Though he was born seventy-two years after his grandfather, identifying the sex of a baby is a skill we successfully carried into the 21st century.

Racial classification in America is historically tied to ancestry. There was a time in the United States when a single black great-grandparent made one black and unable to legally marry a white person. It mattered not at the time how lily-white the other seven great-grandparents were.[1] This refusal of marriage was a true injustice imposed upon people simply due to the conditions of their birth.

Neither the transgendered nor the same-sex oriented suffers from a condition of birth. But both groups have foisted this lie on a public ready to embrace it and gain an easy entrance into the halls of the socially enlightened. Privileged whites and affluent blacks too young to have made their mark in history during the glory days of the civil rights movement gleefully jump on the bandwagon of same-sex “marriage” advocacy[2] with all the fervor of a freedom marcher and none of the risk. In so doing, they divert focus and energy away from true tragedies of social injustice still prevalent in our society.


In 1948, Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues developed the Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale based on interviews with people about their sexual histories. Often referred to as the “Kinsey Scale”, it is a seven-point scheme in which zero means exclusively heterosexual and six means exclusively homosexual. Following is the description of each level in the scale:

0- Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual
1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6- Exclusively homosexual

Even in 1948, Kinsey recognized that the level of homosexual inclination and expression could vary over a person’s lifetime.[3] His observations have been substantiated through later studies. A 1970 study found that 75% of all homosexuals had at one time or another been sexually aroused by the opposite sex. A 1983 study found that over half of all people who had ever been homosexually aroused were currently heterosexual. A 1992 study found that more than 90% of Americans who had had any same-gender sex since puberty had also had opposite-gender sex.[4]

Same-sex orientation, unlike its proponents would have us believe, isn’t an “always on” unavoidable condition of birth. The elasticity of behavior among those who identify themselves as homosexual testifies to the hypocrisy of their claim. Homosexuality, like transgenderism, isn’t a matter of biology but of psychology. In selling their fraud of biological determinism, they would have us see straight and gay water fountains as symbols of their cause instead of understanding that their attack is really on the sex-appropriate signs of public restrooms.


Transgendered people who undergo sex-reassignment surgery (SRS) are perhaps the most extreme and tragic examples of a fight against reality. Consider Lynn Conway, a transgender female who completed her transition from man to “female” in 1968 and has been a transgender activist since going public in 1999. Prior to surgery, Lynn was married to a woman and fathered two children. In 2002, Lynn married a man.[5] Any serious thought about this history is sure to hurt the head, but think we must.

Even though SRS is commonly referred to as a “sex change” operation, sex change is biologically impossible. A transgender female isn’t a woman, he is a feminized man.[6] He has been castrated, his penis has been mutilated, and its skin has been turned outside in. But he is a man nonetheless. Every cell of his body will attest to that fact even if his mind won’t accept it and the results of his plastic surgery cleverly hide the truth. Any sex he has with males will be homosexual even if his partner is unaware of his true biological gender.

Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, made an elegant defense for reality when he stated “policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention. This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder…the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken—it does not correspond with physical reality… Claiming that this is [a] civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”[7]

Of course, policy makers and the media have every incentive to embrace the LGBT cause. Politicians can gain easy applause for their pro-diversity stance without addressing the real problems of disproportionate poverty, fatherlessness, and incarceration of blacks while the media makes millions on the next installment of the newest Kardashian female intent on throwing his javelin away for another round of gold.

[1] Dorothy Roberts, Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-create Race in the Twenty-first Century, (New York: The New Press 2011), 19.
[2] For one such example, see the post “Another Black Robed Bandit Buys the Lie”.
[3] “What is the Kinsey Scale?”,, accessed 5/10/15.
[4] Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, (Nashville: Abingdon Press 2001), 418-419. The studies cited were: Bell and Weinberg (1970), Family Research Institute (1983), and the National Health and Social Life Survey (1992).
[5] “Lynn Conway”,, accessed 5/10/15
[6] Paul McHugh, “Transgender Surgery Isn’t the Solution”,, accessed 5/10/15
[7] Ibid.

Your Mama…!

