I understand that schools should and do determine what’s appropriate to be said during school hours, but with all the other speech and such that they do allow, this prohibition looks rather targeted.

A federal judge has rejected a claim that the Poway Unified School District violated a teenager’s First Amendment rights by pulling him out of class for wearing a T-shirt with an anti-gay slogan.

Tuesday’s ruling by U.S. District Judge John Houston reaffirmed an earlier decision in which he found the school district’s policy on hate speech lawful.

Tyler Harper sued the school in 2004 after the district said he could not wear a shirt printed with a Bible verse condemning homosexuality. His younger sister, Kelsie, was named as a plaintiff after he graduated.

Via Stop the ACLU.

Technorati Tags: Bible, Poway Unified School District, hate speech, homosexuality

And those who need blood transfusions pay the price.

San Jose State University’s decision this week to ban blood drives on the 30,000-student campus over discrimination concerns is drawing a gush of criticism from local blood banks.

Stanford Blood Center officials said they actually agree with San Jose State President Don Kassing that the federal Food and Drug Administration is wrong to prohibit blood donations from gay men.

But in a statement Friday, the center called his decision to suspend campus blood drives for that reason "a terribly misguided tactic that could have a devastating impact on the blood supply, and therefore, patients in our community."

Kassing’s stand — based on the university’s non-discrimination policy — has focused attention on a longstanding FDA rule that many say is overly restrictive. Critics, however, worry it sets a bad example that could exacerbate blood shortages if others follow his lead.

It’s one thing to stand up for your principles, and it’s certainly San Jose State’s prerogative to do this, even though I disagree with the principle.  But to shut down blood drives on campus is just entirely misguided and ignores the very real cost of this particular type of stand.

Gay rights groups on several college campuses, including Stanford’s, have held protests on the issue in recent years. At San Jose State, it was an employee’s complaint last year that prompted Kassing’s office to investigate whether the rule made blood drives discriminatory.

They decided it did, since gay men were being treated differently than other groups of people with similar risk factors.

There is no inherent "right" to give blood, but fair enough; let’s assume some sort of evil "discrimination".  Who’s paying the price?  Certainly not the blood banks.  While we’re never really awash in too much donated blood, they’ll still do their jobs as best they can.  Not the FDA.  How does this really affect them?

No, the folks who are really getting punished for this restriction (and pardon me if the regulations regarding the nation’s blood supply err on the side of caution) are those who actually need the blood.  The patients in hospitals who need it to live and who, I’m pretty sure, are quite happy not to have to worry about AIDS-tainted blood. 

These are "bleeding-heart liberals" who care more about hurt feelings over donating restrictions (and really, that’s the only harm I see here) than they do people whose lives may depend on them.  How revealing.

Technorati Tags: San Jose State University, Don Kassing, FDA, homosexuality, blood donations, AIDS

…is apparently the gay-rights crowd’s worst enemy. Via the Jawa Report we read that what is being called, vaguely, the "Citizens Bill of Rights" has provisions that are not mentioned on the ballot.

Miami voters are being asked Jan. 29 to approve a ‘Citizens’ Bill of Rights” that would, among other things, promote religious freedom, clean air and scenic beauty. It would also ban discrimination on the basis of domestic relationship status, sexual orientation and gender identity and expression — though relatively few people are aware of it. The proposed city charter change hasn’t drawn much attention. The actual ballot wording never mentions gay or transgender rights. On Monday, even some leading gay and Christian activists didn’t know anything about it.

Apparently, the gay-rights groups don’t have the guts to fight for what they want. They prefer to sneak it in under the radar.

Heddy Peña, executive director of SAVE, Miami-Dade County’s largest gay-rights group, said her organization has been sending out e-mails urging supporters to vote yes. ”We’ve been trying not to call special attention so that it becomes highly politicized,” Peña said. “You politicize it and you have a fight on your hands.”

Politicize? Sorry, more like "publicize". I think the real fear hear is the latter, not the former. Giving the issue a fair hearing and fair representation is not politicization; it’s underhanded. Knowing they can’t sell their issue on its merits, they do what they always accuse the Religious Right of doing; force it down our throats.

Floridians, you have six days to get educated.

Technorati Tags: Florida, gay rights, homosexuality, transgender, Miami, Heddy Peña

They couldn’t win in the courts, so the Left is attacking the Boy Scouts any other way they can. Sometimes the Scouts win, but sometimes, as in this case, the Left gets cities and organizations to back out of agreements.

Prompted by opposition to the Boy Scouts’ rule disqualifying homosexuals as troop leaders, Philadelphia has forced the city’s local chapter to pay fair-market rent of $200,000 a year for its city-owned headquarters.

As WND reported in June, Philadelphia’s city council voted to renege on a 1928 ordinance allowing the Cradle of Liberty Council to have its headquarters in a building on a parcel of public land “in perpetuity” for $1 a year.

