For those who have been writing and asking for more Gay Groom blogs, thanks so much for taking the time to write and comment!

No, I was not left at the alter.  Neither did I run off with the caterer nor was I run over by our wedding limo.

Over the last month your humble blogger has been enjoying the life of a (very) married man.

Yes, the Gay Groom is MARRIED!

Legally absolutely totally you-bet-yer-ass married!

I do apologize for my lapse in blogging.  My lack of writing as the ceremony approached was twofold:  1) I just didn’t have the time and 2) your humble blogger’s nerves were shot!   There was weather to worry about (would it rain?)… flowers that may have been destroyed if there was a frost before the big day (would they freeze?)… family that became ill (would they come?)…

But looking back on it now, it was lovely.

Dare I say that it went off without a hitch?

It even made the New York Gay City News:

http://www.gaycitynews.com/articles/2009/10/23/gay_city_news/arts/doc4ad751372d485768389292.txt

I could go on (and I will on my next blog post – I do have a few more things to say before signing off) but, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.  So please allow me share my wedding album with you.

By the way, I’m the groom with the PINK tie…

It was hot and muggy and due to camera dramas I only have a few shots at Queens Park and the march was taken with a camera phone.

Update. Photos from the Melbourne rally at An Onymous Lefty.

]]> http://transmusingthesrp.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/same-sex-marriage-youre-doing-it-wrong/ Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:44:41 +0000 kscorleone http://transmusingthesrp.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/same-sex-marriage-youre-doing-it-wrong/

I follow dozens of blogs and news stories about attempts to get same-sex marriage on the books in several states and I am always heartbroken when it finally comes down to the voting booth and the public always shoots it down. I have same-sex couple friends: one couple has a civil union in califoenia and one couple performed a handfasting here in Idaho. Neither couple are legally married according to the letter of the law. I wish the world were different and they could be married. It’s idiocy that they can’t.

Here’s the thing the extremists on both sides of the battle don’t get (and yes, I am saying some of the pro-same-sex marriage people are ALSO extremists) the way to get this passed is one bite at a time. It’s simple, really. What rights don’t same-sex couples have in their respective states? The list is endless and varied. If you ask Average Joe or Average Jane on the street is the partner in a relationship should be able to visit their partner in the hospital, they will surely say “yes”. If you ask whether the spouse should get loife insurance benefits upon the death of a spouse, the answer will surely be “yes”.

Think of all the individual benefits we’re denied because we are regular married couples and simply start acquiring those benefits. I know this is a hotly contested and hotly emotional issue but there are more of THEM than there are of US and politicians have obviously forgotten one duty of government is to protect the minority from the whims of the majority.

Now, I am NOT going to suggest or say that the situation is the same, but if it were left to the voting majority women would never have been allowed to vote, mixed race marriages would be illegal, and on and on. It’s taken African Americans over a hundred years to try and level the playing field and still, things are not perfect. It’s taken women over a hundred years to attempt to level the playing field and still, they are routinely abused and victimized in the 21st century. What the hell make us think that we can shortcut the process and get what we want right now?

What I am afraid of is if same-sex marriage is passed by the government like we would like it will become the next hot-button Roe v Wade issue. Why the hell can’t we start chipping away at the monolith. It WILL fall eventually. Once we have the same rights as every other couple, the public will realize whether it’s called civil-union or marriage doesn’t make a damn bit of difference.

Maybe I am just over-simplifying things but bringing the subject to a public vote obviously isn’t working.

Julian Bond

Their refrain was as familiar to me as dining hall food, and equally as offensive. All too often, white liberal classmates at the University of Virginia would ask, “Shouldn’t blacks, more than any other group, support gay rights?”

I never understood my classmates’ need to align the historical struggles of blacks with those of homosexuals and then push their quadratic equation of oppression on me. Was not one point of Ralph Ellison’s “Invisible Man,” a classic text for college seminars, that blacks deserve an existence free from an assigned role? That they should not be pawns in any social movement? And even if they hadn’t read the book, wasn’t it clear that stereotypical assumptions based on race are regressive?