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all lifestyles are not created equal, that they should be evaluated in light of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and that those endowed by their Creator with Reason have the right and responsibility to proclaim Reality to a delusional Society.” (from The Declaration of Reason)

Jennifer Cramblett is suffering with fears, anxieties, and tremendous uncertainty with regard to her family’s future.[1] Along with all the inconveniences of attempting to live her life in a committed lesbian relationship within the context of a primarily straight culture, she must now deal with the worst of all the social stigmas: racism. As an upstanding member of the LGBT community, Ms. Cramblett should have been able to expect the wide support of the Liberal Left base in her pursuit to produce an analog to an intact biological family. But then she stepped on the third rail of progressive American outrage by suing the sperm bank that supplied the means of granting her a black baby. In case you didn’t know, Jennifer and her partner are white.

If moral relativists ever suffered from a moral dilemma, this scenario would be it. A white lesbian living in a state that doesn’t allow Gay “marriage” sues a sperm bank because she had a black baby. Where should one begin? Perhaps I should have started with the “white lesbian” line. But then, you might have thought I was telling one of those “A white lesbian walks into Ohio…” jokes. Sadly, it isn’t a joke. But the following is.

A white lesbian couple walks into a bar with their black daughter to celebrate her twenty-first birthday. The bartender looks up at them and says, “I’m sorry, but you’ll have to leave. The bar is closed.” Please evaluate your level of cultural sensitivity and sense of social justice by taking the short survey below.

You find this joke offensive because:

  1. The bartender is a homophobe.
  2. The bartender is a misogynist.
  3. The bartender is a male chauvinist.
  4. The bartender has been put in an impossible position by his money-grubbing, capitalistic employers who coerce him via the exploitation of his lack of other employment opportunities to implement rules he finds morally repugnant.
  5. The bartender is a racist.
  6. The joke wasn’t funny.
  7. All of the above.
  8. None of the above.

If you chose #5, then I trust you appreciate the dilemma this case presents to all social engineers. Of a certainty, they feel that homosexuals should enjoy all the reproductive trappings of heterosexuals – their disinclination to marrying and procreating with members of the opposite sex notwithstanding – but not at the expense of a color-blind society. Difficult indeed.

If you chose #4, then you are at worst a committed Communist and at best a neo-Marxist. Either way, I’m happy you found this post and hope you will read more of the blog as you might find it helpful in the pursuit of reality.

If you chose #7, then you can hold your head up proudly amongst all of your liberal associations. Your indignation at this hypothetical situation proves that you have been fully sensitized by politically correct rhetoric.

If you chose #8, I suspect that perhaps you are a realist that likes giving people the benefit of the doubt. Absent any other information, you’ve come to the conclusion that the bartender’s only blunder was forgetting to lock the door at closing time. But why should reason prevail. After all, we are living in a country that seems hell bent on drawing some moral equivalence between a married, heterosexual couple having biological children and rearing them and a homosexual couple using artificial insemination and/or surrogacy to have children of their own. The fact that the only thing being questioned as controversial in the case of Cramblett vs. Midwest Sperm Bank is the mother’s concerns of having a mixed-race baby in an all-white community shows how effective the LGBT community has been in promoting their agenda.

To the critics of Ms. Cramblett who call her racist for picking a blond, blue-eyed, white baby daddy because – aside from having testicles and a penis – he happened to best match the demographic profile of her partner; I say, what did you expect? Gays and lesbians and acceptance of them are held up today as paragons of diversity. Help me understanding this. How is it that people who primarily pursue as sex partners other people who have the same type of sexual organs they do (i.e. HOMOsexuals, from the Greek homos, meaning “same”) are considered to be bent toward diversity? Homogeneity is central to their identity. I’m only surprised Cramblett didn’t ask for a white, blue-eyed, blond lesbian sperm donor.

Lesbian sperm donor? But lesbians don’t produce sperm! My point exactly. And neither do gays lay eggs. In a rational society, Creationists and Evolutionists should both agree that this is bad business. I am an ardent, Bible-believing Creationist. As such, it should come as no surprise that I believe these types of social experiments are an abomination and ultimately do a disservice to the child.[2] But if one believes that natural selection is the principle of biological progress, how can the idea of same-sex couples attempting to propagate be considered a viable option? From the perspective of evolution, if homosexuality is a genetic trait it must be considered a mutation that should be weeded out of the sexually reproducing population through the sheer attrition of survival of the fittest.

