STILL ON PATROL

TIGER WOODS AND THE PUBLIC’S “RIGHT TO KNOW”

You have probably heard by now – Tiger Woods had a minor motor vehicle accident around 2:30 a.m. Friday morning.  He drove out of his driveway and promptly hit a fire hydrant and tree.  His air bags did not deploy.  His wife, Elin, used a golf club and broke out on or more back windows to get him out.  He was taken to a hospital, reportedly with facial lacerations and bruises.   There are inconsistencies in the story, no doubt.

 

And, as of Monday when I am writing this, he has refused to be interviewed by the Florida Highway Patrol, which he has every legal right to do.  He has provided his license, registration, and proof of insurance.  He has issued a statement saying that the accident was his fault, was embarrassing, and that he would say no more.  He also says all of the “scurrilous rumors” are “false.”

 

This morning we are hearing reports that the FHP is seeking warrants for his medical records to “verify whether his injuries were consistent with the motor vehicle accident”, or a “possible domestic abuse” situation.  Added into the mix is a recent National Enquirer report that Woods was having an affair with a woman from New York, and that the woman has hired Gloria Allred, an attorney from Los Angeles. 

 

The big debate is now whether Tiger should publicly ‘fess up and tell the whole story of what happened.  Those who claim he should cite to the ubiquitous, and largely non-existent, “public’s right to know.”  Curiosity about the private lives of celebrities, does not, my friends, equate to any “right to know.”

 

As a starting point, there is no such thing as a “public’s right to know” in the Constitution, nor is there such a broad concept embodied in any statutory law.  There are certain specific statutory rights to obtain information from governmental bodies, such as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for Federal matters, and Open Records laws for state and local entities in Kentucky. 

On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is a “right to privacy” inherent in the Ninth Amendment, which states:  “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments have also been cited as part of an overall right to privacy.

Where we are talking about elected officials entrusted with public funds, there should clearly be a “public’s right to know” how our money is being used and our public matters are being conducted.  This extends to personal matters when those matters involve use of public funds, dishonesty, or interfere with the ability of public officials to do their duties.  South Carolina’s Gov. Mark Sanford and his affair with a Brazilian woman comes to mind as an example.  Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky are another. Yet, at some point, even elected officials retain a right to their own privacy.

 

There is simply no “public’s right to know” when it comes to matters such as this car wreck, or why it happened, with Tiger Woods.  Even if there turns out to be something beyond a simple car wreck, it should be handled within the bounds of the applicable legal system, not on the front pages of tabloids or on television talk shows.  In my opinion, the FHP with its press releases has gone over the line into publicity-land.

 

Some have suggested that because Woods is a public figure, or that he has used his “image” to gain endorsement deals, the public is somehow entitled to invade his life.  This is simply not so.  His endorsements, and his public appeal as a nonpareil golfer, may well be harmed by his silence, but that is his choice.  Endorsement contracts, just like the purchase of tickets to an event, or tuning in the television, are all business relationships at their heart, and we all have the “right” to disengage if we disapprove.

 

Barring some new, factual and legal developments in this story, Tiger Woods has every right to maintain his privacy as he sees fit.  Simply because our culture is polluted by paparazzi and entertainment media who try to invade the lives of anyone who may be enjoying their fifteen minutes of fame, does not give to the public any “right to know.” 

Dr. Radner Sends Chane's Argument For Same-Sex Marriage Spiraling Into the Dust

The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner has posted an extremely well-written piece on November 25, on The Living Church refuting, point-by-point, John Chane's recent column on the Washington Post's weblog entitled "A Christian Case for Same-Sex Marriage."

The entire essay by Dr. Radner deserves reading, so I will only give you a few tasty bits before you hie thee hence.  Dr. Radner says of Chane's purported purpose to set the record straight on the history of marriage in Christian denominations:  "Alas, as a short history his remarks cannot be taken seriously at all, but amount to a tissue of popular myths, used to promote a tired and unfounded historical perspective whose application now has a track record of political intolerance."

