Why Does the Little League World Series Discriminate?

While all sound-minded Americans await the start of college football season and the NFL, to tide us over, we are soon to have the awesome American pleasure of the Little League World Series (LLWS) to enjoy. The U.S. regionals—which determine the eight American teams (in addition to the eight international teams) in the LLWS—are complete. Today, August 17, the tournament to determine the 71st LLWS champion begins. Noticeably absent again this year: girls. Someone should write a memo.

In 1974—of course, thanks to a ruling from a female judge—the Little League Federal Charter was amended to allow girls to play Little League Baseball. Since then, by my count (with the LLWS consisting of 8 teams each year from 1974 to 2000—with only 4 in 1975—and 16 teams annually since 2001), there have been 484 teams in the LLWS. Figuring 12 players per team (there are sometimes more and rarely less), that’s at least 5,808 players in the LLWS since girls were allowed to participate.

During that time, and in spite of the fact that one in seven U.S. Little League players is a girl, only 18 girls have participated in the LLWS, including only six American girls. That means that since 1974, less than one-third of one percent of LLWS participants have been girls. All of those ignorant of human anatomy, biology, and physiology—an ever-increasing number of Americans, it seems—should be aghast.

You see, the teams participating in Little League state district or sectional tournaments, and later the nation regionals and LLWS, are made up of all-star players—the best of the best. Almost always these players are selected by the local league coaches, who are almost always men. Obviously blatant and ugly discrimination has kept hundreds of thousands (Little League is the world’s largest organized youth sports organization) of 11-to-13-year-old girls from their dream of playing in the LLWS. Someone should be fired.

And in the name of all that is “fair,” how in the world—or rather the wide-wide world of sports—has ESPN allowed itself to play a part in perpetuating the perverse patriarchy that is clearly at work in the LLWS? After all, in order to show us all how sufficiently “progressive” they are, we are talking about the media outlet who gave Bruce Jenner—one of the greatest American Olympians ever—an award for pretending to be a girl. Since 2001, ESPN has covered live LLWS games. Until girls are properly represented at the LLWS, clearly this must stop.

Additionally, when are we going to see the first “transgender boy” (a girl who has delusions that she is a boy) in the LLWS? Don’t tell me that with the recent rampant growth of “transgenderism” across the U.S. there aren’t all-star level transgender boys playing on Little League teams across the U.S. and the world. After all, we have seen that girls who are allowed to take performance-enhancing drugs like testosterone—and thus help make up the sad differences with which science has shackled girls (biology is sometimes such a bigot!)—are quite capable of competing well against boys. (As the previous link demonstrates, they dominate other girls.)

Of course this also means that “transgender girls” (delusional boys) must also be allowed to compete in Little League Softball. As this trend grows, look for biological boys to take over the ranks of the Little League Softball World Series. But hey, that’s just the breaks when one is devoted to “diversity.”

Isn’t it interesting that in the name of diversity, liberals seem to have no problem with boys taking trophies from girls? Thus, why does it bother them when men supposedly take jobs from women?

After James Damore—the “knuckle-dragging troglodyte” since fired by Google—wrote his diversity memo, aptly entitled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” liberals circled the wagons, donned their “social justice warrior” attire, and went after another “ignorant” white man’s scalp. As you almost certainly well know by now, Damore’s “crime” was to suggest that the “gender gap” in Google’s hiring practices (men outnumber women at Google by a more than 2 to 1 ratio) was perhaps the result of something other than “implicit and explicit biases.” Perhaps, he suggested, there are (GASP!) biological factors at work when it comes to women and the tech industry.

Long before anyone ever “Googled” anything, the facts bore this out. Women now vastly outnumber men at U.S. colleges and universities. As Newsmax recently noted, “Women currently hold almost 60 percent of all bachelor degrees, and account for almost half of students in law, medical, and business graduate programs, the [Denver] Post reported.” In spite of this, over 80 percent of computer science majors are men. This has been the trend since the early 1980s, when modern computer science became “a thing.”