Hearing that from my white peers was one thing — they and I often viewed race through different lenses, with mine being one shade darker than rose. But last month, one of our greatest civil rights leaders also sang the same cacophonous tune in an attempt to peg African Americans’ morals and opinions to our socio-historical identities.

“Black people, of all people, should not oppose equality,” Julian Bond, the chairman of the NAACP, declared at the National Equality March in Washington.

To be clear, Bond has used this line several times, and when he says “equality,” he isn’t talking about the right to vote, the right to eat at a public restaurant, the right to attend an integrated school or the right to a fair trial. He is talking about the right to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

With all due respect, which Bond certainly deserves, this black person doesn’t agree. And neither do two-thirds of black Protestants, according to an Oct. 9 Pew Research Center poll. Echoing President Lyndon Johnson’s words at the signing of the Voting Rights Act, Bond said, gay marriage “must come; it is right that it should come. And when it has, you will find that a burden has been lifted from your shoulders.”

He is right about that last point. If gay marriage is legalized, as it will be in the District this year barring congressional interference, blacks who have a moral aversion to same-sex marriage will no longer be tethered to expectations that don’t bind any other racial or ethnic group.

Perhaps Bond fails to realize that he is unfairly requiring another form of “two-ness” among African Americans. Already, being both an American and black is difficult, as W.E.B. DuBois wrote. But so is being an African American and a Christian. Asking those 66 percent of black Protestants to look at religion through the veil of race is not the place even of Martin Luther King Jr.’s comrade.

Plus, the “black guilt” tactic doesn’t work. If gay marriage were put to a popular vote in the District (where 55 percent of residents are African American) and failed, blacks would again take the brunt of criticism from gay rights activists. Yet no one is talking about blacks’ “understanding” since same-sex marriage was voted down this month in Maine, because no one is even sure whether black people live there.

Maine is the 31st state in which a majority of voters have chosen to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. There aren’t enough black people in America to hold responsible for all of those outcomes — we’re only 12.8 percent of the population.

The refrain will eventually have to change to pinpoint white evangelicals, 77 percent of whom oppose same-sex marriage. And here is the crux of the problem, the point at which we can’t deny the separate and unequal treatment of blacks: What race-based fire can activists put under white Americans who refuse a new definition of marriage? None.

At best, the message to black Americans is one of skewed motivation: You were once treated as secondclass citizens. You should feel flattered by the two movements’ similarities and compelled to join the fight. At worst, the message is insulting. In a recent column on same-sex marriage and those who would play the race card, the Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby summed up the linkage as: “For if opposing same-sex marriage is like opposing civil rights, then voters who backed Proposition 8 are no better than racists, the moral equivalent of those who turned the fire hoses on blacks in Birmingham in 1963.”

I’m sorry, Julian. I wasn’t there with you in 1963 to fight, but I still can’t be your George Wallace today.

Taylor Harris is a graduate student in the writing program at Johns Hopkins University.

__________

Full article and photo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/27/AR2009112702371.html

Are You Living In A Unhappy Marriage?

You don’t have to live in an unhappy marriage.  But, to be happy in your marriage you must first be happy within yourself.  If you’d like to learn how to save a failed marriage I’ve written an article on that as well.  But the focus of this article will mainly be about taking a look inside yourself and figuring out how you define your own happiness.  We will start by asking some very direct questions.

What makes you happy?  Is your happiness dependent upon someone else?  Are you where you need to be physically, spiritually, financially and mentally? And what steps do you need to take in order to move closer to achieving happiness?

Every couple wants to enjoy a loving and happy marriage.  But what happens when love fails and you find yourself living in an unhappy marriage?  Getting married is easy but staying married is increasingly harder, especially these days.

There are many reasons marriages fail but one cause is common among any failed marriage, and that’s an inability to resolve some type of conflict.  About 50% of people end up divorced because of issues involving communication, money, family, work, intimacy and infidelity just to name a few.

Communication may be the most common but before we look at that let’s first explore why you may be finding yourself in a failed marriage.

The first question you need to ask yourself is, am I happy?  Without considering your marriage as the problem, you need to consider your own state of mind and circumstances.  Then move on to your relationship.  This is vital because if you’re not happy within yourself how do you expect to be happy within your marriage?