After a surgically-precise rhetorical destruction of Chane's argument, Dr. Radner concludes: 

Bishop Chane’s logic, in making all his (largely unfounded) points, is that “our evolving understanding of what marriage is leads, of necessity, to a re-examination of who it is for.” That is, we now believe marriage is about mutual love, but we didn’t before; we now believe it has spiritual, not just economic, potential, but we didn’t before; and therefore, if we can change in this direction, we can apply these insights to same-sex partnerships. Bishop Chane’s rhetoric of “continual change” masks his argument’s many weaknesses: the purported changes never really took place as described, and never moved logically or closely in the direction of same-sex marriage. His argument and conclusion are false.

 

There have been changes, to be sure, in attitudes toward marriage and sexual expression over the centuries within the Church. But these have almost always taken place within much broader and deeper continuities: God’s creative purpose in procreative life among human families; the sacramental — that is divinely permanent and expressive — character of human marriage between men and women; the virtues and spiritual gifts embedded in the material struggle of procreative families; the symbolic efficacy of such struggle and attendant gifts in being joined to the work and image of Christ Jesus in his final work of reconciliation.

 

Dr. Radner then explains that this is more than a theological or philosophical argument: 

 

Finally, it is important to point out that the errors in this picture are not merely the mistakes of the misinformed. They serve a political purpose within Bishop Chane’s church whose malice cannot be overlooked. Bishop Chane writes that “the proposed legislation would not force any congregation to change its religious teachings or bless any couple.” Perhaps. But Bishop Chane’s own church sees the matter very differently in many instances when it comes to ecclesiastical authority. Episcopal dioceses and Anglican dioceses elsewhere in North America now routinely refuse to ordain candidates who oppose church blessings of same-sex marriage. Bishop Chane’s own former diocesan communications officer routinely called for the removal from church councils of Anglicans opposed to same-sex blessings. “For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?” (Luke 23:21): Chane’s assurances of “freedom” in the civil sphere ring hollow given his own stunning lack of support for theological and pastoral equality in the Episcopal Church.

 

As Thanksgiving weekend 2009 winds to a close, I give thanks for clear-eyed theologians such as Dr. Radner who still recognize the importance of saying "NO" when people such as Chane try to use their position, access to media, and the sophistry of words to paint a false picture of the Christian faith and its history.  Most people are not well-read of the Bible, much less the development and history of Christianity and its institutions such as marriage, and the Chanes, Spongs, and Schoris of the world, knowing this is the case, abuse their positions to advance their own political and secular agendae to the detriment of the truth.

 

The ultimate destruction of the Episcopal Church will thus not be based upon same-sex marriage, womens' ordination, or the politically-correct watering-down of the Book of Common Prayer.  These are but the symtoms of the deeper disease.  It will be a direct and proximate result of the abandonment by such "leaders" as these of the very basic theology and tenets of Christianity as it was handed down by the Saints and preserved for us in the Scriptures.  It is the progression of liberal, revisionist philosophy that sees the Bible as a cafeteria line from which they can pick and choose those tasty dishes they like while ignoring those more bitter ones that restrict their feel-good view of life.

 

Thank you, Dr. Radner.

Patrick Kennedy vs. The Roman Catholic Church

For those of us old enough to remember, the Kennedy family has long been identified with the Roman Catholic Church, dating even beyond the 1960 Presidential election in which his Catholicism was a major obstacle in JFK's bid for office against Richard M. Nixon.

Now, though, there has been a rather public falling-out between Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of Providence, RI, and 8-term Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy, son of the Late Edward Kennedy.  This falling out is not over Kennedy's 2006 DUI conviction or his rehabilitation stint at the Mayo Clinic for drug addiction.  Rather, Bishop Tobin has become exasperated over Kennedy's public position on abortion rights and the current health-care debate.

Apparently, in a February 2007 letter to Kennedy, Bishop Tobin said, “In light of the church’s clear teaching, and your consistent actions, I believe it is inappropriate for you to be receiving holy communion and I now ask respectfully that you refrain from doing so.”  Kennedy's revelation of his being banned from receiving Communion included an accusation that the Bishop had instructed all clergy under his supervision to deny Communion to Kennedy, which the Bishop denies doing.