What’s more, how many women garbage collectors, oil-rig workers, or auto mechanics have you seen or do you know? Notice liberals rarely, if ever, complain about the lack of “diversity” in these industries. And as I’ve noted before, and even more telling than what we see within the LLWS or virtually any other sports or employment arena, in the combined 276-year history of MLB, the NFL, and the NBA, no human being born a female has ever been a regular member of any of those leagues. Again, and in spite of the tantrums and lies of liberalism, this is biology, not bias.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Georgia's Governor Nathan Deal Sides with the Sodomites

According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) today, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal has decided that the current religious liberty bill--which has already passed the Georgia Senate--before the Georgia legislature is an exercise in "discrimination."

In strong language that most any modern liberal would be proud of, Mr. Deal went to great lengths today to warn Georgia legislators away from the current version of Georgia's religious liberty bill. As modern liberals so often do (especially in debates over the moral issues) Mr. Deal made regular use of the word "discrimination." As the AJC notes,

In stark terms, the Republican said he would reject any measure that "allows discrimination in our state in order to protect people of faith," and urged religious conservatives not to feel threatened by the ruling. He also called on his fellow Republicans pushing for the measure to take a deep breath and "recognize that the world is changing around us."

 As I have noted many times, every position in the marriage debate requires a measure of "discrimination." In fact, American law is replete with acts that "discriminate." Do Mr. Deal and his fellow homosexual apologists have the same sympathies towards the polygamous, incestuous, or "throuples?" Is Mr. Deal willing to "discriminate" when it comes to their "right" to "marry?"

With his "the world is changing around us" nonsense, it sounds as if Mr. Deal has fallen prey to one of the supreme virtues of modern liberalism: "tolerance." Of course today’s "tolerance" is little more than a self-refuting system of thought that attempts to impose liberal values onto any culture unable or unwilling to recognize the fallacy. On "tolerance," G.K. Chesterton declared: "Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions." What better describes a modern liberal than "a man without convictions." It's sad to see Mr. Deal align himself with such nonsense. Some things Mr. Deal have been settled for all time.

Declaring that he's a Southern Baptist who took religion courses at Mercer University, Mr. Deal even resorted to using Scripture to make his case. He declared,

"What the New Testament teaches us is that Jesus reached out to those who were considered the outcasts, the ones that did not conform to the religious societies' view of the world … We do not have a belief in my way of looking at religion that says we have to discriminate against anybody. If you were to apply those standards to the teaching of Jesus, I don’t think they fit."

He later added:

"What that says is we have a belief in forgiveness and that we do not have to discriminate unduly against anyone on the basis of our own religious beliefs. We are not jeopardized, in my opinion, by those who believe differently from us. We are not, in my opinion, put in jeopardy by virtue of those who might hold different beliefs or who may not even agree with what our Supreme Court said the law of the land is on the issue of same-sex marriage. I do not feel threatened by the fact that people who might choose same-sex marriages pursue that route."

Liberals typically only quote Scripture when they think it might help them further their Big Government social agenda. It seems that, as he skimmed his way through the New Testament on his way to the Gospel of John and the account of the Samaritan woman at the well, Mr. Deal ignored Jesus' words on marriage and sexuality.

When heralding what Jesus had to say about forgiveness, Mr. Deal forgot to mention anything about sin and repentance. He would also do well to note what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. taught us: "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."

Of course, any redefinition of marriage is "unjust." We should not even have to debate the idea of "religious liberty" when it comes to the issue of marriage. And I refuse to tolerate the notion that we've lost the battle when it comes to marriage because "the world is changing around us." The laws of men are often based on the foolish "wisdom" of those who are politically powerful, or the most popular. However, good government should never allow for the laws of men to run contrary to the laws of God.

After our relationship with out Creator, the most important relationship in the universe is the relationship between a husband and his wife. And again, marriage is the oldest institution in the history of humanity--older than God's covenant with the nation of Israel, older than The Law, older than the church. Marriage is one of the earliest truths revealed by God. If ANYTHING is true, marriage as the union of one man and one woman is true. On this, there can NEVER be compromise.

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Islam, Christianity, and Electoral “Discrimination”

Ben Carson’s recent statements about Islam and the U.S. presidency have garnered a wide array of commentary. Most of the remarks have been quite critical, with even some conservatives taking Carson to task. Predictably, many of those critical of Carson point to the Constitution’s “no religious test” clause. Also predictably, many who are making this argument completely ignore that Carson was not advocating for such a “religious test.”

