No—you can’t eat in peace—your politics are an attack on all of us You’re votes are a death wish. Your votes are hate crimes. Tonight Senator Ted Cruz arrived at Fiola, an upscale restaurant mere steps from the White House, to enjoy a hearty Italian dinner.
He could have dined on a lavish four course meal for only $145 while millions of Americans struggle to buy groceries. He might have sampled from the top shelf wine list as migrant children languish in cages.
He’d have laughed with his wife while women and members of the LGBTQ community collectively gasp in horror as Senator Cruz pushes forward on Bret Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. At least he could have had activists not interrupted his evening just as he was being seated.
Instead, activists from Smash Racism DC, Resist This, DC IWW, members of DC Democratic Socialists of America, Anarchists, women, sexual assault survivors, and members of the LGBTQ community interrupted Ted Cruz’s peaceful meal.
While our interruption does not compare in scale to the interruptions his actions as a Senator have had on millions of American lives, we hope that it reminds Cruz and others like him that they are not safe from the people they have hurt.
This is a message to Ted Cruz, Bret Kavanaugh, Donald Trump and the rest of the racist, sexist, transphobic, and homophobic right-wing scum: You are not safe. We will find you. We will expose you. We will take from you the peace you have taken from so many others.
Sincerely, Some Anti Fascist Hooligans. We demand a world free of sexual violence, and state violence. We want a world without prisons, borders, or capitalism. You should be embarrassed for existing.
Sorry, losers: I’m not embarrassed for existing. Nor for supporting President Trump and Brett Kavanaugh (BTW, it’s not “Bret” you idiots.)
And if anyone of you “anti-fascist” hooligans tries to get in my face and harass me, well, you’ve been warned. Because if this girl feels threatened and unsafe, I will not be embarrassed to exercise a certain God-given right.
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
The Spirit of God says, “The Pope and the Vatican…are not furthering my kingdom but are aiding the kingdom of darkness…. This will be the last Pope, for what I the Lord God am about to do. I will expose this Pope and all those under his command for all the corruption he and the Vatican have been involved in for centuries…. This Pope, the Vatican and all its leadership, will come crumbling down. I will pull back the veil to show how deep and dark the deception has been. You whisper in your inner chambers ‘we answer to no one. No one is above us; No one can hold us accountable.’ I the Lord God see it all and the time has come when I will now hold you accountable for your darkness. This exposure will be of such magnitude that the people will say. ‘What do we do now? Where do we go now? We want nothing to do with this. We have no religion now.’ Millions will walk away from their religion, as this will affect other religions as well.”
“The church is facing a crisis that it hasn’t faced perhaps since the Middle Ages,” saidJoan Mann Thomas, chair of the parish council at St. Anselm Parish in Ross, California.
Thomas was not exaggerating.
On August 22, 2018, Archbishop Carlo Viganò, former Apostolic Nuncio (the Vatican’s ambassador) to the United States, called for the resignation of Pope Francis for protecting pedophile Cardinal and former Archbishop of Washington, D.C., Theodore McCarrick.
McCarrick is but one of the triggers of the Catholic Church in crisis. The subjects of this post, the first of a series of posts on the crisis of the Catholic Church, are:
Pennsylvania pedophile priests.
Homoerotic church service in Germany.
(1) The Pedophile Cardinal
On July 28, 2018, after shielding Cardinal McCarrick, Pope Francis “accepted” the former Archbishop of Washington, DC’s offer to resign from the College of Cardinals, and ordered the cardinal’s suspension from the exercise of any public ministry, pending “accusations made against him are examined in a regular canonical trial.”
Although McCarrick’s pedophilia had been known for some time, Pope Francis covered up for McCarrick, ignored the sanctions that Pope Benedict XVI had imposed on McCarrick, and even made McCarrick a trusted counselor in U.S. clerical appointments, including the promotion of far-Left bishops such as Blase Cupich of Chicago and Joseph Tobin of Newark to the College of Cardinals. (The Remnant)
Accusations of 88-year-old Cardinal McCarrick’s sexual abuse include:
Fondling an 11-year-old boy over 40 years ago when McCarrick was a priest in Manhattan, New York. The victim, now a mature man, says the sexually abusive relationship continued for two more decades. (NY Post)
Groping and having sex with seminarians: Six priests of the Archdiocese of Newark said that when then-Archbishop of Newark McCarrick visited the seminary, he “would often place his hand on seminarians while talking with them, or on their thighs while seated near them.” One of the priests said McCarrick “had a type: tall, slim, intelligent – but no smokers” and that McCarrick would invite young men to stay at his house on the shore or spend the night in the cathedral rectory in central Newark. Another priest, who was an aide to New York Cardinal Terence Cooke in the early 1970s, said McCarrick’s “reputation” was already well-establishedby that time, and that a classmate of McCarrick, the dean of a theology school, knew about the rumors and spoke about them with the other faculty and theologians very openly.” So well-known was McCarrick’s reputation that when he was a “standing joke” that when McCarrick visited the seminary, they had to “hide the handsome ones” before he arrived. Another priest, who worked in close proximity to then-Archbishop McCarrick in the chancery, said “Priests would tell me ‘he’s sleeping with them’ all the time, but I couldn’t believe it – they seemed like perfectly normal guys.” Seminarians and priests from ordination classes spanning 30 years during the terms of McCarrick and his successor, Archbishop John Myers, said there was an active homosexual subculture of priest and seminarians within Newark’s Immaculate Conception Seminary. (Catholic News Agency)
Despite McCarrick’s well-known reputation of groping and “sleeping with” seminarians, the Vatican promoted him to the cardinalate and to archbishop of Washington, DC, in 2001.
