Wednesday, March 27, 2013

FOXNews.com: When it comes to marriage, government should divorce itself

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
When it comes to marriage, government should divorce itself
Mar 27th 2013, 13:56

  • Supreme Court Gay Mar_Cala(2).jpg

    Kim Roberts, left, and her partner Lisa Mayes of Benicia, Calif. participate in a marriage equality rally on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at the Solano County Government Center in Fairfield before the Supreme Court hears arguments concerning the Defense of Marriage Act after it heard arguments contesting the constitutionality of the California's Proposition 8 on Tuesday. (AP Photo/The Reporter, Joel Rosenbaum)MANDATORY CREDIT

With the Supreme Court now hearing cases centering on the legality of a federal ban on gay marriage and California's ban on gay marriage, the real way our nation should address marriage rights is to get government out of the marriage business, altogether.

It never made sense to have state or federal government intrude into personal affairs by giving it the power to sanction and legitimize the loving commitment of one individual to another. That is a matter for the adults involved, who should share their intentions and vows in a ceremony with family, friends and any religious institutions they choose (or not), then sign any financial documents they see as being appropriate and, perhaps, exchange rings.  End of story.

If two adults are mature enough to get married, they should be mature enough to envision and codify how they will deal with their finances, should that marriage end.

The government's only interest should be in enforcing child support and fair child custody and visitation for each parent, in the event of a dissolution of the (government-free) marital bond.  Making certain that children do not descend into poverty, and spouses are not left without parental rights, would then be the only proper function of the state related to marriage—both triggered only when marriages end.  This would be no different than the state's current role in enforcing child support, custody and visitation in non-married couples.

The legal sanctioning of, or refusal to sanction, any loving union between adults is inherently laden with cultural values.  And if it is determined that love and commitment should be the sole driving force behind state and federal marriage laws, then it is utterly and completely illogical to deny five people who love one another the right to marry as a group.  Heterosexual government-sanctioned marriage leads logically to homosexual government-sanctioned marriage, which leads logically to polygamy.  Anyone who suggests otherwise is suggesting that government should play favorites and show prejudice.

If two men can marry, despite having no biological ability to reproduce (which some argue is the government's stake in heterosexual marriage) and without having both genders represented as role models in the household (which others argue is the government's stake in heterosexual marriage), then certainly two men and a woman can marry.  No one can credibly argue that three people cannot be in love, and the three-parent structure would offer the children of this marriage a mother and two fathers—role models of both genders, with 50 percent more earning capacity than a two-parent family and many advantages, in terms of built-in child care.

Government should not play favorites or show prejudice. And the proper next step for government to take is a major step out of our personal lives. This can be done by neither showing a preference for or against marriages, nor deciding who should marry whom. Instead, that should be left to people and their loved ones and their religious institutions, if any.

All state, federal and corporate (as in, health insurance) preferences shown married couples, as opposed to those who are not married, are inherently prejudicial.  There ought to be no distinction between the rules for filing taxes, whether one is married, or not.  Every individual should file taxes under the same set of rules.  There ought to be no government rubber stamp via government-sanctioned marriage of whether someone has the right to act on behalf of another individual who is too ill to make decisions. That should all be codified in a prenuptial agreement or other legal documents.  There ought to be no automatic inheritance of assets by spouses, which should be codified in a will.

The gay marriage debate is a sideshow in the bigger debate we must have:  Why was government so intrusive as to be involved in marriage, in the first place, and shouldn't government divorce itself from the concept of sanctioning marriage, altogether? 

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Obama cutback$ a tour de farce

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Obama cutback$ a tour de farce
Mar 27th 2013, 12:27

By

Published March 27, 2013

New York Post

  • CORRECTION Vatican Po_Cala.jpg

    In this photo provided by the Vatican paper L'Osservatore Romano, Pope Francis meets U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and his sister, Valerie Biden Owens, after his installation Mass at the Vatican on Tuesday, March 19, 2013. Pope Francis has urged princes, presidents, sheikhs and thousands of ordinary people gathered for his installation Mass to protect God's creation, the weakest and the poorest of the world. (AP Photo/L'Osservatore Romano)The Associated Press2013

Vice President Joe Biden's entourage racked up nearly $1 million in hotel bills in Europe last month, and a new report says a night in Paris added limo costs of $321,000. The Obamas went on three vacations this year, and the first daughters are in the Bahamas.