How do you feel about your current personal circumstances physically, emotional, financially and spiritually?  Do you have joy in life that’s not based on what others say or do, or are you dependent upon others for your daily inner joy?

The joy I’m referring to is not just being happy, heck, I can get a nice big chocolate ice cream cone and be happy.  I’m talking about “joy”.   Just a peace and comfort within yourself.  That sense of wellbeing and gratefulness that comes from within, an everyday attitude and sense of assuredness that YOU are in control of.  You are in control of it and you feel comfort in life and yourself so therefore you have peace and joy.  So before addressing any relationship issue take a look inside first.  Then you can learn  how to save your marriage.

Ask yourself the right questions and if you’re not happy with the answers then make the changes you need to make.   You see it’s important that you straighten out anything that’s troubling or hindering you in your life first, before you can effectively address any marital or relationship problem.

Think about it, if you’re content with the way your life is going you’re better able to deal with relationships.  Now obviously most people are not 100% content with every single thing in their life, that’s not the goal here.  The goal is, however, to take and maintain control of the major areas of your personal life which may be contributing you living in an unhappy marriage.  Then move on to the marriage problems.

So start asking yourself some questions about where you are in your life and where you want to be.  Start with the most pressing personal issue you have and decide what it is that you want to change.  Then decide what actions you need to take to resolve the problem.  Finally, take some action which moves you towards your goal.  In my next article we will look at these three steps in more detail and outline some ways to help you get started.  If you would like to read my full article on how to save a failed marriage please do so.

I have something to say to the Catholic Church and anyone who espouses its anti-gay, anti-woman teaching.  I want to be very clear about this, so please read carefully

FUCK YOU.

I am so sick of these robed, self-righteous pieces of shit doing everything they can to thwart gay equality and a woman’s right to choose, while they ignore the real moral travesties taking place in their own goddamn Church.  A commission report into Dublin’s Catholic Archdiocese has found “no doubt”…let me repeat that…”NO DOUBT“…that the archdiocese and other Church authorities have a long, hideous track record of deliberately covering up the sexual abuse of children by priests between 1975 and 2004.

…the welfare of children, which should have been the first priority, was not even a factor to be considered in the early stages…Instead the focus was on the avoidance of scandal and the preservation of the good name, status and assets of the institution and of what the institution regarded as its most important members – the priests.

And, as we all know, this isn’t some isolated freak case in Dublin.  This is a systemic problem within the Catholic Church.  Children have been victimized by predators in robes within the Church, their cases covered up, lives ruined – for what?  For “the avoidance of scandal.”  For “the preservation of the good name, status and assets of the institution.”

In the meantime, these right-wing freaks within the Catholic Church have conducted a never-ending assault on gay equality here in the United States.  Just earlier this month, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington issued an ultimatum;  the Church will actually shut down its social services for the poor within the District of Columbia if the city legalizes same-sex marriage.  These rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth zealots will actually simultaneously screw every single poor person in D.C. receiving services from the Catholic Church if marriage equality becomes a reality in Washington.  These services include services relating to homelessness, health care, and adoption.

And what about the Catholic Church’s war on women?  The Church played a key role in adding the draconian, anti-woman Stupak Amendment to the House health care bill, which threatens to effectively ban abortion for low- and middle-income women.  If the United States of America returns to the Dark Ages of back-alley abortions, the Catholic Church will be the primary reason.

All of this, while the Catholic Church has a proven record of covering up the sexual abuse of children.  All of this, while Church authorities have disregarded the safety of defenseless children in an effort to save the Church’s “good name.”

A little Scripture may be appropriate:

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

The blogger, Kristofer Paul, can be reached at bottomleftpolitics@yahoo.com.

by Jessica Bryan

Focus discussed the Manhattan Declaration calling it “bold” and saying that:

The authors and signers unapologetically defend the sanctity of life and marriage from a biblical and social perspective.  The document also outlines the cultural challenges to the freedom of religion and rights of conscience.

The group also urged readers to contact their senators over the Thanksgiving holiday week and ask them to vote against the health care reform bill which supposedly provides funding for abortion.