On August 31, 2018, Catholic News Service, the news agency of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, published a 2006 letter from then-Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, which confirms that the Vatican had received information in 2000 about the sexual misconduct of McCarrick. Sandri’s letter lends credibility to accusations of a cover-up of McCarrick’s deeds at the highest echelons of the Roman Catholic Church. (New York Post)
Two other cardinals have also be accused of sexual misconduct: Australian Cardinal George Pell, one of Pope Francis’ closest advisers; and Scottish Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who is accused by former seminarians in 2013 of sexual misconduct. Two years after the first revelations came out, Francis accepted O’Brien’s resignation after the Vatican’s top abuse prosecutor conducted a full investigation.
(2) Pennsylvania Pedophile Priests and the Bishops Who Enabled Them
In 2016, Pennsylvania’s 40th Statewide Grand Jury began an investigation into allegations of child sex crimes by Catholic priests across the dioceses of Harrisburg, Allentown, Pittsburgh, Erie, Scranton and Greensburg. The six dioceses account for 54 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties.
In June 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that large portions of the grand jury’s report would be released to the public. But about two dozen current and former clergy named in the report succeeded in blocking its release, claiming it would violate their rights to due process and reputation. On July 27, Pa. Chief Justice Thomas Saylor ordered an interim report be released, with identifying information about those clergy petitioners redacted. (Penn Live)
On August 14, 2018, the 1,356-page, redacted version of the long-awaited grand jury report was released. You can read the report here. Below is a summary of the grand jury’s findings:
The grand jury heard the testimony of dozens of witnesses, and subpoenaed and reviewed half a million pages of internal diocesan documents.
The grand jury found “credible allegations” against over 300 predator priests, and identified more than 1,000 child victims from the church’s own records. “We believe that the realnumber — of children whose records were lost, or who were afraid ever to come forward — isin the thousands.“
“Most of the victims were boys; but there were girls too. Some were teens; many were pre-pubescent. Some were manipulated with alcohol or pornography. Some were made to masturbate their assailants, or were groped by them. Some were raped orally, some vaginally, some anally. But all of them were brushed aside, in every part of the state, by church leaders who preferred to protect the abusers and their institution aboveall.“
Secrecy: In every diocese, abuse complaints were kept locked up in a “secret archive” because the church’s Code of Canon Law specifically requires the diocese to maintain such an archive.
Every diocese adopted the same strategy on pedophile priests:
Use evasive euphemismsto describe the sexual assaults in diocese documents, e.g., “inappropriate contact” and “boundary issues” instead of “rape”.
Don’tconduct genuine investigations with properly trained personnel, but assign fellow clergy members to ask inadequate questions and then make credibility determinations about the colleagues with whom they live and work.
Send priests for “evaluation” at church-run, wholly-inadequate psychiatric treatment centers where experts “diagnose” whether the priest was a pedophile based largely on the priest’s “self-reports,” but ignore whether the priest had actually engaged in sexual contact with a child.
When a priest does have to be removed, don’t say why. Instead, tell his parishioners that he is on “sick leave,” or suffering from “nervous exhaustion,” or say nothing at all.
Even if a priest is raping children, keep providing him housing and living expenses.
If a predator’s conduct becomes known to the community, instead of removing him from the priesthood to ensure that no more children will be victimized, transfer him to a new location where no one will know he is a pedophile.
Above all, don’ttell the police. Although child sexual abuse, even short of actual penetration, is a crime, don’t treat it as a crime. Instead, handle it “in house” as a personnel matter.
Some especially egregious cases:
In the Diocese of Allentown, confronted about an abuse complaint, a priest admitted, “Please help me. I sexually molested a boy.” But the diocese concluded that “the experience will not necessarily be a horrendous trauma” for the victim, and that the boy’s family should just be given “an opportunity to ventilate.” The priest was left in unrestricted ministry for several more years.