The allegation by Rep. Kennedy, is the most recent escalation in the dispute between the men that began after Kennedy criticized the nation’s Catholic bishops for threatening to oppose health care "reform" unless it tightened restrictions on publicly financed abortion.

The New York Times reports: "In an interview with Cybercast News Service on Oct. 21, Mr. Kennedy said he could not understand “how the Catholic Church could be against the biggest social justice issue of our time,” a reference to expanding health insurance, adding that its stance was fanning “flames of dissent and discord.”   Bishop Tobin, in response, said Kennedy's claim to be a Catholic was "false advertising", and made this comment directed to Rep. Kennedy:  ”If you freely choose to be a Catholic, it means you believe certain things, you do certain things.  If you cannot do all that in conscience, then you should perhaps feel free to go somewhere else.”

Does this mean Kennedy will break with family tradition and perhaps become an Episcopalian?  In light of the Pope's recent invitation to Anglicans to join the Roman Catholic Church, one would have to believe that TEO is salivating at the prospect to pick off such a high-profile member of a traditionally Catholic family.  If this does happen, that noise you will hear from New England is two generations of Kennedys spinning in their graves.

The broader point from all this is that Kennedy is but another example of liberal politicians in this country, not to mention liberal clergy, having a belief that they can have it any way they like when it comes to having principles.  The Kennedys' Catholicism has become a political talisman that has endeared them to generations of Catholic New Englanders, who keep sending them to Congress and other elected positions.  Yet, for reasons that are inexplicable, they feel no need to follow Catholic teachings in their political positions.  As Bishop Tobin said, this is "false advertising."

TEO likewise does not see its own inconsistency.  It sees no wrong in unilaterally rejecting the teachings of 2000 years of Biblical Christianity, much less the officially-stated position of the Anglican Communion, while at the same time clinging to calling itself both a Christian and an Anglican church.  Much of the debate, and litigation, ongoing within the North American version of Anglicanism is not so much theological as it is in who may claim possession of the label "Anglican."  The question of why the liberal revisionists won't just go their unitarian universalist way and be honest about it has never been answered.

Patrick Kennedy would make a good Episcopalian.

Textbook Changes Are Imperiling Education

There have been several stories in the news lately about textbook changes that are being debated around the United States, most particularly in the State of Texas.  Why should we care about Texas if we do not live there?  Textbook publishers will tell you that they are usually compelled to go along with changes proposed by the larger states - Texas, California, New York - because they sell so many books there.  In other words, if the big states make a change, it is likely to show up in Kentucky, or your state, at the same time.

The proposed Texas changes reflect the growth of political correctness and multiculturalism as a driving force in the re-writing of history, civics, and many other courses.  For example, in proposed social studies textbooks, Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower have been deleted from lists of significant persons in the development of America, and have been replaced by Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates.  While no one can debate that the latter two have had some significant impact, adding them at the expense of two men who led this country through a World War, and who were both President of the U.S. is, well, idiotic.

Another proposed change equates Cesar Chavez with Benjamin Franklin as significant political figures.  I will grant that Mr. Chavez is responsible for many significant changes in the treatment of agricultural workers. But, there is no way possible to compare his accomplishments to those of Benjamin Franklin, who was a central, instrumental figure in our obtaining freedom from England, as well as in forming this country and creating our poor, forsaken Constitution.

Some other proposed changes include no longer referring to the "Founding Fathers" (too sexist) and instead calling them "The Framers," which sounds more like a carpentry crew for a production home builder.  References to Mt. Rushmore are being deleted because it is deemed offensive to some Native American groups.  "Senior citizens" (itself once a politically-correct term) are now simply referred to as "older persons".  Why not "age-challenged Americans"?  Geography textbooks no longer use the term "jungle" - they're now "rain forests."  Home economics textbooks have deleted references to any foods that are deemed "unhealthy", so that, as we do in so many contexts, we simply sweep anything thought of as "bad" under the rug, as if it will go away.