The city argues it can’t rent public property for a nominal sum to any group that discriminates.

City officials in San Francisco and Boston have made similar decisions displacing the Scouts because of the group’s behavior code.

Fairmount Park Commission president Robert N.C. Nix announced this week the Cradle of Liberty Council must pay the $200,000 rent if it wants to remain in the building after May 31.

This is not to say that cities and organizations can’t decide to do whatever they want with their property; they certainly can. But what it does show are the lengths to which the Left will go to destroy something they have a disagreement with. Not content to battle ideas (because they’d lose that battle with the public), they put pressure on the economic side of things, in hopes that they can ruin them financially.

The whole “live and let live” pathos that homosexuals allegedly just want to live by is shown to be the lie that it is; the “let live” part is apparently only supposed to apply to others, not themselves.

This also highlights the differences in conservative and liberal ways of dealing with problems. Instead of letting ideas compete, liberals wish to use the government’s heavy hand to quash anything that they disagree with. The Scouts are simply one of the more higher profile groups they have their sights on.

There is no right to belong to a private organization. There are other organizations that will take homosexual leaders. No one is being denied anything. Free association is still legal, at least for the moment. Therefore, this campaign should be opposed by anyone who still believes in a free country.

Technorati Tags: Boy Scouts of America, Philadephia, Cradle of Liberty Council, homosexuals, free association

Shire Network News #105 has been released. The feature interview is with blogger and media analyst Richard Landes, about the latest developments in the Mohammed Al-Durrah case. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary segment.

Hi, this is Doug Payton, asking you to “Consider This”.

Last Wednesday, there was yet another Democratic party debate for the US Presidential nomination. Honestly, this whole campaign season started way too early for my tastes, but it does make for wonderful blog fodder. I mean, the more these folks talk, Democrats and Republicans, the better the chance that they’ll say things that let us see the real candidates, not just the ones their handlers want us to see.

Take John Edwards, please. In that debate, Tim Russert asked about same-sex marriage in general, and about a new “fairy tale” in particular that is designed for 2nd graders about two kings who get married. When asked if he thought this was OK, he said the following:

I don’t want to make that decision on behalf of my children. I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in — did you say second grade? Second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade to be exposed to all those possibilities, because I don’t want to impose my view. Nobody made me God.

Well, to that last sentence, taken entirely out of context, I’d have to say a hearty “Amen”, so to speak. I mean, you’re not likely to hear someone on “Extreme Makeover, Home Edition” walk into their new house and exclaim “Oh my Edwards!”

But let’s go back and put the sentence in context. John Almighty has indeed decided that second graders should be their own moral agents, discerning all manner of right and wrong at the tender age of 7. Now, there are some moral issues that second graders should be able to recognize and, even if they make the wrong decision, they know it’s the wrong one. Whether or not to splatter little Katie’s white dress with black paint is one thing. I would think (I would hope) that even Mr. Edwards could figure that one out. It’s rather black and white. But does he believe that second graders are ready to make a moral decision about the rightness or wrongness of same-sex marriage?

Comedian Jeff Foxworthy has a game show in the US called “Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?”, where contestant compete against elementary school kids. Well it seems that Pope John the Democrat doesn’t think he qualifies to be the moral guide to a 2nd grader. I’m sorry, John, but if you don’t think you can do that, what makes you think you can tell me how to run my own health care, or what makes you think I can trust you with the tax dollars you want to give to charities?

I’ll tell you what, though; if that “fairy tale” “King & King” were about two brothers getting married, I have a feeling John would somehow muster from deep down inside him the courage to impose his views on Mrs. Hutchison’s class in room 107. Yes sir, that line in the sand would be drawn. This far and no farther! Something tells me that his alleged laissez-faire attitude towards his children’s moral education just might be shown for the veneer that it is. And using your children to pander to your base is particularly reprehensible.

And perhaps all this would last until society’s values changed and John would morph with them. “Marriages of 3 or more? Hey, no on made me God! Playing NAMBLA propaganda to babies in the womb along with their classical music? The rumors of my Deification have been greatly exaggerated!”

Now I’m sure that there are those who have been disagreeing that the whole same-sex marriage issue isn’t really a moral issue. I personally think it is, and I’d also note that the faith that John claims, from the Southern Baptist denomination, also sees it that way. John saw fit to bring God into the equation with his statement that he was not Him. But while it’s true that no one made John God, God did make John something; a parent. Just because you’re not God, it doesn’t mean that you can’t make decisions for your children. Indeed, who other than the parents are the primary moral educators of the next generation?

Unless, of course, you think it’s the state’s responsibility to do moral education, and handle all your health care, and micromanage the economy, and tax your way to prosperity. Well, at least according to the latest polls, John doesn’t look like he’ll be getting the nomination.