An email from Focus discussed the Senate vote to allow debate on the health care reform bill and what certain senators “stood to gain from the move.”

A second email from the group talked about a high school guidance counselor who is being criticized for “appearing in an ad supporting repeal of the state’s same-sex marriage law.”

In a third email, Focus discussed a ruling by a judge to give custody to the former partner of the biological mother of a little girl.  The article begins as follows:

Superior Judge William Cohen ruled last week that Lisa Miller, a former lesbian who is now a Christian, must hand her daughter, Isabelle, over to her former partner, Janet Jenkins by Jan. 1.

Miller conceived Isabella through artificial insemination while she was in a civil union with Jenkins.  About a year later, Miller left homosexuality.

More Joe Isuzu messages on the health care bill.  Hey, if you push the start date out 4.5 years then the “10 year costs” look more reasonable.

Hat tip: Verum Serum

—

A false teacher moves on from God to the self help movement — Hey, that’s Doctor Juanita Bynum to you, buddy.

—

—

Adam Lambert shows how it isn’t just about sex, it is about monogamous relationships.  Oh, wait, no he didn’t.  How classy of him to simulate oral sex on a show that kids watch, and how swell that ABC used his performance to promote the show.

—

Dr. Alveda King: Where are the pro-choicers in the case of forced abortion? – They have to try and hide things like this or it might make abortionists look bad.

—

Demographic Implosion Spurs Panicked South Korea to Enforce Abortion Ban – interesting.  I wonder if Europe will follow suit in time to avoid being completely overrun by Muslims?

—

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

Make sure you take time out from speculating on the Liberal Party leadership to participate in the same-sex marriage rallies tomorrow. On the 28 November, there will be rallies held in Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra, Adelaide and Perth get the details here.

Read about the Senate Inquiry into the Marriage Equality Bill at An Onymous Lefty.

Ze Frank let the audience decide what he says in one of his episodes. He explain so many points in few minutes; He talks about france, well takes the mick out of it. He sings to gain your attention. He also talk really fast.  Some of the points that he covers in “The Show”, dated 06-09-06, are about gay pride, Fabuloso friday, Caffeine, David Beckham, Hair Gel, Bathroom Furnishings, World Cup, Same sex Marriage, Campfire Songs,Democracy, exhausted and others. Ze Frank makes video blogging fun to watch and to listen to, he also adds pictures in so your not just getting a video of of him. Unfortunatly I could not find the 06-09-06 episode on youtube so here is the 02-07-07 episode. Enjoy. 

I explained what I mean by “omitted variable bias” in a previous post in this series, so go there first if the following isn’t immediately clear. (In a few words: you see a correlation between two variables, for example clever people wear fancy clothes. Then you assume that one variable must cause the other, in our case: a higher intellect gives people also a better sense of aesthetic taste, or good taste in clothing somehow also makes people smarter. In fact, you may be overlooking a third variable which explains the other two, as well as their correlation. In our case: clever people earn more money, which makes it easier to buy your clothes in shops which help you with your aesthetics. Nonsense, I know, but it’s just to make a point).

I gave a few examples in the previous post, but found some others in the meantime. This one’s from Nate Silver’s blog:

Gallup has some interesting data out on the percentage of Americans who pay a lot of attention to political news. Although the share of Americans following politics has increased substantially among partisans of all sides, it is considerably higher among Republicans than among Democrats:

The omitted variable here is age, and the data should be corrected for it in order to properly compare these two populations.

News tends to be consumed by people who are older and wealthier, which is more characteristic of Republicans than Democrats.

People don’t read more or less news because they are Republicans or Democrats. And here’s another one from Matthew Yglesias’ blog:

It’s true that surveys indicate that gay marriage is wildly popular among DC whites and moderately unpopular among DC blacks, but I think it’s a bit misleading to really see this as a “racial divide”. Nobody would be surprised to learn about a community where college educated people had substantially more left-wing views on gay rights than did working class people. And it just happens to be the case that there are hardly any working class white people living in DC. Meanwhile, with a 34-48 pro-con split it’s hardly as if black Washington stands uniformly in opposition—there’s a division of views reflecting the diverse nature of the city’s black population.

