USSC got it right
i'm not a legal scholar and i don't pretend to understand all the nuance of the case, but my gut feeling is that the court got it right.
some have mentioned that the constitution doesn't specifically grant a right to gay sex, which means that the states ought to be free to regulate it as they see fit. seems to me that absent some sort of compelling interest, however, consenting adults ought to be free to pursue happiness as they see fit--particularly when they are in private. if that's not america then i don't know what is. what possible compelling interest could texas, or anyone, have for wanting to outlaw gay sex? AIDS is the best i could come up with, but AIDS has not yet reached the proportions where people's sexual activity needs to be regulated by law--at least not in this country it hasn't.
justice scalia rebuked his brethren as being smitten with the gay agenda. i don't know that they're not, and i wouldn't be surprised if many of them are. liberals are liberals. but that doesn't mean that their personal beliefs overwhelmed their judgment, at least not to me it doesn't. few are less enamored with the gay agenda, after all, than i.
still, there's a difference between what's moral and what's legal. at least i think there ought to be. while every illegal thing should be immoral, not every immoral thing should be illegal. laws, when all is said and done, are about protecting most of the people from a few troublemakers, and i just don't see how gay sex is causing enough trouble to warrant gestapo raids. that said, it's not exactly beneficial to society, and on balance i'd argue that it's done more harm than good. but then so has adultery. and tobacco. and lots of other things that we tolerate because depriving people of the right to engage in activities which are mostly self-destructive creates a society which is worse for most of the people than one where such activities are allowed. look at islamic states.
locdog, the warm and fuzzy moderate
faith and obedience
the more i live, the more convinced i become that faith and obedience are absolutely inseparable. you cannot have faith unless you obey. you cannot obey unless you have faith. a man who tries to have faith while ignoring God's plan for his life is like a man who prays for rescue from a desert island, then ignores a ship because he doesn't like the flag it sails under. he ends up empty, alone, and perplexed at how God could have abandoned him.
faith is a muscle, and obedience is how we exercise it. like any muscle, it atrophies through lack of use, and like any muscle it is strengthened through exercise. when you lift weights, you force your body to go beyond its limits, breaking down the old muscle cells and causing new ones, and more of them, to grow up in their stead. in this way, God often takes us to the very limits of our faith--sometimes to the brink of destruction--before He rescues us. as a consequence of this, our faith grows, and we become ready to face greater challenges. in weight lifting, the amount of muscle you have limits the amount of weight you can lift, and so it is in matters of faith, where God will never call you to a task where obedience is impossible. but in both cases, unless we are brought to our limits, we cannot experience growth.
people often say that unless we walk the road God has called us to, we can never truly be happy. and yet, so often with God we are called to walk the roads we wouldn't choose for ourselves. sometimes we would simply rather be doing something else. other times, the road He calls us to is the one we want least of all. when you are feeling that God has called you to one of these roads, perhaps even the one you fear more than any other, you may wonder why it is that God has chosen it for you. how could you be happy following that road? how could any good come of it? and if you have obligations in a life you've chosen for yourself, what of them? how could you escape even if you wanted to? i tell you that unless you start walking, you will never know. you will live your life in doubt and fear, never experiencing the fullness of God's power, of His grace, of His love. Jesus said that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments, and to those who do will He reveal Himself. apart from obedience, you cannot know God. apart from doing things you would rather not do, you cannot know obedience. a command to obey is meaningless if it's something you would have done anyway.
if we are saved by faith, and faith and obedience are inseparable, does that mean that we are saved by our works? never. the faith that saves us is a conscious choice we make to surrender our lives to Christ and receive the forgiveness He purchased for us on the cross. as it has been said "faith alone saves." but it has also been said that "the faith that saves is not alone." a person who sincerely devotes his life to Christ must do what Christ says. does this mean that if you are a Christian who is currently living in disobedience to God that you are no longer saved, or that you were never saved to begin with? no, not necessarily. if a person claims to be a Christian but lives a life of gleeful, unrepentant sin, one would certainly question whether or not their faith was real. but from time to time we all sin, and even mighty men of God sometimes flee to tarsus. if this happens in your life, don't be afraid to repent and get back on the right track once more. God will welcome you with open arms, and He will meet your needs and fight your battles and make the impossible possible to get you to where He wants you to be. this does not mean that things will always be easy, or that there won't be pain and hardship, or that you will get everything you want, but it does mean that it's never too late to turn your life over to God. all He needs from you is the weight of a mustard seed in faith, and the willingness to take one step forward down the right road. you will not regret it.
one more on affirmative action
Woman is the nigger of the world
Yes she is... think about it
Woman is the nigger of the world
Think about it... do something about it
We make her paint her face and dance
If she won't be a slave, we say that she don't love us
If she's real, we say she's trying to be a man
While putting her down we pretend that she's above us
thanks, mr. lennon.
why don't women get affirmative action?