In the Diocese of Erie, despite a priest’s admission to assaulting at least a dozen young boys, the bishop wrote to thank him for “all that you have done for God’s people…. The Lord, who sees in private, will reward.”
Another priest confessed to anal and oral rape of at least 15 boys, as young as seven years old. The bishop later met with the abuser to commend him as “a person of candor and sincerity,” and to compliment him “for the progress he has made” in controlling his “addiction.” When the abuser was finally removed from the priesthood years later, the bishop ordered the parish not to say why.
Another priest, grooming his middle school students for oral sex, taught them how Mary had to “bite off the cord” and “lick” Jesus clean after he was born. The diocese finally removed him from ministry after 15 years and numerous additional reports of abuse.
One priest raped a seven-year -old girl while he was visiting her in the hospital after she’d had her tonsils out.
Another priest made a nine-year -old give him oral sex, then rinsed out the boy’s mouth with holy water “to purify him.”
One boy drank some “juice” at his priest’s house, and woke up the next morning bleeding from his rectum, unable to remember anything from the night before.
Another priest, who finally decided to quit after years of child abuse complaints, asked for, and received, a letter of reference for his next job — at Walt Disney World.
Although, because of the church’s coverup, almost every instance of abuse the grand jury found is too old to be prosecuted and many of the priests are dead, “presentments” — written notices that a crime occurred — have been issued against two priests in the Greensburg and Erie dioceses, respectively, who sexually assaulted children within the last decade. There may be more indictments in the future because the grand jury is continuing its investigation.
Exorcist Fr. Gary Thomas calls the Church’s pedophile priests scandal “demonic” and predicts worse is yet to come.
(3) Priest hosts homoerotic service in church
LifeSiteNews reports, July 23, 2018, that a newly ordained priest, Fr. Fabian Ploneczka, 33, of the Rottenburg-Stuttgart diocese, celebrated his first Mass on Sunday at his home church of St. Moritz in Augsburg, featuring a homoerotic dance.
According to the Augsburger Allgemeine, the worship service included the premiere of a ballet entitled “Jeremiah: Passion of the Prophet”, featuring ballet dancer Clemens Fröhlich of Munich and a narrated libretto written by Ploneczka himself. Observers said the dancer performed dressed only in tight, skin-colored underpants.
The whole church became a dance floor, even the altar area. There the dancer took the Gospel in his hand, stepped almost naked to the ambo, and lolled suggestively in front of the altar.
A young man, naked to his waist, interrupted the service by shouting that everyone should undress. Some of the attendees, among whom were children, left early. Worshipers told kath.net the service in a consecrated church was clearly homophile and homoerotic.
Afterwards, Fr. Thomas Steiger of Tübingen, a pastor and radio personality, gave a talk on the “eroticism of the faith,” speaking of “a sensual love for Jesus.”
This series on Catholic Church in Crisis will continue tomorrow.
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
“deplorable” as very bad; its synonyms include abominable, abysmal, ghastly, putrid, and repulsive.
“virulent” as dangerous, poisonous, hateful and violent.
“dregs of society” as the part of something that is considered unimportant and unwanted.
During the 2016 presidential campaign on September 9, 2016, although she means to rule over us as POTUS, Hillary Clinton contemptuously called millions of Americans “basket of deplorables”.
That’s arrogance that’s so off-the-scale, it’s Luciferian.
Last Saturday, Sept. 15, 2018, the former Vice President of the United States of America publicly called millions of Americans “virulent people” and “dregs of society”.
Biden made those remarks in his speech at the annual Human Rights Campaign dinner in Washington, D.C., September 15, 2018.
Human Rights Campaignis the largest LGBT civil rights advocacy group and political lobbying organization in the United States.
To an enthusiastic crowd of advocates of LGBTQ rights, Biden attacked the millions of Americans who support President Trump, accusing them of “intolerance” and committing a “crime” of prejudice by using religion or culture as a “license to discriminate”.
Biden said (beginning at the 38:23 mark in the CSPAN video):
“We face an administration and some of its most ardent right-wing supporters from the Ku Klux Klan…and the Alt Right are trying to undo all the progress you have made, that Barack [Obama] and I have made for you….
Using religion or culture as a license to discriminate demonize the community, individuals, to score political points is no more justifiable around the world than it is at home and our policies should reflect that. [Cheers and applause]
But despite losing in the courts and in the court of public opinion, these forces of intolerance remain determined to undermine and roll back the progress you all have made. This time they — not you — have an ally in the White House. They’re a small percentage of the American people, virulent people, some of them the dregs of society. And instead of using the full might of the executive branch to secure justice, dignity, safety for all, the president uses the White House as a literal, literal bully pulpit, callously exerting his power over those who have little or none.”