Interestingly, every one of the American Colonies did have such a “religious test.” What’s more, these tests continued long after the United States was formed. The U.S. Constitution went into effect on June 21, 1788. An excerpt (Article 7, Section 2) from the 1796 Tennessee constitution reads, “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.”

Article 11, Section 4 of the very same constitution says, “That no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state.” Thus, within the same state constitution there resides a religious requirement for holding public office, along with a prohibition against a “religious test.” Therefore, we can conclude that, in the era of our founding, many believed that requiring a belief in God for elected officials did not constitute a “religious test.”

Likewise, the Article 1 Section 4 of the Texas (who didn’t enter the Union until 1845) constitution said, “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”

The constitution of the state of Mississippi (1817, Article 14, Section 265) states, “No person who denies the being of God or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of the State.” More tamely, Article 37 of the Maryland constitution says, “That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”

It wasn’t until 1961, in Torcaso v. Watkins that the Supreme Court rendered such clauses unenforceable. Again, interestingly the Court did not base its ruling on the “no religious test” clause. Justice Hugo Black wrote, “Appellant also claimed that the State's test oath requirement violates the provision of Art. VI of the Federal Constitution that ‘no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.’ Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices.”

Instead, the Court ruled that requiring a belief in God to hold public office violated the First and Fourteenth amendments. In other words, the Supreme Court ruled that such requirements were a violation of the “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment.

However, as I noted, Mr. Carson was not advocating for a government “religious test.” Rather, he was implying that voters exercise a personal religious test as they enter the ballot booth. Of course, this still offends today’s liberals (which is a great indication that one has simply told the truth). Also, what Ben Carson declared is little different than what John Jay—Founding Father, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, and the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court—said in an 1816 letter to John Murray. In fact, Jay was much more exclusive than Carson when he wrote, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Imagine that! Not only did John Jay proclaim that Americans should prefer Christians for their leaders, approximately four decades after the creation of the United States, one of the most significant U.S. founders considered this a “Christian nation.” If such a conclusion is even hinted at today, the (often godless) secularists that dominate the modern left and the mainstream media howl like Highball the hound.

In spite of the meme perpetuated by today’s left, John Jay was far from alone in his conclusion on America’s founding. (However, many on both sides of the argument frequently misunderstand what is meant by a “Christian nation.”) In fact, it is not only American Christians who make such claims.

After the victory over Great Britain, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both served the freshly birthed United States of America as ministers in Europe. Quoting from David McCullough’s Pulitzer Prize winning biography, John Adams:

“Of the multiple issues in contention between Britain and the new United States of America, and that John Adams had to address as minister, nearly all were holdovers from the Treaty of Paris, agreements made but not resolved, concerning debts, the treatment of Loyalists, compensation for slaves and property confiscated by the British, and the continued presence of British troops in America. All seemed insoluble. With its paper money nearly worthless, its economy in shambles, the United States was desperate for trade…To Adams the first priority must be to open British ports to American ships.”

During this time Adams and Jefferson corresponded regularly. According to McCullough:

“In eight months’ time, from late May 1785, when Adams first assumed his post in London, until February 1786, he wrote 28 letters to Jefferson, and Jefferson wrote a nearly equal number in return…Increasingly their time and correspondence was taken up by concerns over American shipping in the Mediterranean and demands for tribute made by the Barbary States of North Africa—Algiers, Tripoli, Tunis, and Morocco. To insure their Mediterranean trade against attacks by the ‘Barbary pirates,’ the nations of Europe customarily made huge cash payments…On a chill evening in February came what Adams took to be an opening. At the end of a round of ambassadorial ‘visits,’ he stopped to pay his respects to a new member of the diplomatic corps in London, His Excellency Abdrahaman, envoy of the sultan of Tripoli…The conversation turned to business. America was a great nation, declared His Excellency, but unfortunately a state of war existed between America and Tripoli. Adams questioned how that could be…[Adams was told that], without a treaty of peace there could be no peace between Tripoli and America. His Excellency was prepared to arrange such a treaty…Were a treaty delayed, it would be more difficult to make. A war between Christian and Christian was mild, prisoners were treated with humanity; but, warned His Excellency, a war between Muslim and Christian could be horrible. [emphasis mine]”

Thus, here we have a foreign diplomat—a Muslim diplomat—during the infancy of the United States, recognizing that the U.S. was indeed a “Christian” nation.