For years, social activists have banged the drum that children raised in homosexual households suffer no disadvantages as compared to those raised in heterosexual households. And in current PC-enlightened thought, being raised by homosexuals might even be preferable as the children will probably be more tolerant of differences in society. This is all well and good if tolerance is your goal, but at what cost?

A groundbreaking study published in 2012 seriously calls into question the assumption that being reared by two moms or two dads is just as good (or better, if you are a true progressive) as being reared in an intact biological family (i.e., one that is comprised of a mother and father that are married and raising their biological children).[3] The study concentrated its research on young adults 18 to 39 and asked them about their experiences growing up and their current life circumstances. When compared with children from intact biological families, the study found that children of lesbian mothers:

  • Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance.
  • Are less likely to be currently employed full-time.
  • Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed.
  • Watch TV for longer periods and more frequently.

All this is good news for the social engineers as this means that they are also more than likely to vote Democrat. But wait, dear reader, there is more. Children of lesbian mothers:

  • Are more likely to be currently cohabiting.
  • Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual.
  • Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting.

I trust you see why this agenda is being pushed. After all, it produces tolerant civilians who are more likely to lean on public assistance and happen to be sexually liberated. For the social progressives, what’s not to like? But we’re not finished. Children of lesbian mothers also:

  • Smoke more frequently.
  • Use marijuana more frequently.
  • Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been “physically forced” to have sex against their will.
  • Are 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.”

And now the Leftist Social Engineers have another moral dilemma: is it worth putting up with drug abuse, rape, and the sexual abuse of children in order to have a tolerant society dependent on Government and fully engaged in the fantasy of moral relativism? Sadly, I think their answer has been a resounding yes.

In case you find all this depressing, let me leave you on a lighter note. Two she-wolves tire of the traditional pack hierarchy and the odiousness of alpha male syndrome. “How about you and I become a committed couple, run off, and be our own pack,” says one to the other. “But I want puppies,” says her friend. “Fine,” the first one replies, “you can be the bitch.”

[1], accessed 10/12/14

[2] The beauty of a principled world view is that I suffer no moral dilemma when it comes to Ms. Cramblett’s pregnancy itself. She learned she had been inseminated by the wrong donor before giving birth, but she did not abort the baby. She is to be commended for not compounding a clerical mistake with murder.

[3], accessed 10/12/14.

Another Black Robed Bandit Buys the Lie

WARNING: Candid (and at times graphic) adult analysis and commentary to follow. If you are squeamish about reality, I suggest you read no further. If you are possessed of a strong mental constitution and can endure beyond a meme or a sound bite, I encourage you to read on. I believe it will be worthwhile.

I am the father of seven children. I was attendant at all of their births; the designated catcher on the last three, which were delivered at home. As the birth canal opened and the head crowned, my wife and I were intensely involved in the delivery process; more concerned about her body than who was coming out it. But once the baby was out, all that changed. “I had a baby!” my wife would exclaim, followed shortly thereafter by, “what is it?”

What is it? Why, a human being, of course. My wife has never given birth to a puppy, a kitten, or even a rabbit. But you know that, even if you don’t know us. You know that humans give birth to humans. What is it? Why, a Larum, of course. But you knew that as well from my name and the fact that it is our child. What was my wife asking? What any parent generally wants to know: is it a boy or a girl. Did you know that even as dim-witted as I am, I’ve never had difficulty determining the sex of any of my children? I didn’t need any legal decisions or medical advice to make the determination either. All my sons had testicles and a penis. None of my daughters did. Easy peasy.

Sex is simple to determine. Even the State has no difficulty with this. On my children’s birth certificates, their sex is identified; for the girls, SEX: FEMALE, for the boys: SEX: MALE. This ease of identification carries into adulthood. On my driver’s license, my sex is identified as male. And sex, as a biological definition, classifies what part I give to the procreation process. Two males can’t make a baby. Two females can’t make a baby. But in the eyes of U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, same-sex couples should be allowed the legal façade of a procreative, married couple and place their names on a child’s birth certificate as if they had had sex and produced it. But I get ahead of myself.