The late CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite with the avuncular demeanor was called “the most trusted man in America”. He retired from anchoring the CBS Evening News in March 1981, succeeded by Dan “fake news” Rather.
Cronkite was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
On October 19, 1999, Cronkite accepted the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award at a ceremony at the United Nations. In his speech, Cronkite declared his support and allegiance to a one-world government. He blamed the refusal of the U.S. Congress to ratify one-world-government treaties on “a handful” of obdurate senators who “pander” to the Christian Coalition and the “religious right wing”.
Identifying Pat Robertson as the leader of the Christian Coalition, Cronkite quoted Robertson, that “any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the Devil.” Cronkite then mocked Robertson by declaring, “I’m glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan.”
Below are two videos of Cronkite’s remarks, followed by my transcription of his words.
Introduced by a speaker declaring that a one “world government is the structure necessary for global justice,” Cronkite said:
I’m in a position to speak my mind and, by god, I’m going to do it. (Audience laugh uproariously)
First, we Americans are going to have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That’s going to be for many a bitter pill.
Today, we must develop federal structures on a global level to deal with world problems. We need asystem of enforceable world law, a democratic federal world government. Most important, we should sign and ratify the treaty for a permanent international criminal court. That is now at the core of the world federalist movement’s drive. That court will enable the world to hold individuals accountable for their crimes against humanity.
And the third point: Just consider if you will, after 55 years, the possibility of a more representative and democratic system of decision-making at the UN. This should include both revision of the veto in the Security Council and adoption of a weighted voting system in the General Assembly.
Some of you may ask, although I think most of you know the answer, why the Senate is not ratifying these important treaties, and why the Congress is not even paying UN dues, even as with the American rejection, so many years now, the League of Nations after World War I.
Our failure to live up to our obligations to the United Nations is led by a handful of willful senators who choose to pursue their narrow, selfish political objectives at the cost of our nation’s conscience. They pander to and are supported by the Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious right wing. Their leader, Pat Robertson, has written in a book a few years ago that we should have a world government but only when the Messiah arrives. (Derisive laughs from the audience.) He (Robertson) wrote, “Any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the devil.”
Well, join me. I’m glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan. (Audience applause)
Curiously, the version of Cronkite’s 1999 speech on the website of Renew America, an organization founded by Alan Keyes, leaves out Cronkite’s “right hand of Satan” declaration.
[U]p until his death Cronkite served as honorary chair of the Interfaith Alliance, an organization dedicated to countering the influence of conservative Christianity on federal politics. In 2007, the Alliance initiated a campaign to force Christianity out of the public sphere by promoting policies that would silence the Christian voice…[and the banning of] faith-based schools….
Part and parcel with Cronkite’s campaign against religion in public life was his outspoken vocal support of abortion and same-sex marriage.
Walter Cronkite died on July 17, 2009, ten years after his “I’m glad to sit at the right hand of Satan” speech. May he, like Saul Alinsky and Fidel Castro, be granted his wish.
H/t FOTM‘s greenworxx
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
U.S. public schools are no longer about teaching students facts, information, and how to read and write. It’s all about “changing the world” in accordance with what the Left call “social justice” — code words for Marxism.
In an exclusive for the Gateway Pundit, Brock Simmons reports, Aug. 29, 2018, that 3,500 public school teachers in Portland, Oregon, are given an $18 teaching guide meant for children as young as 5 years old.
To begin, the teaching guide states its purpose as:
Planning to Change the World is a plan book for teachers who believe their students can and do create meaningful social change….
This plan book is designed to help teachers translate their visions of a just education into concrete classroom activities. It is both a daily reminder of the importance of teaching for justice and a collection of tools to help you do just that. Planning to Change the World is packed with important social justice birthdays and historical events, words of wisdom from visionary leaders, lesson plans, resources, social justice education happenings and much more.
And what is the teaching guide’s conception of the “social justice” that students are encouraged to “change the world” into?
It is a vision that celebrates Islam (while downplaying Christianity), communists and domestic terrorists; promotes gun-control and “transgenders”; celebrates abortion; and trashes America’s July 4 and Thanksgiving holidays.
The teaching guide gives prominence to:
The Muslim holidays of Eid al-Adha on August 20 and Muharram on September 11.
A quote by activist Pervez Musharraf: “Islam teaches tolerance, not hatred; universal brotherhood, not enmity; peace, and not violence.”
While the teaching guide’s calendar does acknowledge Christmas Day, the word “Christmas” is in a thinner type font, whereas the wholly concocted “African American” holiday of Kwanzaa and the Mexican Cinco de Mayo on May 5 get bold type fonts.