My pet peeve is by now old news.  We are long past the time when references to the American Civil War have been dumbed down to the single statement "Lincoln freed the slaves."  Never mind that in doing so we therefore ignore the entire panoply of economic, political, and social issues that not only triggered that War, but have everything to do with understanding our country today, including how the Federal government has strayed so totally from the "Framers" intent when they wrote the Constitution.  Thanks to Mr. Lincoln compelling the South to remain in the Union by force of arms, the power of the Federal government has since then morphed into the all-powerful, over-reaching entity it is today.

George Santayana said, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."  In this politically-correct, multicultural day and age, we cannot "learn from" history because by and large we do not even learn it at all.  Rather, as Gustave Flaubert said, "Our ignorance of history causes us to slander our own times."

Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, described the phenomenon of how history is treated thusly:  "the charm of history and its enigmatic lesson consists in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different."  Mr. Huxley correctly understood that the tendency of man is to re-write our history to suit our own times, not the eras which preceded us and in which history was made. 

This phenomenon, of course, has been spread to all academic disciplines, not just in social studies or history.  The sciences, geography, home economics, everything, have felt the eraser of political correctness and multiculturalism, placing the documents by which teachers are supposed to educate our children solidly in the realm of bland, edited, revised nonsense, or, if you will, dishonesty, in the sense of failing to teach our children the truth from which they can make their own judgments as they grow, and substituting for it the "brave new world" of bland pablum.

The source of this problem is in two parts.  One, there are too many groups from various ends of the political spectrum who are too willing to take offense at nothing, and thus demand that their own politics, philosophies, and value systems be reflectes in textbooks.  Two, there are too many politicians and weak-willed political appointees running school systems, who lack the spine to tell the special interest groups to butt out.  The losers?  Our children, who receive less and less honest, useful education year by year.  We wonder why we continue to fall behind other countries in educational achievement, and I offer you this as one very significant component of the problem.

We are well past the time that politics, political correctness, and multiculturalism should be removed from educational decision-making, and relegated to be dissected in a Civics laboratory as so many dead frogs are in Biology.  Schools are not supposed to be political indoctrination camps.  The real purpose of education should be self-evident - EDUCATION.   It is not, and should not be, a political battleground upon which divergent ideologies seek to wrest control of our future.

Being PC Cannot Override Vigilance

As more details emerge about Nidal Malik Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter, it is becoming increasingly clear that someone should have kept a much closer eye on his activities.  Rather, he was allowed to run free at Ft. Hood, carrying guns, because too many people were too politically correct to bring his situation to the proper level of attention, and stop him.

We hear now that some of his psychiatric colleagues at Walter Reed Army Hospital thought he might be "psychotic."  Yet the Army merely transferred him to Ft. Hood and planned to deploy him to the Middle East?  A "psychotic" by definition is someone who suffers from "psychosis", defined as:  a mental illness that markedly interferes with a person's capacity to meet life's everyday demands. In a specific sense, it refers to a thought disorder in which reality testing is grossly impaired.  Symptoms can include seeing, hearing, smelling, or tasting things that are not there; paranoia; and delusional thoughts.

Couple that observation with these facts now coming to light:

• Hasan was heard by many medical colleagues espousing militant Islamist views as far back as medical school, which by the way was paid for by the U.S. Army. 
• Shortly before 9/11, Hasan became a commited jihadist and developed an increasing hostility to America's missions abroad. 
• Hasan attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists.  The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations. 
• Hasan's eyes "lit up" when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas. 

Hasan frequented websites with radical Islamist themes, and exchanged e-mails with some of the sites' authors. 

Hasan was paid a salary of over $90,000 annually, but from all appearances lived a very ascetic lifestyle.  Investigators are following leads that may show that Hasan sent money to radical Islamist groups.

One of the pistols used by Hasan was purchased a few weeks before the shootings at Ft. Hood, and is an FN Five-Seven, which costs over $1,000, and is capable of holding magazines with 20 to 30 rounds of armor-piercing ammunition.  In other words, a gun much more lethal than one owned for personal protection.