Lastly, along with claiming that Ben Carson is afoul of the Constitution with his conclusion about Muslims and the U.S. presidency, he has—of course—been labeled a “bigot,” accused of discrimination, and branded an Islamophobe. This is nothing more than the perverse and foolish liberal notion of “tolerance” at work.

As we do in practically every other area of our lives (marriage, etc.), we ALL “discriminate” when we vote. As a good “John Jay conservative,” there’s almost no situation where I would ever vote for a Muslim, a homosexual, an atheist, or anyone else who is so clearly outside of the Christian faith. Additionally, whether they claim to be a Christian or not, there is virtually no electoral scenario where I would vote for a liberal. (See: Two Shades of Dismay: The Perverse Bondage Wrought by Liberalism and Islam.)

It’s another sad indictment on our media and our culture that Barack Obama advocates for infanticide, declares that he wouldn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby,” and offers a “God bless you” to those responsible for the death of millions of the most innocent among us, is elected and re-elected leader of the free world. Yet, when Ben Carson casts a suspicious eye towards those who dominate the most dangerous, oppressive, violent and backwards parts of the world, he is unfit for office.

(See a version of this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

On Marriage: Never Give In. Never, Never, Never…

The battle raging over religious liberty on several fronts across the U.S. has been quite revealing. Most telling are the lengths to which liberals continue to go to ensure that the homosexual agenda roars on undeterred. As Ross Douthat has alluded, the political and cultural melee we’ve endured the last several days is because the perversion on marriage wrought by liberals has prospered to the point that an ever growing number of Americans have found themselves in the crosshairs of today’s gaystapo.

Interestingly, and sadly, religious liberty laws like what passed in Indiana, the one that failed in my state of Georgia, the one sent back to the legislature by the governor of Arkansas, and that exist across the rest of the country, have served as little to no protection for business owners, who, because of their religious convictions, want nothing to do with SSM. This is especially the case in states where SSM is legally recognized.

As Tobin Grant noted on the Washington Post recently, “In the 20 years since RFRA became federal law, there has not been a single case in which a person successfully used RFRA to get around civil rights laws.” And if SSM is legal in a state (as the liberal courts ensured in Indiana), it is a “civil right.” In spite of this, liberals insist that such legislation is nothing more than a license to “discriminate.”

Of course, the timing of these attempts at mimicking the federal RFRA is what has liberals up in arms. In part, they are correct. These attempts at religious liberty legislation are, at least in part, a conservative political response to what is rightly seen as a rogue judiciary forcing marriage perversion upon states whose electorate OVERWHELMINGLY rejected such perversion. Thus, this battle over religious liberty has turned into yet another debate over SSM.

Of course, this has brought liberals back to using their worn-out cry of “discrimination.” Whether used as a tool in an attempt to paint the police as oppressors, to justify their ridiculous environmental agenda, to defend the “right” to kill children in the womb, to promote virtually any kind of sexual act that deviates from the standards God gave us, and as fast and freely as they can spend other people’s money, liberals resort to bawling “discrimination!”

And they do it because it works. Rampant accusations of “discrimination” got GOP governors and many legislators in the states mentioned above to kowtow to the modern militant homosexual agenda. “No one should be harassed or mistreated because of who they are, who they love or what they believe,” said Indiana’s Governor Mike Pence as he sought to “clarify” his state’s foray into RFRA. Liberals took gleeful notice.

After Arkansas’s legislature passed their version of RFRA, Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson declined to sign it and sent the bill back to the GOP-controlled legislature to be “rewritten.” Hutchinson said, “We want to be known as a state that does not discriminate, but understands tolerance.” Notice that? Liberals got a GOP governor, in the midst of a religious liberty fight, no less, to tickle their ears with two of their favorites. It’s as if Slick Willie himself trapped Hutchinson in the Clinton Library and wouldn’t let him out until he yelled “discrimination!” and “tolerance!”