To that I say, “Thank Edwards.”

John Edwards really need to rediscover his place in this world.

A fairy tale about two princes falling in love sparked a backlash – and a lawsuit – against a teacher and a school last year when it was read to a second-grade class in Massachusetts.

But the three frontrunners in the Democratic presidential race suggested Wednesday night at their debate in New Hampshire that they’d support reading the controversial book to children as part of a school curriculum.

Moderator Tim Russert asked John Edwards, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton whether they’d be comfortable having the story – called “King & King” – read to their children in school.

Edwards gave the first and most definitive answer – a resounding and instant “yes, absolutely” – although he added that it “might be a little tough” for second-graders.

…

The 2004 vice presidential candidate and former North Carolina senator said he doesn’t want to influence his kids’ opinions about the issue.

“I don’t want to make that decision on behalf of my children,” he said. “I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in – did you say second grade? Second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade to be exposed to all those possibilities, because I don’t want to impose my view. Nobody made me God.”

Though nobody made John Edwards God, God made him a parent. To throw his hands up and say that since he’s not The Almighty that he has no place in forming his childrens’ views is a major cop-out. I’m sure he’d find some reason to inject himself in their upbringing if, let’s say, the book were instead about a Kingdom where homosexuality wasn’t practiced because everyone thought it was immoral.

And while we’re on the subject of second graders making their own moral decisions, how about a book on adultery? I mean, it happens quite a lot, and some folks don’t see the moral issue with it, so let’s just show the kiddos an alternative. “The Open-Marriage Kingdom”, in the children’s section at a bookstore near you.

Careful, John. If the Lord wants that book out, He’ll reach down with His own hand and smite it Himself. No one made you God.

Technorati Tags: John Edwards, Democrats, Tim Russert, Massachusetts, King & King, homosexuality, public school, education

Two women “married” in Massachusetts (and yes, I’ll continue to put that in quotes) are seeking a “divorce”, 3 years later, in Rhode Island, where they live. However, Rhode Island does not officially recognize the union. So the question is, if they are granted a “divorce”, does this imply that Rhode Island considers their union a marriage and thus is a back-door to “same-sex marriage”?

Rhode Island politicians are divided.

PROVIDENCE — A state court can grant two Providence women a divorce without answering the highly charged question of whether a same-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts should be recognized in Rhode Island, Governor Carcieri and Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch agreed in legal briefs filed with the state Supreme Court yesterday.

But Carcieri and Lynch differed sharply over what the outcome of the case should be if the high court does take up the larger issue.

Carcieri, a Republican and a Catholic who has opposed bills to legalize same-sex marriage, argued that Family Court should not recognize the marriage between Margaret R. Chambers and Cassandra B. Ormiston.

“Marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman is clearly the bedrock of Rhode Island family law,” Carcieri’s brief said, citing gender-specific terms such as “husband and wife” in state law. “Because of the pervasiveness of this position throughout its family law statutes, Rhode Island has a strong public policy against recognition of any other marriage than that between one man and one woman.”

Lynch, a Democrat and a Catholic who has a sister who married a woman in Massachusetts, argued that Family Court should recognize the Chambers/Ormiston marriage under principles of comity, in which states recognize the laws and judicial decisions of other states.

“The crucial issue is whether there is a public policy in this state that is so strong it will require Rhode Island to except same-sex marriages from the traditional respect and recognition it has shown to laws of its sister states,” Lynch’s brief said. “Rhode Island’s case law and legislative enactments do not support such a finding.”

Predictably, the Republican insists that the people, via their representatives, should decide, while the Democrat believes that the osmosis that comes with free travel between states should be enough to change the laws. And actually, Lynch foresees a Family Court system that treats same-sex couples the same as married couples. While that by itself doesn’t institute “same-sex marriage” in and of itself, once the precedent is set and the legal system is conditioned, it becomes much harder to keep it out. Lynch is innocently shortsighted at best, or an underhanded activist at worst.

And frankly, I believe that same-sex marriage supporters were banking on this all along. To simply get a friendly state to pass the law is all they would need, and then claim “comity” to make it a de facto law in the other 49 states. Never mind the people and their constitutions.

Technorati Tags: same-sex marriage, gay marriage, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Governor Carcieri, Patrick C. Lynch, Margaret R. Chambers, Cassandra B. Ormiston, comity

With a tip of the hat to Ron Coleman at Dean’s World comes word of a certain clientele that will take a company to court for not catering to them.

Now, would it make sense for used of Macintosh computers to sue software companies that only write for Windows, complaining that they should have equal access to that software as well? No, it would be silly, and certainly not allowed. I mean, after all, those Windows programmers know the PC, not the Mac. You’d want someone who knows the hardware you’re using to write for it. And besides, can’t a company choose it’s market?