I would love to persuade the public instead of preach to the choir, but I fear that it is beyond me. Even convincing the choir these days can be difficult. Many Christians, it appears, have decided that evolution is true and Genesis just a story. And once Genesis is just a story, no true defense for traditional marriage remains. Add to that a general belief in the populace that the murder of children is simply an exhibition of personal choice and sexual identity something that can be changed with a new wardrobe, a legal decision, or a surgeon’s knife and I fear I may be screaming into the wind. But scream I must.

On February 14, 2014, US District Judge Allen issued a decision striking down Article I, § 15-A of the Virginia Constitution and the Affirmation of Marriage Act, thus paving the way to make the government of the Commonwealth grant legal married status to same-sex couples wed in other states and allow marriages between same-sex couples in the Commonwealth. It matters not to the judge what marriage means or that the citizens of Virginia sought to codify that meaning in their constitution and laws. To her, it is a simple case of prejudice.

When noise began in our fine state that we needed a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, I was against it. What need to define what is? One might as well make a law that said I am a man because I have two testicles and a penis. Government has no need to define marriage because mankind has known this definition for millennia. Men and women make marriages. Men and men don’t. Women and women don’t. Humans and animals don’t. My fear was that the endeavor to codify what simply is would only provide a legal basis to challenge this definition and thus change it. And so it is.

Allen’s decision is forty-one pages long. It is easy to find if not so easy to read.[1] Let me summarize it for you: being gay or lesbian in America is the same as being black in America. Racial prejudice is the same as basic, biological understanding. Or put more simply: Behold the Straw Man and bow before it. From her opening quote of Mildred Loving to her final order finding Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional on the grounds of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, the entire opinion is based on the equating of the gay and lesbian lifestyle to being born in an ethnically distinct household. And her argument resonates with many because it is a bright and shining lie that appeals to a sense of justice, even if that justice denies biological reality. You see, race is not a biological reality. Thus, laws that hinder freedom based on concepts of race have no natural standing. This is not the case with sex and marriage.

Allen holds up the cause of the couple’s represented in large part because of the “stigma and humiliation”[2] they have suffered for want of a legal marriage remedy. I have news for the judge and the couples. The stigma isn’t because they aren’t married. The stigma is because homosexuality has been viewed with opprobrium for millennia. The humiliation is there because the social stigma and, I would argue, conscience as well. And though the conscience may be seared, the social stigma in large part will remain. Marriage will not change that. But Allen’s decision does damage to marriage and leaves profound holes in the hedge of who can attain legal married status.

In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Allen brought her pastor, Rev. Jim Wood. She said that next to her husband, Rev. Wood was “probably the closest man in my life.”[3] Rev. Wood is the Senior Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Norfolk (FPCN). On the church’s web site in the “What We Believe” section are listed the following declarations:

  1. Jesus Christ is Lord God of all and the only way of salvation.
  2. The Holy Scripture is God’s revealed Word, the only infallible rule for faith and life.
  3. God’s people are called to holiness in all aspects of life.  This includes honoring the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, the only relationship in which sexual activity is appropriate.[4]

On all these points, I heartily agree with Rev. Wood and the FPCN. Sadly, her relationship with the reverend notwithstanding, Judge Allen does not. Her ideology of civil rights trumps the truth of Scripture. She has denied her faith.

On page two of her opinion, Allen states “the ultimate exercise of our freedom is choice.” Though perhaps not an intentional allusion to her embracement of Roe v. Wade at this point, its intention is blatant by page thirty-nine where she proclaims that a woman’s murder of her unborn child is a celebrated and hallowed choice.[5] Yes, hallowed, as in holy or sacred. Murder is sacred, marriage is homosexual, down is up, wrong is right. Reason has left us.

Her opening salvo is an appeal to the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.[6] Do you remember the language of our founding document? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” Jefferson appeals to the Creator for the Founders’ authority to declare independence from the British sovereign. Allen cites Jefferson, yet denies the Creator he appealed to.

“So God created man…male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply…” Genesis 1:27-28.

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh?” Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 19:4-5.

I hold this truth to be self-evident, that marriage was instituted by the Creator between a man and a woman and that that union was blessed to be fruitful and reproduce. The bench’s penchant to warp the word marriage into a new meaning will not change what marriage is. Confer the state’s legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities on a same-sex couples all you want, they will never be married in the eyes of the Ultimate Judge.