What’s more, many so-called conservative pundits in the media are very quick to express their support for the various and new-found “rights” (including marriage) of homosexuals. Fox’s Megyn Kelly and Bill O’Reilly have both been sympathetic to SSM and the “rights” of homosexuals for some time now. David Brooks captured well the current “progressive” thinking that has infected some conservatives in this matter when he recently wrote, “If denying gays and lesbians their full civil rights and dignity is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. Gays and lesbians should not only be permitted to marry and live as they want, but should be honored for doing so.” (Imagine that. We should “honor” a lifestyle notorious for disease, depression, and promiscuity.)

When overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the U.S. Supreme Court’s swing vote Anthony Kennedy, wrote that DOMA created a “stigma upon all who enter into” same-sex “marriages.” He added that the law’s effect was to “demean” those in same-sex “marriages.” Kennedy also wrote that the “avowed purpose and practical effect” of DOMA was to “impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” on those in same-sex “marriages.” In other words, the federal government was “intolerant” and thus “discriminating” against those in same-sex “marriages.”

I wonder if Justice Kennedy and his fellow homosexual apologists will have the same sympathies towards the polygamous, incestuous, or those same-sex couples who want to “marry” for reasons that have nothing to do with sex. Will he be as concerned about their “separate status” or the “stigma” they must surely suffer as their relationships are currently deemed less than others? In other words, are not these alternative (or perverse) relationships also suffering “discrimination?”

Of course they are. Though liberals are loathe to admit such, every position in the marriage debate requires a measure of “discrimination.” As an experiment, try to get a supporter of SSM to declare how the U.S. should legally define marriage. (My favorite line of questioning is, “How would you ‘discriminate’ and define marriage?”) In spite of all their blustering in this matter, it is next to impossible to get an answer.

Perhaps republican politicians should resort to such an approach. Sadly, they are far too eager to capitulate. It takes a strong will, a firm conscience, and a sure sense of what is right to stand against the homosexual agenda. Unfortunately, few politicians today can muster such character. This is especially the case if they fear it means a hit to their bottom line.

With the avalanche of court decisions in favor of SSM, sensing a swing in public opinion, and looking only to their bottom line, significant numbers of corporations are lining up against the truth in the marriage debate. A few weeks ago, more than 300 corporations issued a friend-of-the-court brief in the upcoming Supreme Court case that will decide if same-sex “marriage” will be forced on all of the U.S.

Many of these same corporations are now also pressuring states currently considering RFRA laws. Of course, many of these offended industries have been doing business for years with states that already had RFRA laws on their books, and many of them seem to have no problem doing business with communists or Islamists.

The sports industry has also fully embraced the “discrimination” meme, or is being heavily pressured to do so, when it comes to marriage and the homosexual agenda. A letter sent by Chad Griffin, president of the homosexual propagandists known as the Human Rights Campaign, to Roger Goodell, commissioner of the National Football League, said of Georgia’s religious liberty bill:

…Atlanta is a top contender for the Super Bowl in 2019, but this law directly contradicts the NFL’s nondiscrimination policy and values of acceptance and inclusivity. Should this bill become law, Georgia will not be a welcoming place for LGBT people or many other minorities.

“NASCAR is disappointed by the recent legislation passed in Indiana,” said chief communications officer Brett Jewkes. NCAA president Mark Emmert was “especially concerned” about the Indiana legislation. Duke’s Coach K didn’t seem to be as concerned, and the living legend was called out for his silence on CNN. Former NFL punter and CNN contributor Kris Kluwe, who’s a rabid proponent of SSM, said “[I]f you are a superstar athlete or a superstar head coach, it is your obligation to be aware of these issues because you will be asked about them and you do have a platform to talk about these things and you should be knowledgeable about it because that is the world you live in. That is your society.”

Kluwe’s correct, though I’m sure when he means “talk about these things” he means “speak favorably about all things homosexual.” Like so many small business owners recently, any celebrity, even homosexual celebrities, caught deviating from liberal orthodoxy on homosexuality, are threatened, castigated, disparaged, mocked, boycotted, and so on. And when a pizza parlor in Indiana, and a florist in Georgia decided to “talk about these things” (mainly because they were asked about them)…well, you know the results.