Meanwhile, the administration still cries poverty to block public tours of the White House. "Due to staffing reductions resulting from sequestration, we regret to inform you that White House Tours will be canceled effective Saturday, March 9, 2013, until further notice," its website reads. "We very much regret having to take this action."

Regret? The closure remains what it was from the start — a calculated scheme to inflict pain on the public, including schoolchildren, to pressure Republicans to restore the cuts.

Click for Michael Goodwin's full column in the New York Post

Michael Goodwin is a Fox News contributor and New York Post columnist.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

FOXNews.com: Marriage equality, the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice's cousin

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Marriage equality, the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice's cousin
Mar 26th 2013, 19:17

  • John Roberts.jpg

    Chief Justice John Roberts.AP

Today, the Supreme Court considered a case about whether voters in a state can pass a law that arguably violates the Constitution of the United States of America.  The case about to decide the fate of California's Prop 8 is tangled up with the details of legal procedure and constitutional interpretation to the point where some analysts speculate the Court might dodge a ruling altogether on technical grounds. 

But the details sort of don't matter --- what is really on trial this week is the future of equal treatment for gay Americans.  And the fact is, the tide is flowing forcefully in the direction of fairness and equality.  The Supreme Court will either ride the wave or try to block it or dodge it, but ultimately it doesn't really matter.   The tide has irrevocably turned.

The fundamental equality of gay Americans is lapping against every shore of America from the Bible Belt to the Republican National Committee.  A leader in the Southern Baptist Convention recently reported that young people within the conservative church think opposing same-sex marriage "feels intolerant."  The RNC "autopsy" report advised softening the party's stance on gay rights issues and prominent Republicans including Sen. Rob Portman have announced their support for marriage equality.  Republicans are finally catching up with mainstream public opinion, which has been quickly evolving to now-majority support for gay marriage.  And among the observers inside the Court today was Jean Podrasky, the lesbian cousin of Chief Justice John Roberts.  The Chief Justice, a conservative, gave Podrasky one of his private tickets.   

It's worth noting that even the lawyers defending Prop 8 aren't arguing against the morality of gay marriage but merely trying to say the matter should be left to the states.  Anti-gay bias and bigotry is quickly falling out of fashion.

Of course, the Supreme Court should not be swayed by personal sentiment or popular opinion.  A founding principle of our nation is that fundamental rights should never be subject to popular vote --- whether the right to equal treatment under the 14th Amendment or the right to own guns under the 2nd Amendment.  The judiciary exists to hold politicians and the people accountable to a higher standard, to ensure that majority rule doesn't trample on minority rights.  It is the job of the Supreme Court to hold federal, state and local governments accountable to our founding doctrines and the rule of law --- including the idea that government cannot pass a law discriminating against a group of people without a "legitimate purpose".

More than 1,138 rights and benefits at the federal level accrue to couples based on marriage, from inheriting assets tax free to accessing spousal visas for immigration purposes.  Gay couples don't want to change the marriages of straight couples in any way nor force religious institutions to perform weddings against their conscience.  This is simply about getting the same legal rights as other families.  In fact, the California's Prop 8 isn't really about marriage any more than anti-sodomy statutes were about sex.  The point of both was to enshrine second-class status for gay Americans.  And that is not a "legitimate purpose" for government discrimination. 

It is unclear from today's hearings how the Court might rule on Prop 8.  It remains entirely possible that the Court might dodge the substantive question or rule on narrow grounds that only affect the State of California and not the rest of the country.  Whatever it does, the rights of hundreds of thousands of families like mine will be profoundly affected by whatever the Supreme Court rules on two marriage equality cases it is hearing this week.  Without question, what the Court rules will make a difference in the short-term legal and political realities faced by same-sex couples. 

But when Martin Luther King spoke about justice rolling "down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream," he evoked the long arc of history that ultimately bends toward equal treatment and fairness for all.   The Supreme Court may hurry the pace of justice or slow it down or dodge it altogether, but the sanctioning of anti-gay bias and legalized discrimination against gay families will someday soon be nothing more than an ugly relic of the past. 

When Chief Justice Roberts was being confirmed for the Court, his lesbian cousin, a liberal, enthusiastically backed his appointment.  Why?  "He is family," she explained, articulating the shared values that we as a nation must continue to strive for as well.

