A Bird's Eye View

For a change of pace. 

Sex-Selection Abortions

Senator Blackburn of Tennessee makes some points about gender-based abortions.  A bill to ban such abortions was voted on today in the House and failed to pass.  (Our/my own Rep. Carolyn Maloney voted against the bill. No surprise.).  Those who support abortion on demand as part of  'reproductive choice' and a woman's 'right to choose' are in the sticky position of having to support this very anti-woman, anti-female act.   That includes our president, Barack Obama, though his position seems to be still 'evolving.'  The prevalence of this practice was discussed here, though such abortions only went on in far-away places like India and China.  Now modern feminism has brought the practice to us.

One God and "he does not reside in Washington, DC"

I just stumbled across this article from April 23rd on the Becket Fund's website.  The presidents of three evangelical colleges explain their opposition to Obama's HHS mandate (which they cleverly call a 'conscience tax') and why they've filed lawsuits in federal court. 

Their explanation of why Obama's so-called accommodation is nothing of the sort is good. 

First of all, the First Amendment is not to be "accommodated," it is to be respected. But a few hours after the president announced his "accommodation," he codified his original discriminatory rule "without change" anyway. So nothing has changed.

They go on to explain:

The administration claims it will pass an additional rule shifting the mandate's financial burdens to our insurers. But even if a new rule were enacted and our insurers agreed not to pass along the costs—a dubious proposition at best—it would only show that the president has missed the moral point. Our colleges will still be forced to provide plans that directly enable coverage of drugs and services to which we object on religious grounds. It would be like forcing us to provide cable television to our students, but alleging that the cable company, "not us," will provide the Playboy Channel for "free." We do not accept this shell-game theology, and the government cannot force us to adopt its conscience instead of ours.

Gallup's Values and Beliefs Poll, Catholics and Same Sex Marriage

Several Catholic friends have pointed out in recent days that our fellow Catholics continue to cave to the popular culture on the issue of same-sex 'marriage.'  They cite these statistics from the Pew Research group: 

Catholic respondents were slightly less likely than other Americans to oppose same-sex marriage. In 2004, 55% of Catholics were opposed, and 28% strongly. By 2012 those figures had dropped to 42% and 17%. 

As a rejoinder, however, there is the result of yesterday's marriage amendment vote in North Carolina as well as this recent Gallup Poll which says that more people are opposed to same-sex 'marriage' this year than last (48% vs. 46% respectively) or, conversely that there is slightly less support this year with 50% of Americans supporting same-sex 'marriage' as opposed to 53% supporting it last year.   And, read here.

I realize this doesn't address the Catholic problem per se, but at this late date why expect Catholics to behave any differently than the general voting public?  Catholics have succumbed to the sexual and social revolution of the 60s just as nicely as everyone else. Secularized and relativized, they voted handily for Obama in 2008, and, anecdotally, I know plenty of Catholics who will vote for him again. 

I read somewhere that Americans are great believers in fairness (just maybe something to do with our founding principles?), and I think that a good percentage of the so-called support for same-sex marriage comes from a desire we Americans have to be fair to our neighbors.  Notice that Gallup asked participants if same-sex couples should have the same "rights" as those in traditional marriages.  Rights?  Not only fairness, but political correctness dictates that we deny no one their "rights!"  And, actually, some of the things same-sex couples want could and should be handled with changes to the tax code.  By phrasing their question in terms of rights, Gallup is being just a little disingenuous with this poll.

If, as Gallup says, this poll is part of its annual Values and Beliefs poll, why didn't they poll people as to what they believe about traditional marriage and what they believe about same-sex 'marriage?' Why didn't they ask people if they are teaching their children that same-sex 'marriage' is the same as traditional marriage?  Why didn't they ask people if they believe sex education in the schools should teach that homosexuality is normal? Why didn't they ask people how they would feel about having a daughter-in-law who is a husband or a wife to their daughter? 

Gallup headlines the article, that half of Americans support 'gay' marriage.  That also means that half don't support it, a little detail that could just as easily have been the headline of the article.

Dump Starbucks

Starbucks has taken a public position supporting same-sex "marriage" as 'core' to who they are as a corporation.  You can read about it here and sign the petition should you choose.  It remains a mystery to me why a retail enterprise would take a stand on a controversial moral issue, but they have and perhaps they are right to do so if they feel strongly about it. 

Closer to home, my home that is, Mumbles Restaurant on 2nd Avenue and 17th Street, NYC,  did something similar last June when the same-sex "marriage" bill passed in New York state.  Their street-side chalk board which usually carries the menu or the specials of the day instead carried a message saying "Congratulations to all on marriage equality."  I guess one has to expect that sort of thing in New York City, but I take some small comfort in the fact that, after writing a letter to the owner of the restaurant (he did understand my point),  my family and I haven't been back to Mumbles since,  just as I feel some small satisfaction in 'dumping Starbucks' though I've never really liked their coffee anyway!