More on same-sex marriage here, here and here. More posts in this series here.

Former Miss California Carrie Prejean has seen some ups and downs over the last year or so.  While appearing in the Miss USA pageant over a year ago, Prejean created controversy after she stated her belief that marriage should be considered a sacred union between a man and a woman. After losing the pageant, and being criticized by judge Perez Hilton, Prejean appeared in advertisements for the Proposition 8 campaign, and became a frequent guest on political talk shows. The drama has continued, however. After suing the Miss USA pageant, Prejean was recently forced to settle when lawyers showed her a personal sex tape from her earlier years and threatened to make it public.

The news of the sex tape, which followed earlier stories about scandalous photographs she took as a teen model, put Prejean in an awkward position since she was set to promote her recently released book on the pageant that changed her life. Forced to address the sex tape scandal, Prejean called the incident the “biggest mistake” of her life and explained that she engaged in the sexual behavior for a partner in a long distance relationship. However, the scandal deepened with news that there were many other sex tapes and pictures that have yet to be made public.

Under pressure, and obviously refusing to discuss the matter any longer, Prejean made her situation worse when she stormed off the set of Larry King Live after the host asked her about her recent settlement. To see that incident yourself watch the following video:

Discussion Questions:

1.  Prejean does not seem to be recovering very well from the sex scandal. If you were on her crisis management team, how would you repair her reputation?

2.  Some might say that Prejean is in major trouble because she is guilty of hypocrisy. According to this logic, why is Prejean – who criticized people for living a homosexual lifestyle – a hypocrite for appearing in private sex tapes?

3.  It appears that Prejean might have performed in more “inappropriate” videos and pictures that have yet to be released. Should she wait to address those embarrassing images when they are made public, or should she be completely open about all that might be out there?  What does she have to win or lose by being completely honest?

Currently in Orthodoxy, we have churches divided over which hierarch has jurisdiction over which country. We have issues of whether a calendar devised or approved of by a Roman Pope could be acceptable or adjusted for calculating feasts and fasts. The issues which divide jurisdictions and arguments between so-called Traditionalists and so-called Modernists are matters of straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

The Orthodox Church as well as all Christians worldwide have been brought face-to-face with challenges to the fundamental concepts of life and the very nature of the family. I would suggest that these challenges are at least as significant and perhaps of farther reaching implications than the doctrinal challenges facing the Church of the first eight centuries.

Both of these go straight to the heart of who we are as humans. Both of these are at the foundation of the created order.

The Councils of the Church debated much finer details than these. That the matters facing the Church today even raise questions would have been unthinkable to the Church Fathers. Neither the Arians, nor the Monothelites, nor the Monophysites, nor the Nestorians, nor the Docetists, nor the Donatists, nor the Pelagians, et al., ad nauseum, would have considered, not to mention condoned, abortion or same-sex “marriage”.

This can be put into Christological terms. If we condone abortion because we say the unborn child is not human, we deny the humanity of Christ in the womb of Mary.  To condone abortion is to deny the Incarnation.  That is heresy.

If we say affirm the humanity of the unborn, but say it is permissible to wilfully take the life of an innocent human – neither a military combatant nor a criminal – we condone murder. To say that murder is not a sin is heresy.

Any Christian who says that either the unborn child is not human or that it is okay to willfully take the life of an unborn human is heretic. Any priest, bishop, archbishop, metropolitan, or patriarch who says that either the unborn child is not human or that it is okay to wilfully take the life of an unborn human is heretic.

So if a hierarch says that Orthodox church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, “generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of pregnancy,”but that the church also “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples,” and further that “We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples. We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion,” is this heresy?

Any layman or deacon or priest who is under the omophorion of a bishop and any bishop who is under obedience to a hierarch that is a heretic should take appropriate action. Any bishop who is in communion with a heretical bishop should take appropriate action. It could be argued that any heretical bishop is not in the Church. It could be argued that any priest who is obedience to any bishop not in the Church is also not in the Church.