Sally Kohn is a Fox News contributor and writer.  You can find her online at http://sallykohn.com or on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sallykohn.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Gay marriage incompatible with religious freedom

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Gay marriage incompatible with religious freedom
Mar 26th 2013, 19:51

The United States Supreme Court has concluded oral arguments on California's Proposition 8.

In this morning's briefing for RedState.com, I noted that gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible. The gay rights movement must drive from the town square those who disagree and must punish and silence those who refuse to surrender their belief that marriage is between a man and woman.

Many people howled in protest over email this morning, denying the incompatibility. The irony is that many howling against me will not be on the side of the church and Christian when the fight comes.

But the fight is already here.

- Christian photographers Elane Photography in New Mexico were approached by a same sex couple looking to hire a wedding photographer. Elane Photography politely declined citing their Christian faith and were sued by the couple under the state's anti-discriminatory laws, and won. In New Mexico you apparently have no right to your free expression and practice of faith any longer.

- In Lexington, Ky., a T-shirt shop called Hands On Originals was approached by the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization about printing shirts for the group. The T-shirt company politely declined and even sought out quotes and gave the group referrals to other T-shirt printers, along with comparable prices. They were promptly sued by the group under Lexington's anti-discriminatory laws and forced to comply with a lengthy investigation. The city's power-drunk human rights commission said the shop will be "required by law to participate in the investigation."

"We have subpoena power and have the backing of the law," Raymond Sexton, the executive director of the Human Rights Commission told Fox News."We are a law enforcement agency and people have to comply."

Leftist groups are trying to get the company evicted from their premises. The city now has school districts freezing their business with the privately owned company. Meanwhile, the owner of the company tried to defend his faith and decision in an op-ed in the paper.

- A Methodist church in New Jersey was sued for not offering its facility for use during same-sex weddings. A judge ruled against the church.

- A same-sex couple from California sued a Hawaiian bed and breakfast privately owned by a Christian woman for not allowing them to rent a room.

- A bed and breakfast in Alton privately owned by a Christian couple was sued when they would not host a same-sex civil union ceremony.

- Owners of a small, privately owned inn in Vermont declined to host a same sex wedding reception due to their religious views and were sued.

- An employee of Allstate insurance wrote an essay online disagreeing with same-sex marriage and was reportedly fired from his job as a result.

- Catholic Charities was barred from assisting in adoptions in Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., and Illinois and excluded from future contracts because it declined to consider same sex couples. Sorry kids, but the agenda impresarios need to make an example.

There are even more examples.  The fight has only just begun. Might as well stop trying to convince yourself it hasn't.

Erick Erickson is a Fox News contributor and editor of RedState.com.  Follow him on Twitter @EWErickson.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: In defense of Florida university's 'Jesus stomping' exercise

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
In defense of Florida university's 'Jesus stomping' exercise
Mar 26th 2013, 22:52

Florida Atlantic University is in crisis after a student was instructed to write the word "Jesus" on a piece of paper and stomp on it. One Mormon student refused to participate in the classroom activity, citing his Christian faith, and now he is rallying opposition nationwide. On Monday's "The O'Reilly Factor," Bill O'Reilly told Mary Katherine Ham and me he sees this case as part of an ongoing hostility to Christianity and conservatives on college campuses.

I disagree.

Bill asked me if I would defend the classroom exercise if the students had to stomp on the name "Mohammed." My answer is yes, absolutely. To my mind, there is no other intellectually honest answer for any American who believes in First Amendment rights.

The intent of the FAU classroom exercise is to promote critical thinking and draw attention to the sensitivity surrounding symbols in religion and politics. The best colleges encourage their students to question authority and challenge institutions – be it government, in business or in matters of religious faith. That is the best way to teach young people to avoid politically correct thinking.

It is worth noting that the instructor got the idea for this class exercise from a textbook on intercultural communication. According to book, the exercise is intended to show students the power of symbols. But the student took the class activity as an assault on his religious beliefs. As a fellow Christian who believes that Jesus Christ is my lord and savior, I strongly disagree with the young man.

In this Easter season, it is important to recall that a mob called on the government to crucify Jesus, and they did it. That was far worse than stepping on a piece of paper with his name on it. Yet the power of Christ crucified, his death and resurrection, has inspired people and saved lives across the centuries.

Stepping on a piece of paper, burning a flag or an effigy amount to symbolic acts. And the Supreme Court has ruled that even in the case of the flag, our national symbol, there is Constitutional protection.