We also now know that Hasan was rejected for a position as a Muslim lay leader at the Army base because "something just didn't seem right," a mosque official revealed. 

Osman Danquah, co-founder of the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen, said he was deeply troubled by two conversations with Hasan over the summer. Hasan seemed incoherent and obsessed with the question of what to tell soldiers about fighting fellow Muslims.

Many of these facts were known to either Army personnel, or the FBI, well prior to last week's shootings, yet we are also hearing that no action was taken to investigate Hasan further, or remove him from situations in which he might be a threat, for fear of being accused of acting in a discriminatory fashion against Hasan because of his Muslim faith.  "Profiling" has become such a negatively-perceived word in this country that we now go too far in the other direction and regularly and repeatedly have sacrificed vigilance on the PC altar of "what-if-we're-wrong-we-might-offend-someone." 

No one should be harassed, or denied employment, because of their particular religious faith.  But when that faith causes someone to espouse threatening ideologies, and associate with known enemies of this country, then more can and should be done.  In the weeks before the shootings, Hasan had obviously been readying himself for something by getting rid of his personal possessions, and by buying the FN 5-7 handgun.  Did this not ring any bells with anyone aware of his radical jihadist views?  Or was this another occasion where the right hand of our government did not know what the left hand knew?

The same government that is even now trying to micro-manage our lives with its cap-and-trade and health care "reform" legislation, and perpetrate such things as possible jail terms for failure to procure health insurance, at the same time cautions us to not "jump to conclusions" about the likes of Hasan.  How utterly offensive can they be?  Hasan was a known threat about whom nothing was done for fear of somehow "offending" his radical jihadist sensibilities. 

When will we learn?  Not only is the PC-driven sensibility of much of this country flat-out irritating, it is creating situations in which we are hamstrung to do anything to protect ourselves from obvious threats.  Hasan should have been rounded up long before he walked into the Ft. Hood processing center and opened fire, or at minimum kept under much closer surveillance so that when he made his inevitable move he could be intercepted.  Instead, thirteen soldiers have now needlessly sacrificed their lives in their country's service on the plains of Texas.

When will we learn?

TEO Poll on Strategic Planning - More Blather

Pravda Episcopal Life Online recently published an article regarding the poll results generated by an Executive Council subcommittee on strategic planning.  The poll, released in June, was available on line, as well as in a booth at GenCon 09 in Anaheim.  Some 6,700 people responded, of which some 5,200 were laity.

As with any statistical exercise conducted by polling, the manner of framing the context and the questions has much to do with the outcome.  This poll began with the following assumption: "imagine the year as 2019, and the Episcopal Church is even more vital and thriving than it is today".  So, from the get-go, this poll invited participants into Fantasyland, apropo to the convention being close to nearby Disneyland.  Respondents were then asked to arrange, in order of importance, a series of eleven actions toward achieving that goal.

According to ELO, "The five areas called "very important" by a clear majority of respondents were, in descending order: reaching youth and young adults; evangelism/proclaiming the good news of Christ; worship, music and liturgy; leadership; and strengthening congregations.  The six least important areas, in descending order were: multicultural inclusion; advocacy and social justice; stewardship; clarity of denominational mission; planting new churches and communities of faith; and church administration, coordination and structure."

The report of the results also includes a sampling of what the Committee called "revealing, frank, and informative comments", such as: 

• "Remember that the Episcopal Church historically has been tolerant of a broad range of opinion within the faith, conservative and liberal, and any strategic plan should ensure that all remain welcome."
• "Find ways to articulate the uniqueness of the Episcopal Church as one Christian denomination that is truly welcoming to all and truly motivated to strive for justice and peace among all people and to respect the dignity of every human being."
• "Our future is with the young people, people who don't have the baggage of the last 30 years of inter-Anglican fights, and who are post-modern enough to understand post-liberal and post-conservative."