The teaching guide:
Celebrates the anniversary of the founding of Communist North Korea on September 9, and the anniversary on December 4 of the El Congreso del Pueblos de Habla Espanola, an organization linked to communist sympathizers; and the birthday of Marxist intellectual Noam Chomsky on December 7. No mention is made of Imperial Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7.
Features quotes by known Marxists, including:
The Left’s perennial favorite Che Guvara: “I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves.”
Black Nationalist Marcus Garvey: “We are not rebels and revolutionaries, but humans who will no longer be denied our humanity.”
Celebrates the birthday of Fred Hampton, the founder of domestic terrorists Black Panthers, including a quote from him on the need for Black racial solidarity.
Features quotes by:
Assata Shakur, a violent Black Panther activist who escaped from prison and fled to Cuba in the 1970’s after murdering a police officer in New Jersey. She is one of the FBI’s most wanted, with a $2 million reward for her capture.
Black Panther and Communist Party member Angela Davis, who purchased guns that were used in a courthouse shoot out in the 1960’s: “I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I am changing the things I cannot accept.”
Black Panther James Forman: “We are not born revolutionary. Revolutionaries are forged through constant struggle and the study of revolutionary ideas and experiences.”
Roger Alvarado, a member of the Third World Liberation Front, which conducted a series of violent student protests in California in the 1960’s, including his quote: “We need a change, we need a change in education if we are ever going to be able to relate to our people in a real way. In elementary schools, in secondary schools, we ourselves need a change — right here.”
Gun Control & Transgenders
The teaching guide’s calendar devotes the month of April to gun control with the quote: “How and why are schoolchildren uniquely and powerfully positioned to demand gun control?”
On transgenders, the teaching guide:
Includes a special feature on “15 Everyday Ways to Affirm Trans and Gender Nonconforming (TGNC) Students” to help teachers to stop use terms such as “boys and girls”, “men and women” and “ladies and gentlemen” because they are offensive and oppressive to “those who are neither, both or bits of each”.
Quotes “transgender” actor Laverne Cox: “Each and every one of us has the capacity to be an oppressor. I want to encourage each and every one of us to interrogate how we might be an oppressor, and how we might be able to become liberators for ourselves and each other.”
The teaching guide also celebrates the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade on April 9, and trashes Thanksgiving, calling it the “National Day of Mourning”, and July 4 by quoting a Sioux author: “The White man must no longer project his fears and insecurities onto other groups, races and countries. Before the White man can relate to others he must forgo the pleasure of defining them.”
Maybe progressive “values” aren’t that healthy for our children.
From Yahoo (via GMA): Sending a child off to college is an immense accomplishment for parents, who can finally breathe a sigh of relief. But teens on campus find a vastly different view of what a college environment is like, including its demands and challenges. A new study supports this, finding that students are much more stressed than parents, or anyone else, might realize.
The study, published in the medical journal Depression and Anxiety, found that mounting expectations, an evolving sense of self-identity, and the typical shock of leaving home for a new place are making college students more vulnerable to mental health risks, including suicidality.
Anxiety and depression rates have been rising, according to the study, which found three out of every four college students reporting at least one stressful life event within the past year — involving everything from social relationships to personal appearance to problems with family. Twenty percent said they experienced greater than five stressful life events within that same time frame.
“College is very stressful in an alarming way. That’s important for parents to be aware of,” lead author of the study Cindy Liu, PhD, a psychologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, told ABC News.
Liu conducted the study by surveying over 67,000 college students from over 100 college campuses about their stress, anxiety and depression. They were also asked directly if they’d had suicidal thoughts or made attempts to harm themselves. One in five students said they had thought of suicide, while about one in 10 actually attempted it. Each of those statistics is more than double the national average for adults.
“Even if you have a student who is doing well in school, it doesn’t mean they aren’t dealing with something internally,” Liu said. “You have to peel back more layers. That is the real struggle for parents and colleges — identifying those students who are quietly enduring a significant mental health experience.”
The survey asked about 15 different types of mental health issues, ranging from anorexia to anxiety and panic attacks to addiction. Liu also highlighted one particularly nuanced strength of the study: it pinned down conflicts with self-identity. For example, those who identified as a sexual minority tended to have the highest rates of mental health diagnoses. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual students reported thoughts or actions related to killing themselves two to three times more often than heterosexual students. Transgender students, meanwhile, were among the highest in reported mental health diagnoses and suicidality.
Black and Hispanic students reported mental health diagnoses and self-harm at lower rates than whites; however, multiracial students were more likely to admit thoughts of suicide or previous attempts. These numbers are striking, but in reality, they could actually be worse than the study indicates, since stigmas surrounding sexual identity and mental health may have caused students to underreport their problems.