try something. pull out a chair or hold a door for some liberated-looking career gal type. stand up on the bus and offer her your seat. insist on paying the bill at dinner. you've got a fifty-fifty shot of having your eyes clawed out right there on the spot. and why? because the woman takes it as a slight. you're patronizing her. indeed, in popular culture, chivalrous men are portrayed as backward and even misogynistic. the sistas don't want your pity, they just want a fair shake. and hey, i can dig that. i think what today is called a "feminist" is silly and shrill, and that they're hysterical over-reactions betray underlying insecurities (and that the well-mannered men who are offering seats and holding doors aren't passing any judgments, tacit or otherwise, and probably respect women a helluva lot more than some brute wouldn't dream of picking up a tab at a restaurant) but still, i can see where they're coming from.
what i don't get is someone who not only accepts such condescension, but demands it--and not only demands it, but insists that those who do not offer it somehow value them less as a human being. stranger still, perhaps, is the curious social double-standard surrounding this phenomenon. a man who always insisted on paying the bill or opening the door would be thought a dinosaur, but a man who always insisted on affirmative action would be hailed as a civil rights champion. i guess my question would have to be--why? why is it that what is demeaning for one group is fitting, nay, necessary for another? simpler still, when, i wonder, will the black man finally feel some pride?
locdog is keepin' it real
this pretty much says it all
“[I]n regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. . . . I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! . . . And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! . . . [Y]our interference is doing him positive injury.” What the Black Man Wants: An Address Delivered in Boston, Massachusetts, on 26 January 1865, reprinted in 4 The Frederick Douglass Papers 59, 68 (J. Blassingame & J. McKivigan eds. 1991) (emphasis in original).
that was frederick douglass as quoted by clarence thomas in a dissenting opinion for grutter v. bollinger.
locdog thinks that frederick douglas must have been a real racist to want to end affirmative action like that
a victory for racists
is there anything the equal protection clause can't do? first abortion on demand, now this:
The Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body," Justice O'Connor wrote.
hmm...fascinating. that would mean that if it could be shown that students who attend segregated schools fared better than those who attended mixed schools, the "compelling interest" of educational benefits could be used to justify segregation once again? separate is not equal, sure, but what if separate was superior?
but that's a silly thing to worry about. after all, educational benefits "flow from a diverse student body." highly-qualified, enthusiastic instructors teaching smart, well-motivated learners from a solid curriculum has surprisingly little to do with it. really, it's all about the proper balance of white noses to black noses to red noses to brown noses to yellow noses. if you mix them all just right, it tastes exactly like iced tea and you can't even taste the alcohol! oh, wait, that was from a note o'connor scribbled in the margins of her opinion. sorry, that wasn't supposed to be made public.
Grades and academics are most important, but members of "under-represented" racial and ethic minority groups receive extra points, as do children of alumni, athletes and men enrolling in nursing programs. Gratz's lawyers call the points granted for race a "super bonus," equivalent to a full grade point on a student's GPA.
under-represented? can anyone tell me what that means? if i live in a society with an ethnic makeup of 45% white, 35% black, 15% latino, and 5% other, does that mean that unless universities in that society have equivalent enrollment statistics, some groups are "under-represented" and must be increased--and, necessarily, others are over-represented and must be reduced? now why would that be? why, it could only be because we live in a profoundly racist society which has stacked the deck so that minorities cannot succeed without getting a boost to overcome malicious whites. right? obviously the admissions boards at our major universities (which are invariably staffed by liberals) cannot be racist, and obviously the discrepancies couldn't be the fault of any genetic inferiority, so what's left?
the irony of all of this is that if i were an especially clever racist (of which there are few, thankfully) i would probably applaud the court's decision. look at it from the standpoint of social darwinism. affirmative action doesn't improve anyone in the long run--it won't kill anyone, either, but it reinforces the widespread and devestating entitlement mentality that much more. you take a rabbit away from the wild when he is a baby, feed him from your hand until he is fat and lazy, then turn him loose again and what happens? even the dumbest predator would find him an easy meal, or, failing that, he starves. that's already happening in our inner cities, where there are millions of human beings who do not participate in our society, and who have so atrophied from federal largesse that in many cases, they could not even if they tried. that's why minorities are "under-represented". not because they are genetically inferior and not because america is racist, but because they've been stuffed fat and made lazy. they've been crippled not by bigots taking away everything they have, but by bigots giving them everything they have. rob a man and you have created for yourself an enemy, an enemy whose ambitions and intellect are sharpened by his malice. stuff him full of bread and he'll never raise a finger against you. he'll give you his vote, too. what incentive is there for a lawmaker with such a constituency to change anything--particularly when effecting just the sort of change needed is now considered, absurdly, racist? rather, he creates affirmative action so that he can not only reinforce his political slavery, but also prevent people from noticing just how damaging the status quo really is.
if i were an employer judging applicants on the basis of race alone, i would hire the young black man who lied on his application to the university of michigan, telling them that he was white. i would hire him because, even if he did embrace the outdated, almost romantic notion of a profoundly racist america, he had already resolved in his heart not to let it stop him--either directly through blatant prejudice or indirectly through affirmative action. that is a man whose purpose would not be easily thwarted. i'd hire a white student next, and one of his black peers last of all.
of course, if locdog were hiring, he'd rather just ignore race altogether and pick the most qualified applicant--and someday, there might be just as many of those from among minority populations as from anywhere