What has Allen done in striking down this portion of Virginia law? She has opened the door for legal marriage to simply mean a “loving, intimate and lasting relationship.”[7] What if that relationship happens to be with my sister? I couldn’t marry her under current Virginia law even if I were single. But since “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence”[8], why should I or any other consenting, incestuous couple not be allowed to marry?[9] I’ve heard that there are some who have had intimate relations with their dogs. Shall those who are sexually oriented toward canines not be allowed to marry them? Who can deny the loving and lasting relationship between a man and his dog?

I am a minister authorized to celebrate the rites of marriage in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Rest assured; I will never officiate a same-sex wedding. But if Judge Allen is to have her way, I would be forced to do so. In a judgment on a different kind of case, she told the defendant “your beliefs, if they clash with American laws, are going to get you in trouble.”[10] Though Allen paraded her faith to bolster  her Senate confirmation, it was pure window dressing. Government reigns supreme and the government says same-sex couples can marry. It was in part to defend faith that the Affirmation of Marriage Act was introduced, the legislators fearing that churches whose teachings do not accept homosexual behavior as moral would lose their tax exempt status.[11] Allen poo-poos these fears by claiming that the redefinition of marriage isn’t a radical departure from tradition, but she spills no ink regarding the fate of faith’s tax exempt status.

To my fellow ministers I say: get ready, they’re coming for you. The homosexual lobby has proven itself to be tenacious, aggressive, and militant in imposing their lifestyle as one that must be accepted and legally protected. They will target churches with a published position against same-sex marriage and demand a ceremony. When the ceremony is denied, they will sue in court for state or federal protection. The government will step in and demand “equal opportunity” for this poor couple. If the church stands its ground, its tax exempt status will be revoked. This is where it is ultimately going.

To the lawyers defending traditional marriage, I plead with you to stop appealing to Scripture, tradition, reason, or common sense. It has become blatantly obvious that the black robed bandits care naught for any of them. I would appeal instead to the incisive humor of Monty Python.

In the movie The Life of Brian,[12] there is a meeting in the arena of the People’s Front of Judea.[13] In this scene, John Cleese would be the lawyer for the defense in Bostic v. Rainey, Eric Idle (playing Stan/Loretta) would be the plaintiff, and Sue Jones-Davies (playing Judith) would be our Judge Allen. Stan, you see, wants to be a woman because he wants to have babies. John Cleese declares that this is ridiculous because Stan, being a man, can’t have babies. Judith declares that the People’s Front of Judea will fight for Stan’s right to have babies.

When I first saw this scene in the early 1980s, I laughed with juvenile glee. The idea that people would band together to fight for a right that is against nature was the height of hilarity. When I watch it now, I laugh still, but more as a madman who knows that reason has left us.

[1], accessed 2/16/14. Hereafter referred to as Allen followed by page number.

[2] Allen, p. 13-14.

[5] Read the opinion, follow her footnotes and you will catch my drift.

[6] Allen, p. 2

[7] Allen, p. 22

[8] Allen, p. 22

[9] Please do not misunderstand me, dear reader. I have no incestuous relationship with my sister or any other relative. I raise the issue for illustrative purposes only.

[10] As reported by the Virginian-Pilot,, accessed 2/16/14.

[11] Allen, p. 25.

[12] As always, any mention of a movie is not an endorsement thereof. The Life of Brian is highly irreverent. If you view the entire film (which I have not in over thirty years), you do so at your own risk.

[13] You can find the scene on YouTube if you follow this link:

What’s Love Got to Do with It?

Before writing this post, I took PBS’s homophobia test. I scored a 48, which in their estimation means that I am not homophobic.[1] I thought it best to mention that right at the front: PBS considers me to be non-homophobic. I can think of no stronger liberal endorsement to my PC-ness.

I am concerned by an alarming trend in our culture. No, it’s not gay marriage (alarming as that is). It’s not even homosexuality in America (which has been here for quite some time). More alarming than either is the trend in the Church and among post-biblical Christians to categorize homosexual behavior as acceptable under the guise of love.