The findings add gravity to the well-known relationship between trauma, mental health, and suicide, and indicate that college, for some, is far from a carefree environment. It’s important that colleges and students realize the stress is real, and that they make adequate college-based mental health resources available.
For parents of college-bound students, these statistics are unsettling. They may indicate a greater need to pay attention to the mental health experiences of college students, especially when it comes to self-identity.
“Try to normalize the college experience and the stressors involved,” Liu said. “It is critical to think about their identity, and how that matters to their complete mental health experience.”
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
The Department of Veterans Affairs is considering adding the so-called “sex-reassignment” surgery to military veterans’ benefits package.
That means we taxpayers will have to pay for the surgeries that don’t actually re-assign a person’s gender. That’s because a person’s gender is determined by DNA chromosomes that remain the same after all the torturous body mutilations — chopping off breasts, shaving off the Adam’s apple, castrating the penis and testicles, gouging a hole as a pretend-vagina that must be “dilated” until the wound eventually scars over. See:
Below is a video showing the butchering that claims to be male-to-female gender-reassignment surgery:
Here’s the letter from the vice president of Family Research Council:
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is considering changing its medical benefits package to begin covering sex-reassignment surgery – an elective surgery on the healthy organs of healthy individuals. They have requested comments on this change and we urge you to speak out on behalf of veterans.
The VA has noted that “any addition to the medical benefits package will have an associated cost and burden on existing specialists, especially urological and vascular surgeons and other highly trained specialists who are already in short supply nationwide.”
Limited resources and funds should be allocated based on medical need and, after analyzing numerous studies, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has refused to label sex-reassignment surgery as medically necessary.
In 2014, the American people were shocked to learn that thousands of patient records at numerous VA facilities across the country were fraudulently maintained to cover-up backlogs that resulted in veterans dying before they received care. A March 2018 Inspector General investigation found that this problem has not been fully resolved. More than 5,000 patient records across 64 facilities were found to be incorrectly dated, thus masking the length of time these veterans had been waiting for care. Also, many patients with accurately dated records were not given the opportunity to seek care outside the VA system – an option to which they are legally entitled after waiting the prescribed 30-day period.
The military should not be subject to social experimentation and engineering and such experimentation and engineering should not bleed over into the care of veterans.
Please comment online by midnighttoday (9/7) when the comment period closes.
Vice President for Government Affairs
To leave a comment for Veterans Affairs on adding non-sex-reassignment surgery to the benefits package for veterans, click here.
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
About 5 months ago, I asked in a post when and how transgenders became all the rage in America:
Something is going on to which the American people are not privy.
Every evidence we have is that those who identify themselves as LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) comprise no more than 5% of the U.S. population.…which means transgenders must be less than 1% of the U.S. population. And yet, if we go by the pervasive news about transgenders and the relentless drumbeat for “transgender rights” by every institution of the Left — by the media, pop culture, academia, and the Obama administration — you would think every other person you meet is a transgender….
The simple truth is that a person’s sex or gender is determined by our DNA, specifically, chromosomes: females have XX chromosomes; males have XY chromosomes. That means no amount of surgical mutilation and hormone “therapy” can actually transform a man into a woman by creating an ovary, uterus or milk-producing breasts; nor can surgery transform a woman into a man by creating sperm, testicles, and a real penis. Those are determined by birth — by our chromosomal DNA. (See “A transsexual regrets his ‘gender-reassignment’ surgery“)
Paul R. McHugh, M.D., former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, agrees. According to Dr. McHugh, “transgenders” are people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically,much like other body dysmorphic disorders, such as anorexia. The difference, of course, is that body parts like penises, testicles, and breasts are not amputated in an effort to “cure” other assumption disorders.
And yet a year ago, Time magazine’s coverof June 9, 2014 proclaimed that we’re at a “Transgender Tipping Point: America’s Next Civil Rights Frontier.”
With the benefit of hindsight, we now know Time was exactly right about the tipping point. In the span of a mere year, U.S. media and pop culture have not just succumbed but fully embraced the scientifically-fictitious transgenderism:
Bruce Jenner, who got breast implants but still has male chromosomes and genitalia, is now referred to by the feminine pronouns “she” and “her”.
We are in Alice’s Through-the-Looking-Glass land where up is down, and down is up, and sane people find themselves in a country gone stark raving mad.
I’ve puzzled about this, especially the dizzying speed of the change in American culture and attitudes. Then came that proverbial light bulb of illumination.
In a July 27, 2015 essay in Patheos, Fr. Dwight Longenecker draws our attention to the Baphomet, a well-known pictorial representation of the devil as androgynous, both male and female, or in today’s parlance, a transgender.
Fr. Longenecker describes the Baphomet:
Rising from his lap is the pagan Caduceus–the rod with two serpents entwined that the pagan god Mercury carries. According to Satanic lore, this is a phallic symbol with the earth powers of the serpent intertwined.