Where to begin?  As with many such exercises, polls like this are so obviously designed for two, illusory purposes:  (1)  To allow people who are so inclined to  have a feeling that they had "input" into the organization's future; and (2) to provide leadership with fodder from which they can cherry-pick comments and data to support the strategy that has been in place since long before the poll was taken.  Does anyone out there really think the Presiding Heretic would change one iota of her agenda and "strategic plan" based on poll results?

The announced poll results indicate to me that it is increasingly clear that there is little place for conservative thought in TEO.  The poll was skewed from the outset to bring the results it obtained, and there is little reason to believe that any faction of the present Executive Council wanted it any other way.  Given that a large percentage of respondents were recruited from among deputies at GenCon 09, and what we know was done by those deputies in the convention itself, there are no surprises or revelations to be had in this "poll."

I am always interested in such self-serving comments as "our future is with the young people."  Ya think?  There is already sufficient data about the aging of TEO membership, and that part of the declining membership is that more Episcopalians are dying than there are new, younger members being brought in.  The idea that "inclusivity", however, is the panacea to attract "youth" runs contra to many other, more objective polls and studies into what is driving those religious denominations that are thriving in today's world.  Rather, the non-biased data shows that more and more young people are attracted to something that is strong and consistent, and holds them to a higher standard by which they live their lives. 

Such things as "inclusivity" and "tolerance for a broad range of opinion" are truly passe and emblematic of a generation of counter-culturalists who have now passed into leadership in TEO even as they no longer represent the mores of a growing fction of modern society.  Study after study that are available to TEO leadership, but surely have been rejected by them, show that young people are looking for a solid rock upon which to attach their faith and trust, and their children's future.  Can you spell B-I-B-L-E?

The comment about young people not having the "baggage of inter (sic) Anglican fights" is very revealing.  As should be expected, this comment reveals that the liberal factions of TEO have indeed consumed the Kool-Aid being put out by the Presiding Heretic, that the orthodox are the villains in this set-piece, and are the "baggage" that TEO needs to jettison if it is to reach its illusory 2019 status.   The perfect recruit for TEO is someone who can be succked in by their "social justice" mantra and is not really looking for a Biblically-based set of standards and beliefs.  Sadly for TEO, the majority of young people in today's world are looking for more than a 60's-era flower-power world. 

Such comments about "baggage" are not only lacking in understanding of the reason for intra-Anglican fights, but are entirely counter to the notion of being "tolerant of a broad range of opinion."  TEO is not, and will not be so long as current leadership is in place, "tolerant" of any "opinion" other than that held by such leadership.  Any variation is quickly condemned as not being "in Communion" with TEO, and is shown the door.

Ultimately, these poll results are worthless other than as fodder for the agenda already in place.  TEO is not interested in real "revealing, frank, and honest" comments - those are tantamount to an "abandonment of Communion" and most certainly are not to be "tolerated."  There is, at the bottom line, nothing to be gained or learned as a result of this "poll."

Gay Marriage Supporters Have Wrong Perspective

I saw a newspaper photo today from a pro-gay marriage rally in Maine, the latest battleground in that issue's spreading war.  A person was holding a sign that said, "We All Deserve the Freedom to Marry."  The thought pattern that produced that sign, which reflects the approach of much of the LGBT lobby on this issue, is simply and patently wrong.

First, just who is "we all"?  All people?  Or all gays?  Or all Mainers?  I'm confused.

The Word "deserve" is in and of itself troubling.  According to my dictionary, "deserve" means "to be worthy of; merit."  In that sense, are they advocating some sort of condition precedent to marriage, such as a maturiy level to commit to one another?  Or are they saying that gays are somehow more "deserving" of the institution of marriage than heterosexuals?  There are legal requirements for marriage, such as age, but to argue that one "deserves" to marry is at best a misnomer.

My real problem, though, and the point of this post, is the phrase "Freedom to Marry."  I don't really think there is any such thing.  Marriage has two components, only one of which is a legal requirement.  As a matter of civil law, marriage is a state of existence that is recognized for certain purposes.  Tax filing status; health insurance coverage; rights of inheritance; rights of determination such as health care issues; and certain other, specific purposes exist for which it makes a legal difference if two individuals are legally married.  Under the broad, sovereign powers of the states, they can each determine as a matter of state law what persons can achieve the legal status of "married."  Thus, Massachussetts, and several other states have decided to allow gay marriage, while several others have not.