The world’s arguments for legitimizing homosexual behavior and relationships are predictable and understandable. They invariable spring from evolutionary paradigms that view humans as nothing more than complex animals destined to do what animals do. If you’ve ever spent any time on a cattle ranch, you have no doubt seen cows try to mount each other. And who hasn’t been embarrassed by the overly friendly dog who has suddenly formed a sexual attraction to your leg? We shouldn’t expect much less from men and women, scientists tell us, nor should we condemn them for their behavior. And yet, the Bible does condemn same-sex and cross-species intercourse; which makes the Christian defense of it particularly vexing.

The primary arguments in favor of homosexuality made by liberal and post-biblical Christians that I have encountered are as follows:

  1. People who love each other are not sinning when engaging in consensual intercourse.
  2. To call what homosexuals do sin is judgmental, intolerant, and unloving. Jesus loved sinners, thus we should accept homosexuality.
  3. The Bible’s prohibition of homosexuality was only in the context of idolatrous practices.
  4. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.

I shall attempt to answer these in turn.

As deceivingly comforting as the idea that the only moral regulator to sexuality is “love” may be, it just isn’t the case; at least, not from the biblical perspective. Sex isn’t simply a bodily function. It involves all of a person: spirit, soul, and body. Legitimate sex (between a man and a woman who are married to each other) is a great blessing designed for intimacy, unity, companionship, procreation, and just plain fun. Others can access some of the blessings of this process illegitimately (such is the nature of the goodness of God), but not without reaping the consequences of the sin that illicit sex is (such is the nature of the holiness of God).

If we subscribe to the love argument, we would have to come to the conclusion that adultery is acceptable. But our culture doesn’t see it as so. And it still stands as major grounds for divorce. As a matter of fact, pro-homosexual Christians cite homosexual monogamy as grounds for allowing homosexual marriage. This in itself is a tacit acknowledgement of the sin of adultery. But the same Bible that condemns adultery condemns homosexuality (1 Cor 6:9-10; Ex 20:14; Lev 18:22; Rom 1:26-27).

To call homosexuality sin is no more judgmental than calling drunkenness sin. Both the alcoholic and the homosexual deal with internal pressures and desires driving them toward the object of their affection. But tendency does not make for right. I used to have the tendency to choke the life out of those who upset me. My tendency didn’t turn my sinful rage into a sanctified expression. Neither did my tendency make it “natural.” Let’s face it; we condemn murderers not because murder is uncommon, but because it unnaturally ends the life of another. But even after I tried choking my brother to death, he still loved me. He wasn’t tolerant of my actions, though.

Though there are sections of Scripture that condemn the idolatrous practices of pagan, male temple prostitutes, they aren’t the only sections of Scripture that speak against same-sex practices. Regardless, God’s establishment of what should be is substantial enough for us to know what shouldn’t occur. In the creation account, all the animals are paraded before Adam. He named them, but among them no mate was found for him. Conclusion: bestiality is wrong. As a matter of fact, not only was a mate not found among the animals, Adam was declared to be alone with no mate. Conclusion: homo-erotic self-gratification is wrong[2]. Adam is put to sleep. The woman is made and presented to him. Man and woman are married. Conclusion: marriage between man and woman is the natural order of things and sex is right for them (Genesis 2:18-25).

As to the argument that Jesus never addressed homosexuality, it illustrates the luxury of being a post-biblical Christian. It’s easy to claim what Jesus didn’t talk about if you don’t study your Bible. The fact is that Jesus did mention homosexuals. But even if he hadn’t, he said enough about his estimation of the Torah and sexual purity as to leave no doubt about his beliefs regarding homosexuality. When asked about divorce, he gave God’s prescription for marriage between a man and a woman (Matt 19:3-6). With regard to the Law (which we have already shown that it condemns homosexuality[3]), he stated that he came not to destroy that Law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17).

So where does Jesus mention homosexuals? You have to look beyond the English to find it. But if you understand biblical hermeneutics and look closely enough, it sits plainly on the page.

But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings’ courts.” Luke 7:25 KJV

The word translated “soft” is the Greek word malakoi. It is used here, in Matthew 11:8, and in 1 Corinthians 6:9 where it is translated “effeminate” in the King James Version. Jesus’ use of the term is in the description of how male courtiers were dressed. He then went on to say that they “live delicately”. The word translated “delicately” is the Greek word truphe, which is “effeminate debauchery.” In other words, Jesus contrasted John the Baptist’s rugged manliness in his representation of God with the effeminate debauchery of the king’s courtiers. All the king’s men come out the lesser in the comparison. Jesus is intentionally using a double entendre in his expression. Gagnon’s commentary on this term is informative.