I leave this for you to ponder and/or comment.

With regard to purported same-sex marriage, there is also a Christological issue. “For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.” Marriage is based in the relationship of Christ to the Church. Just as the Church cannot have two heads, neither can the marriage. To allege that a marriage can have two husbands or two wives is to deny that Christ alone is the head of the Church. It is to deny the very nature of the Church. It is heresy.

It is also a denial of the image of God. “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply…’ ” God’s blessing of His image is based in His command to be fruitful and multiply. It is not based in heterosexuality – rather is it impossible without heterosexuality. The sexual aspect is such a given that it need not even be mentioned. To deny it is to deny man as the image of God.

So if a bishop is asked if same-sex unions are a threat to the traditional family, and he says, “Absolutely not. I don’t see that at all…. I would say God bless you,” is this heresy?

I also leave this for you to ponder and/or comment.

I had just written a little piece on Twilight in which I detailed my casual fascination with the saga, and how, for me, it tied in with Mormonism and Proposition 8.  The piece is here:

http://litterbury.com/2009/11/23/obligatory-twilight-post/

I expressed my latent fears of supporting Twilight if there could be a potential issue of homophobia in regards to the author, Stephenie Meyer.  I just watched a Q&A clip Meyer did for Oprah.com following Meyer’s appearance on Winfrey’s talk show.  In it, Meyer raves about sci-fi writer Orson Scott Card, someone who is deeply homophobic and staunchly against the issue of same-sex marriage.  The link to the clip follows and Meyer mentions Card at about the 3:37 mark:

http://www.oprah.com/media/20091113-orig-stephenie-meyer

The Wikipedia entry for Card has a whole section on his stances of people who are gay, but I decided to pick this little nugget: “With regard to the acceptance of legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and California, Card writes that: “The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to ‘gay marriage,’ is that it marks the end of democracy in America. These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.”  And there’s much more where that came from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Card

Does this reflect poorly on Meyer’s part? Yes, it does, but there’s no direct way of knowing where she stands on gay rights from this alone, though it is troubling.

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of the Diocese of Lincoln was one of only four* bishops in all of America to refuse collections to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD).  The CCHD has been a great scandal because their funds go directly to paying for abortion and the promotion of same-sex marriage among other things.

Here is what Bishop Bruskewitz had to say [comments mine]:

“We question the ideology of [CCHD]” [of course the marxist and socialist leaning organizations that CCHD funds go to.]

“and … we are shocked at the scandalous participation with the ACORN organization and also the participation with other organizations of questionable moral values or standards.” [Bishop Roger Morin apparently sees no evil and hears no evil]

“It’s so extremely controversial,” [Yes it is!]

“many negative resonances about it from people throughout the diocese and beyond the diocese,” [Too many bishops are still stuck in the Democratic talking points instead of Catholic social doctrine.]

“controversial character made it appear that [CCHD] was not effective” [Among other things.]

[The CCHD Collection] “served very little purpose for us,”

“We do have a very extensive Catholic Social Services, St. Vincent de Paul activity here in the diocese … which supplies the needs of those who are impoverished, of those who need assistance to come out of poverty.” [That is why the CCHD needs to be eliminated.  They serve no purpose except to make bishops feel all liberally gooey inside because it advances their pet political principles that have absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church and Her mission. We have many wonderful Catholic charities that can do the work much more effectively... and their Catholic!]

“I didn’t think [the report] took into account sufficiently the negatives that have been bantered about with regard to the organization,”

“I [Bishop Bruskewitz] think he [Bishop Roger Morin] was perhaps a little bit too dismissive of them.” [Amen.]

_._

* The other three great bishops are Bishop John O. Barres of the Diocese of Allentown, Bishop Robert C. Morlino of the Diocese of Madison, and Bishop Robert J. Baker of the Diocese of Birmingham.

To read about the Four US Bishops Did Not Take up Collection for Embattled CCHD article by Patrick B. Craine of LifeSiteNews.com click here.

To read about Bishop Bruskewitz on CCHD: Bishop Morin Was a “Bit To Dismissive” of Concerns article by Patrick B. Craine of LifeSiteNews.com click here.