But this is not a fundamental "freedom" that is anywhere enumerated in our Constitutional system of laws.  Some would argue this as an issue of "equal protection under the laws", but to do so is to stretch the meaning of the Equal Protection clause far beyond its original intent and purpose.  Otherwise, gay marriage is not enumerated as is freedom of speech, religion, assembly, bearing arms, and the other freedoms we are granted by our system of laws.  Rather, it is a matter of each state defining those persons who may qualify for the status as "married."

The other component of "marriage" that comes into play in some couples is the religious.  Most religions have provisions for granting and/or blessing a marriage within their ecclesiology.  This has little to do with the civil union I mentioned above; religious ceremonies must be conducted by someone who is also licensed by the state to do so for them to have legally binding effect.  Religious denominations have varying requirements for a couple to become recognized as married - our very freedom of religion allows for each different group to set its own standards.  This freedom, however, is not a "freedom of marriage."

The idea of a "freedom of marriage" is perhaps a good marketing move to appeal to Americans, who tend to treasure our fundamental freedoms at some level.  It is, however, an incorrect basis under which to consider the significant step of legal recognition of "marriage."  The issue is more whether recognition of gay marriage would confer some sort of benefit on society as a whole, and whether it is consistent with our guiding principles and standards.  That is a much more difficult question.

UPDATE:  The voters of the State of Maine appear to have passed a referendum to repeal a state law allowing gay marriages.  With almost 90% of the precincts reporting, the pro-repeal vote had a 53% to 47% margin.

The misperception of the meaning of this vote, however, continues.  One proponent of gay marriage has been quoted as saying, "It hurts. It hurts personally. "It's a personal rejection of us and our relationship, and I don't understand what the fear is."  Ah, yes, the "homophobia" card by another name, plus trying for sympathy by claiming personal rejection.

I have talked to many people about this issue, and I have yet to meet anyone who "fears" anyone from the LGBT lobby.  If there is fear, it is about what may happen to American society if we start down this slippery slope of providing legal recognition to such relationships.  There has long been a societal norm, based in large part upon the reproductive biology with which we have been created.  There remains considerable debate and no scientifically accepted understanding of homosexuality - the "nature vs. nurture" question remains unresolved.  If society chooses, in a democratically-conducted manner, to not venture into the unknown realm of recognition of gay marriage, then that is the legal and Constitutional right of each sovereign state to make that choice.

This debate needs to be removed from the emotional, fear-based accusations being used by the LGBT, and into the arena of facts.  What would it mean, in a civil-legal context, if LGBT relationships were to become eligible for "married-filing-jointly" tax status?  For family coverage in health insurance plans?  To make spousal decisions in health care and inheritance settings?  In countries and states where LGBT marriages are allowed, how do these relationships compare to heterosexual ones?  On all of these bases, is gay marriage something that should be allowed in a civil, secular context?  Why, or why not?

Approval by religious denominations and the availability of rites of marriage is, and should be, a wholly different question.  Each denomination should look to its historic principles and abide by them, in my opinion.  Those who cannot abide by the principles should feel free to break away and form their own denomination, and not hijack that which is existing and is established.  Unlike TEO.

Kentucky's Soggy and Cold October

The just-concluded month of October in Kentucky was both the coldest and wettest in a very long time.  We had only two (2) days on which the high temperature was over 70 degrees, when at least six is the average.  The average daily temperature in central Kentucky was 3.5 degrees below normal.   The high temperature on October 17 was 47, a record low "high".

We received some 3 inches more rain than normal - 5.77 inchese compared to an average of 2.7 inches.  For the year, Kentucky has already received 49 inches of rain, with two months to go.  Our normal year is 46 inches of rain.  it has been our eight-wettest October since record-keeping began.

So, Al Gore, where is this global warming stuff?