When some Muslims rioted because a minister threatened to burn the Koran in anger at Islam, I saw it as an over-reaction to one provocative act. I have the same thought about the situation at FAU.

The university is embarrassed by the episode and has now issued an apology. It is posted on the front page of their main website: "This exercise will not be used again," they said in their statement. "The University holds dear its core values. We sincerely apologize for any offense this caused. Florida Atlantic University respects all religions and welcomes people of all faiths, backgrounds and beliefs."

"The course is taught by a non-tenured instructor on an annual appointment," according to the statement. "Contrary to some media reports, no students were forced to take part in the exercise; the instructor told all of the students in the class that they could choose whether or not to participate."

Moreover, the university denies that the student was suspended because of this episode:

In a statement to Fox News, they said: "While we do not comment on personnel matters, and while student privacy laws prevent us from commenting on any specific student at the University, we can confirm that no student has been expelled, suspended or disciplined by the University as a result of any activity that took place during this class."

Click here for the full story from Fox News Radio.

As Mary Katharine Ham, my debating partner on "The O'Reilly Factor," correctly noted during the segment, Americans have a right to say they don't like stepping on Jesus' name. But stopping the academic exercise is wrong.

The reaction against FAU and the teacher strikes me as an attempt to shut down free speech and silence educators who use provocative teaching methods.

Look on the Internet and you will see people calling for the teacher to be fired.

That disturbs me. What these critics want is to suppress free speech. That's not Christian. That's not American.

Juan Williams is a Fox News political analyst. He is the author of several books including "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It" and "Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Rewarding hate, intolerance, and broken promises – with taxpayer dollars

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Rewarding hate, intolerance, and broken promises – with taxpayer dollars
Mar 26th 2013, 19:00

  • obama israel.jpg

    March 21, 2013: President Barack Obama waves as he leaves the stage after speaking at the International Convention Center in Jerusalem.AP

Just days after President Obama left Israel, we learned that his administration quietly gave the green light to giving  nearly $500 million in taxpayer-funded aid to the Palestinian Authority.

The administration's memory must be short.

Roughly four months ago, the Palestinian Authority defied the Oslo Accords – and the U.S.  – by seeking and gaining non-member observer state status at the United Nations.

Just weeks ago – right before President Obama's visit – the Palestinian Authority's ruling Fatah party met with representatives from Hamas to implement the long-promised Palestinian "unity government" that would render the Palestinian people formally and officially terrorist-led.

It's past time for America to call the Palestinian's bluff.  There should be only one path to American aid – the path to peace. 

Taken together with President Obama's recent gift of $250 million to Muslim Brotherhood-led Egypt, America's taxpayers are now on the hook for three-quarters of a billion dollars in sequester-era stimulus for radical foreign governments with recent records of defying America and breaking treaties.

It is difficult to overstate the absurdity of these gifts.  The Palestinian Authority's hostility to Israel stretches back to its founding – and before.  In fact, the PA's founding father, Yasser Arafat, had a record of terrorism and bloodshed unmatched until Usama bin Laden burst onto the scene in the late 1990s. 

Among his many transgressions, Arafat was involved in the 1972 Munich Olympic Massacre and the 1973 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Sudan, where the U.S. Ambassador was murdered.  His reign of terror against Israel killed more Israeli civilians – on a per capita basis – than were killed during Bin Laden's 9/11 terrorist attack against the U.S.

Yet President Obama spoke to Palestinians while standing under a banner featuring Arafat's portrait.

The modern Palestinian Authority certainly became less violent once Israel erected the West Bank fence and militarily crushed its worst terrorist elements during the Second Intifada, but it still celebrates suicide bombers and draws its own maps and monuments without reference to Israel.  Palestinian textbooks are famous for their anti-Semitism, and entire generations of children are brought up to hate Jews.

In other words, they still haven't given up the dream of destroying Israel.

The pattern of American foreign aid now becoming clear:  We borrow billions from China to subsidize and even prop up regimes that defy us at every turn. 

Egypt and the Palestinian Authority defy the U.S., beg for money (with the implicit threat that conditions will grow even worse if aid is withheld), then defy the U.S. again.  That's not an alliance; that's a protection racket.

Defy, beg, and defy some more – all while Americans tighten their belts here at home, and we're led to believe that there's not enough money even for tours of the White House.