To see where your CCHD donations go to click here.

To read Bishop Roger Morin mendaciously defending CCHD click here.

To join the boycott of CCHD click here.

To see Archbishop Chaput tap-dance his way around the CCHD scandal click here.

To read more about the ACORN-CCHD scandal click here.

I’ve been helping out Garden State Equality a lot lately, which is why I’ve been less vocal on here than usual. They held their first big marriage equality rally in Trenton on Monday, and while I was beholden to an early Thanksgiving deadline and couldn’t attend, I was there in spirit.

So in lieu of my reporting, I present this YouTube highlight reel:

Reports vary, but it seems there were about 300 pro-marriage people there, and just 75 or so against.

Same-sex marriage has been a hot topic in a lot of media outlets since the Monday rally, most notably the leftist NJ site Blue Jersey. Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-15) wrote a fantastic commentary on why New Jersey needs to pass marriage this year. Even the New York Times attended the lobby day, although the story they posted was a bit pessimistic as I see it.

GSE is planning another lobby day the Thursday after Thanksgiving, again in Trenton and this time at the direct request of pro-marriage legislators. Here’s some of what they’re e-mailing:

Thursday, December 3rd at 8:00 am, we’ll meet at Garden State Equality’s office at 110 West State Street in Trenton, across from the State House.  From there we’ll do a public march to the State House, where we’ll have a hospitality room to serve free breakfast and then free lunch.

We’re now at the tipping point of history:  Every event we do must have unbelievable turnout, just like this past week’s lobby day that influenced legislators tremendously.   That’s why legislators have requested we do another.   Please attend if at all you can.

While Obama enjoyed high approval ratings at the start, they have begun to fall. This is hardly surprising and seems to follow the usual historical pattern.

In terms of general reasons, there is the seemingly natural tendency of approval to decay over time. For whatever reason people seem to think less well of other people or things as time goes by. This is, of course, most evident in fads. Also, there is the fact that people often have high (even unrealistic) expectations of  a new president (just as people do for a new boyfriend or girlfriend) and when the person proves to be a fallible mortal, the magic begins to fade.

In terms of more specific reasons, Obama has been dealing with a rather awful economy and as unemployment continues to increase, his approval will drop. Throw in two wars and concentrated attacks from the right, and it is somewhat surprising that his numbers are as good as they are.

While his approval ratings have dropped in general, he has been suffering significant loses among white women. He still remains hugely popular with black women (around 90%), however.

Folks on the left tend to attribute this to the fact that he has not strongly opposed the attempts to ensure that public money will not be used for abortion, he has not done anything about “don’t ask, don’t tell” or same sex marriage, and that he has not seen to it that enough women are in his government.  While these facts no doubt have led to some dissent among the left leaning folks, they do not explain the general drop in approval among white women in general (especially older women, low income women, and women in the southern parts of the US).

One way to explain this is to refer back to the general reasons why his approval ratings are dropping: while Wall Street folks and big companies are starting to make huge profits again, the economic recovery has yet to trickle down. Unemployment is still increasing and this matters to people. Of course, this does not explain why he would have such a significant drop among white women.

Not surprisingly, some folks on the left might attribute this to a resurgence of racism, perhaps inspired by the harsh attacks from folks on the right. Of course, the obvious reply is that these women knew he was black before he was elected president-hence race should not be the main factor. Unless, of course, something has triggered a racist revival-which is a possibility that is worth considering (if only to refute).

Another factor that some might see as worthy of consideration is the stereotypical view of women and men. Stereotypically, women are seen as somewhat fickle-they will see a man as great and wonderful at first. But, when that man does not prove able to meet up to the impossible expectations and that “new man” glow wears off, then women become discontent and unhappy. So, perhaps Obama is experiencing what so many men have experienced: the discontented woman.

This does have some plausibility. After all, Obama was presented as an amazing man and hyped like a Hollywood hunk. His media generated image was clearly such that no mortal man, however amazing, could ever live up to. But, during the election and the start of his presidency, Cinderella was still at the ball and he was still Prince Charming.