Perhaps not. Depends on who you are.

The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

A lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.

Define “denied access” for me, will you?

Lawyers bringing the action said they believed it was the first lawsuit of its kind against eHarmony, which has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a “men seeking men” or “women seeking women” option.

They were seeking to make it a class action lawsuit on behalf of gays and lesbians denied access to the dating service.

So to “deny access” means to not offer the specific options in a service that you want. Mac users, your time is coming if this lawsuit makes it through the court system.

eHarmony was founded in 2000 by evangelical Christian Dr. Neil Clark Warren and had strong early ties with the influential religious conservative group Focus on the Family.

There might even be some anti-Christian bias going on here. But that doesn’t even really have to enter the picture to show how meritless this suit is, or should be. Using my previous example, would you want Windows programmers writing your Mac software? Dr. Warren has said that he doesn’t consider himself an expert in homosexual relationships, and eHarmony is essentially selling his knowledge.

eHarmony could not immediately be reached for comment. Commenting in the past on eHarmony’s gay and lesbian policy, Warren has said that he does not know the dynamics of same-sex relationships but he expects the principles to be different.

Let’s sue the butcher for not knowing how to prepare tofu.

And this is just silly…

“This lawsuit is about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love,” said Carlson lawyer Todd Schneider.

How in the world does one business not catering to you somehow deny you the right to do…anything? The very first comment at the “Likelihood of Success” blog (second link above) puts the lie to this immediately.

I’m happily married now for 18 years, so I have zero experience with the on-line dating world. So it was news to me that eHarmony didn’t offer same-sex services.

But it wasn’t news I learned here. No, I learned it when one of their competitors’ ads came on: a somewhat clever ad where a guy looks at some listings of attractive women, and then says, “Nope. Still gay.” Point made: “Hey, if eHarmony won’t help you, we’ll be happy to.”

So the market has already solved this problem: eHarmony’s business choice created an opportunity, and a competitor is taking advantage of the opportunity. If this leads the competitor to get better known and better liked overall, then you can bet eHarmony will reconsider. If this remains a niche market and doesn’t have any carryover impact on brand loyalty, then eHarmony will continue to ignore the niche, and the competitor will find it a profitable niche to serve.

Problem solved. Leave the courts out of it.

(I’ve left off the last line of his comment, since it would become obvious where I got the Mac/Windows analogy from.)

If this lawsuit succeeds, it will cement homosexuality as a seriously privileged class, and be a giant step towards telling churches that consider homosexuality a sin that they don’t have the religious freedom they thought they did. If this lawsuit does not succeed, it will not be because society is homophobic. When Catholic adoption agencies decide not to give children to same-sex couples due to religious reasons, it’s the same situation. And in both cases, the market can, and has, dealt with it. A lawsuit over it is just narcissistic.

Technorati Tags: eharmony, Neil Clark Warren, Linda Carlson, California, San Francisco, homosexuality

If you are requested to do something that goes against your religious beliefs, and you refuse, but you refer those who asked to someone who will, are you guilty of anything? Perhaps not here in the US, but in Canada, the same-sex marriage legislation’s draconian measures consider you so.

A Canadian Christian civil marriage commissioner in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Orville Nichols, could face up to $5000 in fines for having referred a homosexual couple to a different commissioner.

Human Rights Commission lawyer Janice Gingell asked the tribunal to find that Nichols contravened the code and order him to pay $5,000 in compensation to the complainant.

The 70 year-old Mr. Nichols used a clearly religious-based conscience argument for his refusal, saying his faith guides his daily life, that he prays and reads the Bible every day. He told the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal that his faith “takes first place” in his life. He said, “I couldn’t sleep or live with myself if I were to perform same-sex marriages.”

The other commissioner to whom the two men were referred performed the ceremony on the same date they requested of Mr. Nichols.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lists as its first “fundamental freedom” the freedom of conscience and religion”. But for those pushing this agenda, the plain language of a Charter or a Constitution is not worth the paper it’s written on, and your “fundamental rights” are not recognized. Americans should take note.

Technorati Tags: Canada, Orville Nichols, Janice Gingell, christianity, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, religious freedom

The group “Restore Marriage, Canada” is giving Canadians an opportunity to apologize for their country’s legalization of “gay marriage”. It starts:

To the world’s leaders and people,

We, the people of Canada who support marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, apologize to the people of the world for harm done through Canada’s legalization of homosexual marriage.

We are grieved and troubled as we consider the impact this is having in weakening the fundamental institution of marriage in countries and cultures around the world. We understand that because Canada does not impose citizenship or residency requirements in order for same-sex individuals to be “married” here, couples are coming to Canada to seek legal sanction for their homosexual relationships with the intent of returning to their own countries to challenge those countries’ legal definition of marriage.

Technorati Tags: Canada, gay marriage, Restore Marriage Canada