The winged goat headed figure not only has male genitalia, but breasts.
Furthermore, when you look closely you’ll see that the beast has two arms–one male and one female.
On the arms are the Latin words “Solve” and “Coagula”. These mean “Separate” and “Come Together”. These are occult words for the task of the alchemist who takes what is integrated and natural–breaks it and then puts it back together in a new (and perverted) way.
This is precisely what Satan is doing at this time with human sexuality. Through feminism, homosexualism, trans genderism, gender confusion and “identifying” as whatever gender a person wants, the distinctions between male and female are being brokenand put back together however it is desired.
The celebration of “Caitlyn” Jenner–indeed the enforced celebration and constant publicity about this “transitioning” is a visual illustration of what is going on.
I will say what Fr. Longenecker hints at and implies: Satanism explains America’s rapid acceptance of transgenders. Indeed, Christ called the Devil “the father of all lies”, and we have been warned by St. Paul (2 Timothy 3:1-4, 12-13):
“But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God . . . and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.”
Yesterday, by a razor-thin margin of one, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 in favor of the absurd notion of same-sex marriage. Henceforth, homosexual couples must be allowed to marry in every state of the disunion.
The five (names in pink above) are Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor — 3 Jews (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan) and 2 liberal Catholics (Kennedy, Sotomayor). The four dissenters (names in blue) are John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas — all Catholics.
But the 5-4 vote actually should be 3-4 because two justices who voted in favor of same-sex marriage, Ginsberg and Kagan, should have recused themselves (or removed by Chief Justice John Roberts) due to conflict of interest, both having performed homosexual marriages. Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code reads (source):
“Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority’s opinion (source):
“The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation…. No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were,” Kennedy wrote. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. … They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
“”It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it”?
Homosexual British actors Derek Jacobi and Ian McKellen, who star as swishy bitchy gay lovers in the British sitcom Vicious and are the grand marshals of this Sunday’s Gay Pride March in Manhattan, immediately put a mockery to that.
McKellen (l) and Jacobi (r)
In a Vine posted to BuzzFeed’s accounts, the two celebrated the court ruling with a mock marriage proposal from Jacobi to McKellen, although Jacobi already has a “husband,” Richard Clifford, with whom Jacobi registered their civil partnership in March 2006, four months after civil partnerships were introduced in the United Kingdom.
The four dissenting justices’ minority opinions deserve to be known. Here are excerpts (source).
From the dissenting opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas:
[T[his 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 power to say what the law is, not what it should be….
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
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.” Ante, at 11, 23. 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? …
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….
The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.” … There is no dispute that every State at the founding—and every State throughout our history until a dozen years ago—defined marriage in the traditional, biologically rooted way. The four States in these cases are typical. Their laws, before and after statehood, have treated marriage as the union of a man and a woman….
This Court’s precedents have repeatedly described marriage in ways that are consistent only with its traditional meaning…. 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….
The majority’s driving themes are that marriage is desirable and petitioners desire it.The opinion describes the “transcendent importance” of marriage and repeatedly insists that petitioners do not seek to “demean,” “devalue,” “denigrate,” or “disrespect” the institution. Ante, at 3, 4, 6, 28. Nobody disputes those points…. As a matter of constitutional law, however, the sincerity of petitioners’ wishes is not relevant.
When the majority turns to the law, it relies primarily on precedents discussing the fundamental “right to marry.” … None of the laws at issue in those cases purported to change the core definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman…. These precedents say nothing at all about a right to make a State change its definition of marriage, which is the right petitioners actually seek here…. Neither petitioners nor the majority cites a single case or other legal source providing any basis for such a constitutional right. None exists, and that is enough to foreclose their claim….
Same-sex couples remain free to live together, to engage in intimate conduct, and to raise their families as they see fit. No one is “condemned to live in loneliness” by the laws challenged in these cases—no one. Ante, at 28. At the same time, the laws in no way interfere with the “right to be let alone.” …
In sum, the privacy cases provide no support for the majority’s position, because petitioners do not seek privacy. Quite the opposite, they seek public recognition of their relationships, along with corresponding government benefits. Our cases have consistently refused to allow litigants to convert the shield provided by constitutional liberties into a sword to demand positive entitlements from the State…. Thus, although the right to privacy recognized by our precedents certainly plays a role in protecting the intimate conduct of same-sex couples, it provides no affirmative right to redefine marriage and no basis for striking down the laws at issue here….