Al Mohler was also right when last year he concluded, “We are in the midst of a massive revolution in morality.” And of course, “sexual morality is at the center of this revolution.” We are indeed at the “crossroads” Mohler referenced, and unavoidable showdowns are looming. More and more Americans, whether they like it or not, are being forced to make difficult moral decisions. In spite of the willingness of many mainline republicans to do so (because so many would love for all of this to just go away), the left is not silent on the social (moral) issues.

In other words, many Americans, who would prefer to remain on the sidelines as we continue to debate the moral issues in America, are being forced to declare with whom they stand. This fight is not for the weak, but like the battle for life in the womb, it is certainly worth having. And like with abortion, if the courts ignore the truth on marriage, our efforts must continue. We certainly can’t expect those who’ve aligned themselves with the enemy of truth to behave honorably.

Nevertheless, as Pastor Rick Warren instructs us, we cannot be afraid to be unpopular (which is very hard for most politicians and celebrities), and we must remember that the only way to be relevant is to make sure that our words and actions align with eternal truths. Don’t worry if you’re on “the right side of history;” you just need to be on the “right side.”

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Left’s Cries of “Discrimination” on Marriage Ring Hollow

As I have often done before, and as I will do until I die, let me once again defend the biblical view of marriage and sexuality. (Yes, that’s 21 links. I dare you to read them all.)

When overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the U.S. Supreme Court’s swing vote Anthony Kennedy, wrote that DOMA created a “stigma upon all who enter into” same-sex “marriages.” He added that the law’s effect was to “demean” those in same-sex “marriages.” Kennedy also wrote that the “avowed purpose and practical effect” of DOMA was to “impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” on those in same-sex “marriages.” In other words, the federal government was “discriminating” against those in same-sex “marriages.”

I wonder if Justice Kennedy, and the other homosexual apologists, will have the same sympathies towards the polygamous, incestuous, "throuples," or those same-sex couples who want to “marry” for reasons that have nothing to do with sex. Will he be as concerned about their “separate status” or the “stigma” they must surely suffer as their relationships are currently deemed less than others? In other words, are not these alternative (or perverse) relationships also suffering “discrimination?”

Of course, one of the most frequent and favorite cries of the left is the dreaded “d-word:” discrimination. Never-mind that virtually every position in the marriage debate requires a measure of “discrimination.” In fact, American law is replete with acts that “discriminate.” For example, there’s age discrimination when it comes to voting, drinking alcohol, and piloting certain types of airplanes. Several states have mandatory retirement ages for judges.

In fact, we all “discriminate” regularly throughout virtually every facet of our lives. As an employer, we might discriminate when it comes to experience, ability, or education. My wife and I certainly discriminate when it comes to who we allow to care for our four children. And we are teaching our children (as does Scripture) that, as Christians, they better discriminate when they marry and not be “unequally yoked” (marry outside of our faith).

So the real dilemma for the left here lies not in their efforts to gain acceptance of same-sex marriage, but rather, how they would (eventually) discriminate and define marriage? Also problematic for liberals: upon what moral code would this definition rest?

As a Christians conservative, I understand well how marriage should be defined and the moral reasons why my discriminatory definition is justified. First of all, as a Christian I accept that God gave us the institution of marriage, and that the union of one man and one woman is THE foundation of every social institution the world over. Strong and healthy marriages lead to strong and healthy families. Strong and healthy families lead to strong and healthy communities. Strong and healthy communities lead to strong and healthy churches, schools, businesses, governments, and so on.

Also, science supports what common sense (for most) has long revealed: children, and society, function best when men and women are united in strong and healthy marriages. In “Marriage and the Law: A Statement of Principles” published by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, the authors note that, “Children raised outside of intact marriages have higher rates of poverty, mental illness, teen suicide, conduct disorders, infant mortality, physical illness, juvenile delinquency, and adult criminality. They are more likely to drop out of school, be held back a grade, and launch into early and promiscuous sexual activity, leading to higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases and early unwed parenthood.” Thus, it is simply a matter of good government to promote—or at least do no harm to—an institution that is so beneficial to society.