Two weeks ago, Senator Marco Rubio introduced an Amendment requiring that explicit conditions be placed on aid to Muslim Brotherhood-led Egypt, and – critically – these conditions required that the government of Egypt take concrete actions, not merely make promises. 

Similar conditions should be placed on all U.S. aid, not just aid to Egypt. Let's sequester terrorists before we sequester Americans.  It makes no sense to continue funding hostile governments.

And, it's past time for America to call the Palestinian's bluff.  There should be only one path to American aid – the path to peace. 

Twice in the last twenty years the Israeli government has offered to establish a Palestinian homeland with a capital in East Jerusalem, and twice the Palestinians have rejected that deal – once with guns, rockets, and suicide bombs. 

Before the Palestinian Authority gets a single dime from American taxpayers, it must give up its dream of destroying Israel – in words and deeds, to the world and – crucially – to its own people.  Stop teaching hate.  Sever all ties with the terrorist thugs of Hamas.  Come to the peace table without preconditions and without even a thought of destroying the nation of Israel.

In other words, act like an ally.  Then, we'll think about aid.

Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). Follow him on Twitter@JaySekulow.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Has New York Mayor Bloomberg made Americans 'soda shy'?

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Has New York Mayor Bloomberg made Americans 'soda shy'?
Mar 26th 2013, 20:07

  • 031113_otr_soda_640.jpg
  • nysodabanstory12.jpg

    March 8, 2013: A Coca-Cola poster about the city's new beverage ban is displayed at a pizza shop at New York's Penn Station.AP

Has New York Mayor Bloomberg already made Americans soda shy?

The New York State Supreme Court wisely rejected New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's ban on the sale of super-sized sodas, but people who once loved 32-ounce sodas may, wisely, be banning the drinks on their own.  

After all, ordering an extra-large drink of soda in New York with your sandwich or pizza, if you're overweight, is now more likely to invite subtle shakes of the head and knowing glances exchanged a few tables away. 

Whatever money Mayor Bloomberg might think about spending to enforce a soda ban, it would be better be spent on billboards showing round people literally rolling down Broadway, filled with bubbly beverages.  

People may end up "soda shy," despite the lack of a soda ban.

This brings up the very good question of whether more can be achieved by leaders who are willing to be bold and challenging of harmful behaviors, rather than trying to outlaw them. 

From a psychological perspective, Mayor Bloomberg may have already achieved what his failed law never could have:  he's already tapped into most people's inherent desire to be accepted and respected by the community. 

It's OK to say it publicly and make people feel it privately:  Killing yourself by being 50 or 60 pounds overweight while giving in to the marketing of 400-calorie sodas is being weak and foolish. Your behavior is embarrassing. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The same happens to be true, by the way, for people who get drunk a lot and screw up their relationships:  Your behavior is embarrassing.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

A law that bans 32-ounce sodas risks inviting people to exercise their autonomy by getting around the law (as in, ordering two 16-ounce sodas).  And that's a good thing. Many  adults, thankfully, still object to being treated like 5-year-olds.  

But a moral position that identifies purveyors of 32-ounce sodas as no better than drug pushers (which is also true, in my opinion) and consumers of 32-ounce sodas as no healthier than alcoholics (which is also true), invites people to exercise their autonomy and resolve by rejecting products that defeat their better intentions and make them no more than walking billboards advertising the power of marketing to overwhelm individual judgment.

Rather than announcing a ban on sodas (which the courts will,  I hope, reject again, if it is ever reintroduced), Mayor Bloomberg would have a lot more success calling on people to stop being patsies for the corporate profits of soda kings. If he urged people to stop demonstrating to other people at the table next to theirs, that they obviously think it's OK to drink themselves into oblivion, whether with vodka or orange soda. 

Whatever money Mayor Bloomberg might think about spending to enforce a soda ban, it would be better be spent—in terms of psychological bang for the buck—on billboards showing round people literally rolling down Broadway, filled with bubbly beverages.  

Even better:  Spend a total of $5,000 or $10,000 on two massive, portly, blow-up "people-balls" and roll them through Central Park now and then. The mayor could get lots of media coverage of the "Soda Morons'" big night out on the town, rolling down the sidewalks of Fifth Avenue. 

Those images might just guilt people into buying a smaller, 12-ounce glass of soda.  

And guilt is sometimes OK.

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

 
Great HTML Templates from easytemplates.com.