It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?…
The majority’s understanding of due process lays out a tantalizing vision of the future for Members of this Court: If an unvarying social institution enduring over all of recorded history cannot inhibit judicial policymaking, what can? But this approach is dangerous for the rule of law. The purpose of insisting that implied fundamental rights have roots in the history and tradition of our people is to ensure that when unelected judges strike down democratically enacted laws, they do so based on something more than their own beliefs. The Court today not only overlooks our country’s entire history and tradition but actively repudiates it, preferring to live only in the heady days of the here and now….
The legitimacy of this Court ultimately rests “upon the respect accorded to its judgments.” … That respect flows from the perception—and reality—that we exercise humility and restraint in deciding cases according to the Constitution and law. The role of the Court envisioned by the majority today, however, is anything but humble or restrained. Over and over, the majority exalts the role of the judiciary in delivering social change….
Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description— and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage…. What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on?…
Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges….
The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people.And they know it…. When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate. In addition, they can gear up to raise the issue later, hoping to persuade enough on the winning side to think again. “That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.” …
But today the Court puts a stop to all that. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision.There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide…. Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriagemight be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause….
Today’s decision…creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1….
Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage…. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage…. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.
Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate…. By the majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition of marriage—have acted to “lock . . . out,” “disparage,” “disrespect and subordinate,” and inflict “[d]ignitary wounds” upon their gay and lesbian neighbors…. These apparent assaults on the character of fairminded people will have an effect, in society and in court.… Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous. It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted….
If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it. I respectfully dissent.
From the dissenting opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas:
I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy….
Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work….
When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so….
But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect….
Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman. This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy….
[T]his Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans19), or even a Protestant of any denomination…. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.
But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitutionfor all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since…. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic…. Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) … I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.
From the dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia:
The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.
The majority’s decision today will require States to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages entered in other States largely based on a constitutional provision guaranteeing “due process” before a person is deprived of his “life, liberty, or property.” I have elsewhere explained the dangerous fiction of treating the Due Process Clause as a font of substantive rights. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 811–812 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). It distorts the constitutional text, which guarantees only whatever “process” is “due” before a person is deprived of life, liberty, and property.U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, §1. Worse, it invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—“‘roa[m] at large in the constitutional field’ guided only by their personal views” as to the “‘fundamental rights’” protected by that document….
By straying from the text of the Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority. Petitioners…ask nine judges on this Court to enshrine their definition of marriage in the Federal Constitution and thus put it beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire Nation.That a “bare majority” of this Court…is able to grant this wish, wiping out with a stroke of the keyboard the results of the political process in over 30 States, based on a provision that guarantees only “due process” is but further evidence of the danger of substantive due process….
The majority claims these state laws deprive petitioners of “liberty,” but the concept of “liberty” it conjures up bears no resemblance to any plausible meaning of that word as it is used in the Due Process Clauses….
Even assuming that the “liberty” in those Clauses encompasses something more than freedom from physical restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed by the majority. In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement….
Whether we define “liberty” as locomotion or freedom from governmental action more broadly, petitioners have in no way been deprived of it. Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of “liberty,” that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships. To the contrary, they have been able to cohabitate and raise their children in peace. They have been able to hold civil marriage ceremonies in States that recognize same-sex marriages and private religious ceremonies in all States. They have been able to travel freely around the country, making their homes where they please. Far from being incarcerated or physically restrained, petitioners have been left alone to order their lives as they see fit….
Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements. Petitioners claim that as a matter of “liberty,” they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the State’s imprimatur on their marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of “liberty” that the Framers would have recognized….
In a concession to petitioners’ misconception of liberty, the majority characterizes petitioners’ suit as a quest to “find . . . liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.” … But “liberty” is not lost, nor can it be found in the way petitioners seek. As a philosophical matter, liberty is only freedom from governmental action, not an entitlement to governmental benefits.And as a constitutional matter, it is likely even narrower than that, encompassing only freedom from physical restraint and imprisonment….
The majority’s inversion of the original meaning of liberty will likely cause collateral damage to other aspects of our constitutional order that protect liberty.
The majority apparently disregards the political process as a protection for liberty…. In our country, that process is primarily representative government at the state level, with the Federal Constitution serving as a backstop for that process. As a general matter, when the States act through their representative governments or by popular vote, the liberty of their residents is fully vindicated…. What matters is that the process established by those who created the society has been honored…. The definition of marriage has been the subject of heated debate in the States. Legislatures have repeatedly taken up the matter on behalf of the People, and 35 States have put the question to the People themselves. In 32 of those 35 States, the People have opted to retain the traditional definition of marriage…. That petitioners disagree with the result of that process does not make it any less legitimate. Their civil liberty has been vindicated.
Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect…. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples. The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability….
Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process,with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.
Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the “dignity” of same-sex couples…. The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no “dignity” Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity. Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built. The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away….
Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from—not provided by—the State. Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majoritymisapplies a clause focused on “due process” to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the “liberty” protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society. I respectfully dissent.