However, the real effort of liberals (whether some realize it or not) in the marriage debate is NOT simply “marriage equality.” Many in this debate have been deceived; for you see, ultimately, this battle is not, nor has it ever been, about marriage or discrimination. The pro-same-sex marriage movement is an attempt to use the power of U.S. law to force the complete acceptance of homosexual behavior on a (mostly) unwilling culture.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Gay "Marriage" Charade

After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the liberal pundits predictably cheered the ruling. With few exceptions, such pundits were very consistent (see here, here, here, here, here, and the Huffington Post, which dedicated a whole page) in one particular and notable aspect of this issue: it was “gay marriage” and not “same-sex marriage.”

Apparently it has escaped many liberals that, when one redefines marriage to include man/man and woman/woman unions, homosexuality never has to enter into the picture. Of course, for liberals this is really all about homosexuality. As I have noted before, marriage is just the means to a more sinister end for the homosexual movement. This is about sex and about legitimizing, through the American judicial system, a sexual lifestyle many Americans find immoral.

This is also about vengeance. Once the homosexual movement has the full protection of the law behind it (which it pretty much does now in about a dozen states), institutions with moral or religious objections to homosexual behavior will be attacked, not just with protests, but with the full legal force of the state. Churches, schools, hospitals, businesses, and the like will be targeted. Of course, in the liberal led states where homosexuality has obtained significant legal protection, this is already occurring.

Individuals who speak out against homosexuality will also be accused, and perhaps fined or arrested, for engaging in “hate speech.” This also is already occurring in other parts of the world where liberalism is more entrenched.

Liberals have become so consumed with forcing the legitimization of homosexual behavior down the throats (sorry!) of the American people that they have become blind to the unintended consequences of their legal actions. Let me provide you with a delicious scenario: legalized “same-sex” marriage—which is what we really have—renders the federal estate tax impotent.

Under current federal tax law, an individual can leave any amount of money to a spouse without generating estate tax. Thus, a small business owner or a farmer, wealthy or not, just prior to his or her death can “marry” a “partner” for no other reason than simply to avoid having his estate taxed (further) by the federal government.

What’s more, once the redefining of marriage is taken to its logical conclusion—unless, of course, the left wants to “discriminate” and limit the definition of “marriage”—and polygamous and incestuous relationships are given the legal protection of marriage, then a wealthy small business owner or farmer, nearing the end of his life, will be able to “marry” his son or daughter (no matter if either party is already married) for no other reason than to avoid paying additional federal taxes. Thank you, Justice Kennedy!

For conservatives, and other Americans still capable of actually feeling shame, there will be no shame or stigma in participating in such marriages, because the relationships will have absolutely nothing to do with sex and are all about “love” (loving to stick it to the feds, that is), and “love is love,” right libs?

For liberals, whether such relationships are sexual should have no bearing. I mean, what protest can a true liberal raise against any kind of sexual relationship between consenting adults? Upon what moral standard would they rely? After all, we would not want to “demean” a couple whose “moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.”

Also, there would be no violation of God’s law either, because as anyone who truthfully understands Scripture knows, marriage can only exist as union of one man and one woman. Thus, all that would be occurring is taking legal advantage of the folly produced by liberal logic. I suppose liberals could always change their “marriage” laws and require that same-sex “marriages” occur only with those actually engaging in homosexual activity, but that would require the government to enter the bedroom, and we know liberals don’t want that! (How wickedly ironic would that be? We go from laws against sodomy to those requiring it!)

Of course, liberals would howl at conservatives “marrying” simply to reduce their tax burden, but the law says nothing about such relationships being sexual. As Fred Kopp noted in American Thinker nearly two years ago, “When applying for a marriage license, there is no box to check, no oath to take, no questions about a person's sexual proclivity.  Ironically, the very heart of the ‘gay marriage’ movement -- homosexuality -- gets nary a mention on the marriage application.”

Also, near countless number of times, liberals have gone out of their way to make the case that it matters not whether a marital relationship is capable of producing children, so, again, surely it would matter not whether a marital relationship had anything to do with sex at all.

Therefore, two widowed sisters (one with children and one without) could “marry” so that the estate of the childless widow could be passed on the children of the other with a significantly reduced tax burden.

When multiples are allowed to marry—and make no mistake about it, polygamists celebrated the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA as well—these scenarios become even more crazy and complicated. No matter, though, the legal logic stands.