But, the ball is over now. The coach has returned to being a pumpkin and the coachmen (and women) are now out of work. Prince Charming has been revealed to be a man who does not have the fairy Godmother’s magic to fix everything instantly. And so Cinderella is not happy. Not happy at all.

I’m expecting some kick-ass refutations of the Cinderella hypothesis.

“Critical thinking is a mystery to me. What is it?” ~ Fred Oliveri, letter to the Morgan Hill Times editor about one of my columns

I write frequently about critical thinking. I do so because fostering this skill is integral to the survival of core American principles. Without it, we’re swayed by outrageous claims, fallacious arguments and seductive half-truths promoted by greedy, power-hungry fear-mongers. This Thanksgiving week, I’m grateful that Oliveri provided me another opportunity to write about an important topic.

Critical thinking is “… the careful, deliberate determination of whether we should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim, and the degree of confidence with which we accept or reject it.” (Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker in Critical Thinking)

In his article “An Introduction to Critical Thinking,” Texas Citizens for Science president Steven Schafersman wrote, “A person who thinks critically can ask appropriate questions, gather relevant information, … sort through this information, reason logically … and come to reliable and trustworthy conclusions about the world that enable one to live and act successfully in it.”

I find that examples are helpful in understanding difficult concepts. Let’s consider 10-year-old Will Phillips, a fifth-grader from West Fork, Ark. Phillips, like most elementary students, rotely recited the Pledge of Allegiance in his classrooms for years.

Unlike most elementary students, Phillips thought critically about the Pledge’s assertions and was troubled by its claim that America has “liberty and justice for all.” Phillips knows that homosexual couples cannot marry, so he rejected the “liberty and justice for all” claim as untrue.

Then Phillips did something about it. He’s only 10, so can’t vote for politicians who might pass laws permitting same-sex marriage. Phillips wants to be a lawyer, but even though he skipped the fourth grade, he’s not yet ready for law school and the bar exam, so he can’t argue cases before judges who might strike down same-sex marriage bans as the violations of the Constitution’s equal protection clause that they are.

But he did find one concrete action that he could take: Refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. When his class stands for the Pledge, Phillips stays in his seat, even as his teacher repeatedly tried to persuade him to conform.

It’s a courageous thing for anyone to do, but especially for a 10-year-old fifth-grader in the deep south. Since his decision, Phillips has endured predictable, juvenile homophobic taunts, but he isn’t backing down.

“I think that [gay people] should have the rights that all people should and I’m not going to swear that they do,” Phillips told CNN, adding that he won’t recite the Pledge until there’s “truly liberty and justice for all,” which “entails everyone being able to marry.”

After his decision, Phillips undoubtedly heard many fallacies (errors in reasoning) like the appeal to common practice, appeal to popularity, appeal to ridicule and ad hominem fallacies, but he has identified them as invalid arguments and refused to be swayed by them.

Phillips illustrates the steps of critical thinking in one heartening story. He questioned an assertion, gathered facts, logically analyzed the assertion, identified and rejected fallacies, rendered judgment on the claim, and took action based on that judgment.

Critical thinking can — and should — be applied to any issue: legalization of medical marijuana, continuation of super-majority requirements for budget passage, disclosure of public employee salaries, influence of religion on public policy, choice of gubernatorial candidate, which, if any, religion to follow, and on and on.

However, even if everyone used critical thinking to analyze every issue, it wouldn’t mean that peace and unanimity would suddenly break out. But it would clarify that when issues are logically analyzed based on facts and free from fallacies, any disagreements that remain usually result from differing priorities.

For example, I disagree with a fellow critical thinker about whether public employee salaries ought to be public information. He and I both gathered and analyzed facts and dismissed fallacies, yet we disagree: I believe public employee salaries ought to be public, he believes they shouldn’t. Why? I prioritize transparency in government over privacy; his priorities are the opposite. The California Supreme Court prioritized transparency over privacy when it ruled on this matter. As a taxpayer and citizen, I’m thankful for that.

This Thanksgiving, I’m especially grateful for Will Phillips’  simple, inspiring, courageous example of critical thinking in action.

“As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.” ~ John F. Kennedy