"Broad Center" of TEO? Very Revealing...

I was catching up on some reading over the weekend and finally got to see the Pravda Episcopal Life Online article about six TEO Bishops travelling to Canterbury to meet with Archbishop Rowan Williams.  These six TEO Bishops identified themselves as representing the "broad center" of TEO, whatever that is.  I don't know much about Daniel, Curry, Powell, Gregg or Marble, but I was downright amused to see that the sixth member of the delegation was none other then DioLex's Stacy Sauls.

Sauls, of course, is the Bishop whose own "Special Commission" from a couple of years ago told him in no undertain terms that he needed to stay home in DioLex and do his job instead of running around with TEO affairs.  Given Sauls' activities on the HOB property litigation committee (a/k/a the Presiding Heretic's Greek chorus), and now this trip to England, and his time in Wales pursuing a doctorate in Canon Law, looks like he hasn't been listening.   DioLex may be better off that he hasn't been around that much.

Like I said, I don't know the other five Bishops, so perhaps guessing what being the "broad center" means is a dangerous game.  But let me say this - if the other five see themselves in the same ecclesiological and theological group as Sauls, this news is not good for TEO.  Sauls was once heard to say, during the time he was in the running for Presiding Bishop/Heretic, that he hoped to be seen as a "moderate hard-ass."  Ask anyone involved in litigation with TEO, or who has crossed him in DioLex - he's got the "hard-ass" part down pat.  Pastoral?  Fuhgettaboutit.

"Moderate"?  Not really.  I know I've quoted Sauls in this space before, but given his new role as an emissary to Canterbury, some of it bears repeating.  In speaking to a group of Episcopalians (who are now Anglicans) who had become disaffected with TEO, Sauls was asked about his personal theology.  As for the Bible, he said "it is a nice book of history with some poetry" and that "all you need for salvation is in the Book of Common Prayer."  Sauls does not much believe in sin or the idea of there being a Hell - he thinks God "will work it all out for us in the end."  In other words, he's somewhere out there with the Presiding Heretic, whom we all know is anything but a Christian leader.  The bad news is that this probably does represent a significant portion of the HOB.

The reports of the 90-minute meeting with the Archbishop are nothing but Episco-speak.  "We came away with a deeper appreciation and understanding of one another and I think we came away with a greater sense of knowledge of where he stands and his support for us as we seek to nurture the strong, broad center of the Episcopal Church," said Gregg.  Sauls said the conversation was frank and substantive. "I leave the meeting very much aware of how encouraged and hopeful I am about our life," he said.  Do they have courses in talking like this? 

What does it mean?  That six TEO Bishops dropped some substantial sum of the church's money for another useless trip to London, that could have been accomplished by a video conference for several thousand dollars less.  Will anything improve or change as a result of this meeting?  Nah.  Are you kidding me?  So why did they go?  Remember the seven conservative Bishops who went over to meet with +Williams about a month or so ago, to discuss whether Dioceses could sign onto the Anglican Covenant, among other things?  Uh-huh, tit for tat - everybody's got to go kiss the ABC's ring.  Anglican gamesmanship, n'est pas?

Walking Into the Crosshairs...

My mind is awash with the possibilities - I just found out that none other than the Presiding Heretic will be coming to Lexington, KY, on February 25-27, 2010, to be the keynote speaker at the Diocese of Lexington Annual Convention.  No doubt this is payback for the near-constant affixation of Stacy Sauls' lips to her backside, regardless of whether the issue has to do with his property litigation committee or not.

Should I try to slip into one of the meetings at which she is present and heckle her with questions about how she can be the leader of what is supposed to be a Christian denomination, yet she does not believe in the most basic tenets of Christianity?   Or perhaps organize a protest outside the building, get everyone to wear oven mitts on their head, and invite the news media, as a forum to talk about not only her Christianity issues, but her abuses of TEO's Constitution and Canons?  Or maybe just set up in the back of my truck and sell copies of Lest Ye Be Judged, my novel about the abduction and murder of an Episcopal Bishop? 

I am open to suggestions.....