“The term malakoi in 1 Cor 6:9—literally, ‘soft men’—was often used in the Greco-Roman world as a description of adult males who feminized their appearances in the hopes of attracting a male partner. Jewish and even some pagan moralists condemned them, not for their role in temple prostitution—most were not temple prostitutes—but for their attempted erasure of the masculine stamp given them in nature.”[4]

As the Torah in the Flesh, Jesus embodied the moral code of God. As such, he need not overtly condemn every sin. He primarily involved himself in proclaiming righteousness and himself as the way to achieving it. Homosexuality, like all sins, is a death sentence (Lev 20:13; Rom 6:23). The Law, which Jesus promised to fulfill, called for the sinner’s execution. Jesus took on the curse of the law and died for all sinners: liars, thieves, fornicators, adulterers, and homosexuals among others. He was resurrected from the grave, showing his victory over sin and death. This is love: to pay for sin and make a way to be free of it. Calling sin right isn’t love or even tolerance. It’s simply an invitation to continue in slavery. Go forth and sin no more.


[1] You can find the questionnaire at Accessed 1/5/2014.

[2] In case you missed it, that was my complex way of saying masturbation is wrong.

[3] Not only does it condemn homosexual intercourse, it also condemns cross-dressing. See Deut 22:5.

[4] “Bad Reasons for Changing One’s Mind”, Robert Gagnon, Ph.D., March 1, 2004, © Robert Gagnon, 2004,, accessed 1/5/14. This is a great article and worthy of reading.

Cigarettes, Alka-Seltzer, and The Devil Wears Prada

I have a colleague who refers to marketing as “voodoo”. But marketing isn’t voodoo. Voodoo is the attempt to manipulate spirits through the ceremonial use of lifeless artifacts. Marketing is the attempt to influence the minds of people to spend their hard-earned cash (or precious energy) on lifeless artifacts (or ideas, deadly or otherwise). As such, marketing is much more powerful than voodoo and certainly more dangerous. This is about the darker side of marketing, not its more beneficial uses.

Modern marketing techniques can trace their way back to the Father of Spin, Edward L. Bernays. Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, is perhaps the first professional public relations man. In the 1920s, George Washington Hill, the president of the American Tobacco Company, had a problem. In his view, nearly half of the adult American population wouldn’t even consider lighting up one of his products. You see, in that day only men and prostitutes smoked publicly. Hill hired Bernays to solve his problem.[1] Bernays in turn orchestrated one of the most successful publicity stunts in history. He hired twelve lovely young models to march as suffragette activists in the 1929 Easter Parade in New York City. He called them the Torches of Liberty Brigade.[2] He then told the press that a group of women’s rights marchers would light up “Torches of Freedom.” On his signal, the models lit Lucky Strike cigarettes in front of eager photographers. The resulting media storm helped break the taboo against women smoking in public.[3] Sales of Lucky Strike cigarettes tripled over the next year.[4]

The CDC reports that one of the most common advertisement themes for cigarettes in developed countries is that smoking is both a passport to and a symbol of the independence and success of the modern woman.[5] Edward Bernays lives on. The American Cancer Society estimates that cigarette smoking is responsible for the death of an estimated 173,940 women annually in the United States alone.[6] (I told you marketing could be dangerous.)

Herta Herzog, another Freudian marketeer, had a simple suggestion to help double the sales of Alka-Seltzer. “You show a hand dropping an Alka-Seltzer tablet into a glass of water. Why not show the hand dropping two? You’ll double your sales.”[7] And so it was. And you may chuckle at the simplicity of the manipulation, but let me ask you something. Did the “Pop, pop, fizz, fizz” jingle just go through your head as you read this? (I told you marketing was powerful.)

