Craigslist Boycott

This news came not as a shocker but as a dark night of my American soul. One day I could browse dozens of hits for stuff I needed and the next I could only find ones that required shipping and handling. Woe is me.

I mean, I just bought all my work-at-home furniture and some more storage items for under $200. The night was not long enough to get all the things I bought. I'm sure glad I had my third child whose car seat wouldn't fit the other two car seats in a car so I could get a van to seat them all: I could get bigger stuff on craigslist Baltimore.

My dream is nevermore. I now have a computer which will never (?) search for a computer mouse nor a desk.

Darn principles (at least I have ones that stick).

LGBT Equality Nonstarter

On Assumption Sunday, there was a visiting priest from Boston who said mass since the pastor was away. In his homily he mentioned that the Assumption was about how we come to God in our bodies, male or female, black or white, ..., gay or straight.

I never heard any ordained priest say anything like that where I could see them in person. It just shocked me.

I reflected a little about what he said. I wonder, should he have said, "adulterous and non-adulterous", "liar or non-liar", etc? Just because we have an inclination to sin, does it mean that we have to identify with a particular, potential sin?

Some people think that the LGBT label is their identity. Some people think that their profession is their identity. For some, the color of their skin links them to others.

How is an inclination of sinfulness regarded as identity? Those of the current LGBT subculture think they are discriminated against: they think they're hated. Should equality be not linked to sin (inclination and/or acts) but to dignity as human persons in our bodies?

Some more thought is needed. Just thinking as I write. (Be nice now if you comment.)

(Good read: Obedience vs. Conscience)

US Sen Mikulski (D-MD) is All About More Government

I got this in my email from the Baltimore County Connector:

US Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) said (picture from here with Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith),

"We need small businesses so they can keep creating jobs and keep powering our economy. But small businesses can't do it on their own. They need a government on their side. They need government bringing down health care costs, supporting innovation, and preparing the workforce for the jobs of the future. They also need a level playing field in government contracting. I want them to know I'm on their side."

How about this:
We need government to get off the back of small businesses. They're already burdened enough by the tax code, paying taxes, and spending 7/8 of their company time trying to figure out government regulations or spending more time and money on a legal adviser. So much for the little guy: the big guy has more resources to figure out big government's mess.

Direct Killing Always Wrong

Here's part of a dialog that took place over Youtube messaging behind the scenes. (It's from the video at the end of this post.)

If accepting the message on the video below is what it means to "trust black women", what do you think? I say, "Trust them to do what, kill the right preborn boy or girl?"

----------
[From other person, not me:]
@otaaac3 "always wrong" going to extreme is "always" a mistake. are you pro-surrendering to invaders so as not to kill them?
would you shout "dont shoot back at the planes" which bombed pearl harbor so they do not "kill" the pilot??
luckily law makers are not extreme and take into account bodily injury of the mother.
if you limit yourself to healthy births say so. but agree if mother will be injured by the birth to remove the fetus in small peices to save mom.

-----------
[From me:]
I said direct killing was always wrong.
"An abortion would be ***indirect*** if it were used neither as an end nor as a means. If a pregnant woman has a cancerous womb that must be removed, removing it would produce an indirect abortion. The child would die after the womb is removed, but the child's death would neither be an end nor a means." -_This Rock_ (emphasis added) http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/double%20effect

Shooting a plane is indirect killing of the pilot. Killing a shooter is indirect killing since the intent is to stop the gun.

-----
[From other person:]
'Shooting a plane is indirect killing of the pilot. Killing a shooter is indirect killing since the intent is to stop the gun.'
what about shooting 'the pilot' is that always wrong? you would answer indirect by 'intent' then abortion is always indirect since the intent is for the family finance

-----
[From me:]
"what about shooting 'the pilot' is that always wrong?"

The pilot himself outside of the plane is innocent until s/he tries to kill someone directly. If they are, say, eating a sandwich in the mess hall, no one has a right to kill them since they are just eating lunch.

A preborn boy or girl inside of his or her mother is doing nothing except eating lunch in his or her mess hall (the mother's womb). No one has a right to kill them for what they might do (potential finance burden). A preborn boy or girl has the same moral worth as you or me.

How much family finance has to be in jeopardy for his or her mother to kill them? $1? $50? $100? $1000? Over how many years? What about adopting to the plethora of people who are waiting to adopt to very little, if no cost to the pregnant mother?

How about born babies? Does the mother have a right to kill them? for how much?

These questions have a very bad logical conclusion.

-----

CA Prop 8 Struck Down

So, the homosexual judge struck down the anti-homosexual "marriage" proposition 8 of CA. Clearly, this judgment was made on factual grounds (finding of fact) as shown in Ace of Spades (I just got a link to it from CMR) so it's harder to strike down on appeal (As I wrote before, I just hope they get the history right).

However, on page 133, there is a vestige of finding of law based on Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pa v Casey (505 US 833, 850, (1992)) and Lawrence (539 US at 582) (I believe Lawrence was the case about consensual gay sex).

California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to “mandate [its] own moral code.” Id (citing Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v Casey, 505 US 833, 850, (1992)). “[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,” has never been a rational basis for legislation. Lawrence, 539 US at 582 (O'Connor, J, concurring). Tradition alone cannot support legislation. See Williams, 399 US at 239; Romer, 517 US at 635; Lawrence, 539 US at 579. (emphasis added)

I could have predicted that this supposedly current reading of the U.S. Constitution, seemingly now the law of the land, would creep into this and all other "culture war" court cases, i.e., there are no morals except the judicial interpretation of the living document that is the U.S. Constitution. (BTW, this legal positivism comes with Kagan too.)

This comes from Casey. It's worth a full read.

Men and women of good conscience can disagree, and we suppose some always shall disagree, about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage. Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. [From the current case] The underlying constitutional issue is whether the State can resolve these philosophic questions in such a definitive way that a woman lacks all choice in the matter, except perhaps in those rare circumstances in which the pregnancy is itself a danger to her own life or health, or is the result of rape or incest.

It is conventional constitutional doctrine that where reasonable people disagree the government can adopt one position or the other. That theorem, however, assumes a state of affairs in which the choice does not intrude upon a protected liberty. Thus, while some people might disagree about whether or not the flag should be saluted, or disagree about the proposition that it may not be defiled, we have ruled that a State may not compel or enforce one view or the other.

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Our cases recognize "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. (emphasis added)

This is what lead to legal assisted suicide in Oregon and to the continuation of abortion on demand. Until this interpretation of what's left of the U.S. Constitution is struck down utterly and without equivocation, there will be no stopping that which people are capable of imagining.

Really, how can the court know what the people in the voting booth were thinking when they voted? Who cares if people who brought Prop. 8 to the voting booth had a reason or not to do so: they only have one (1) vote a piece. The people of CA had their reasons to vote for it that only they know.

"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

The court has forgot. Sorry, dear Abe, may God have mercy on us.

(BTW, see Fr. Barron on the Casey decision near the end of the video below.)