In The Devil Wears Prada,[8] the protagonist, Andy Sacks (played by Anne Hathaway), is a somewhat serious young woman who believes she expresses some of her individualism through a blithe disregard of fashion and a disdain for haute couture. The antagonist, Miranda Priestly (brilliantly portrayed by Meryl Streep), deliciously dispossess her of her illusion of independence. After explaining how it came to be that the cerulean colored sweater that Andy is wearing came to be manufactured, Miranda says, “it’s sort of comical how you think you’ve made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you’re wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room from a pile of stuff.”[9] A fictional scene, yes; but one which is loaded with truth. (One need only examine the history of swimwear to see the intentional manipulation of social mores by the avant-garde fashion industry.)

I share these vignettes simply to demonstrate how susceptible to suggestion we are as people. Products, practices, and social shifts take on popularity in viral fashion and we comfort ourselves with the idea that it is happenstance—the perfect storm—when in fact it is more often than not driven by influence peddlers. The world around us and the drivers of that world seek to mold and shape us to their agendas, uses, and enrichment. We are foolish to disregard the danger. Of course, it’s nothing new. In 57 A.D., Paul of Tarsus wrote to the fledgling church in Rome warning them to “not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” (Romans 12:2) If as Christians we do not continually adjust our thinking and outlook to align with Scripture, we will fall prey to the marketers of the world’s ideals;[10] which brings me to current issues.

I know of a good many well-meaning Christians who hold a pro-choice position under the guise of being pro-woman, not pro-abortion. I also know of other well-meaning Christians who support gay marriage under the guise of human rights. But this isn’t happenstance or even love (true love doesn’t encourage self or other destructive behavior). It is conformity to a long campaign of successful marketing. A reductionist line of this marketing campaign takes us from Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 to Einstadt v. Baird in 1972 to Roe v. Wade in 1973 to Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

Griswold v. Connecticut was a case precipitated by Estelle Griswold, who was the executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Its intention was to have contraceptive laws in Connecticut struck down by the Supreme Court. The Court’s decision cited the 14th Amendment as its reason for deeming the law unconstitutional and fabricated from whole cloth a constitutional right to privacy. It became the precedent for what followed.

Eisenstadt v. Baird was used to extend contraceptive rights to unmarried couples, essentially granting legal status to fornication and cohabitation.

Roe v. Wade, as you most likely know, is the famous case that resulted in the legalization of abortion in the United States. What you may not know is that it was the fruit of the active pole positioning of Sarah Weddington, a lawyer who considered her own career and success worth the murder of her unborn child in 1967.[11]

Lawrence v. Texas legalized sodomy in the United States. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent of the Court’s decision:

Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct…. [T]he Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.

In doing so, Scalia warned, the Court had undercut the States’ rights to make laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity.[12]

Our culture extols the virtues of fornication. Adultery is standard shtick for evening melodramas and public figures. Obscenity is ubiquitous. Prostitution is legal only in certain counties of Nevada, but is practiced nationwide. To date, eighteen states have legalized gay marriage (in no small part because making it illegal is fraught with difficulty even when done through legal democratic process). A federal district court just punched a hole in Utah’s anti-bigamy law. Some have taken Scalia to task for the slippery-slope argument that he embraced in his dissent, but the slide continues. How long before we are forced to legalize the rest of the list and beyond?

Simply put, legal doesn’t equate to moral. Popular isn’t necessarily beneficial. And public opinion is all too easily molded by those with the resolve, skill, and dedication to accomplish it. Let’s not fall prey to their devices. Let’s arm ourselves with the Truth. Let’s live a renewed life.

[1], accessed 12/29/13.
[2] Dr. Tim O’Shea, 2001, “The Doors of Perception: Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything”,, accessed 12/29/13
[3], accessed 12/29/13.
[4], accessed 12/29/13.
[5], accessed 12/29/13.
[6], accessed 12/29/13.
[7] As told by Malcolm Gladwell in What the Dog Saw, © 2009 by Malcolm Gladwell, p. 93-94. When I grow up, I want to be able to write as well as Malcolm!
[8] Please note that any mention of a film is not an endorsement thereof. Watch any film I mention at your own risk and discretion.
[9], accessed 12/29/13.
[10] In the face of the free Garden, the Serpent sold the woman the only fruit she didn’t need. (Genesis 3:1-6) The Lord accused him of dishonest merchandizing. (Ezekiel 28:18)
[11]–or-notoriety–came-early.ece, accessed 12/29/13.
[12], accessed 12/29/13.