In fact, homosexuals are already taking similar “crazy” steps in states where same-sex marriage is not recognized. While writing this column, a link appeared on Drudge to an ABC news piece about a homosexual man (65 years old) who adopted his partner (73 years old) to avoid paying Pennsylvania's inheritance tax.

A perversion (something with which most liberals have no problem) of adoption no doubt, but evidently legal, nonetheless. Thus, if gays can adopt to game the system, then straights can “marry” to do the same.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Liberal Morality In Action

How dare they! See, I told you (again and again) that liberals are forcing (legislatively and otherwise) their morality upon us. ABC News is reporting (and linked to by Drudge) that “The National Football League has been warned against inquiring into the sexual orientation of prospective players and urged to do more to make sure teams do not ask those questions, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said today.”

Displaying an uncanny ability to take a moral stand, Schneidermann declared that, “Employment discrimination is ethically wrong and illegal no matter who the employer is.”

He is wrong on both fronts. First of all, employers discriminate all the time. They check credit and criminal backgrounds; they drug-test, check references and former employers, look at school transcripts, etc. This is especially true if the prospective employee is interviewing for a position that pays millions of dollars.

As Al Mohler put it last year (and as I noted in a previous column), “Discrimination—even ‘obvious discrimination’—is not necessarily wrong at all. Indeed, any sane society discriminates at virtually every turn, as do individuals. The law itself is an instrument of comprehensive discrimination.”

Of course, such “discrimination” is completely ethical as well. But you see, Schneidermann’s ethical conclusion is rooted in a moral position. His worldview tells him that it is wrong for an employer to even give the appearance that they might not hire someone because they are homosexual. Many Americans operate from the worldview that homosexual behavior is immoral.

What’s more, for most of the history of this nation our laws were rooted in such a worldview. As I have also noted before, as recently as 1960, every state in the U.S. had laws against sodomy. In upholding such laws, as recently as 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court declared “Proscriptions against [homosexual] conduct have ancient roots. Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. . . . In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults. Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ is, at best, facetious [silly].”

You see, just as the marriage debate isn’t really about “equality,” this isn’t really about employment “discrimination.” Again, as I have said before, marriage [or employment “fairness,” or whatever the cause at the moment] is just the means to a more sinister end for the homosexual movement. This is about sex and about legitimizing, through the American judicial system [and of course, eventually the public schools], a sexual lifestyle many Americans find immoral.

Americans simply have to decide whose morals are going to guide us.

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

To Define Marriage, We Must Discriminate

The NAACP recently decided to (surprise!) side with President Obama and liberals across the U.S. and endorse same-sex marriage. The board of directors for the organization released a statement declaring that “civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law.” Roslyn Brock, chairman of the NAACP’s board of directors, declared “We have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law.”

Of course, one of the most frequent and favorite cries of the left is the dreaded “d-word:” discrimination. Never-mind that virtually every position in the marriage debate requires a measure of “discrimination.” As Al Mohler recently put it, “Discrimination—even ‘obvious discrimination’—is not necessarily wrong at all. Indeed, any sane society discriminates at virtually every turn, as do individuals. The law itself is an instrument of comprehensive discrimination.”

For example, Americans can’t vote in federal elections until age 18. Until ratification of the 26^th Amendment in 1971, the federal voting age had been 21. For the most part, this was the case all over the world throughout the 19^th and into the 20^th centuries. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 withholds revenue from states that allow the purchase of alcohol by anyone under the age of 21.

A 1960 Federal Aviation Administration regulation forced U.S. pilots to retire at age 60. In December of 2007 President Bush signed a law that raised the mandatory pilot retirement age to 65. Almost every U.S. state severely limits the voting rights of convicted felons. Are not each of these examples of discrimination?

What’s more, as Mohler also points out, both individuals and governments discriminate on (gasp!) moral terms. “No sane person would ask a convicted child molester to be a baby sitter. No sane society would elect a known embezzler as state treasurer. These acts of discrimination are necessary and morally right.”

So a real dilemma for the left here lies not in their efforts to gain acceptance of same-sex marriage, but rather, how they would (eventually) discriminate and define marriage? Also problematic for liberals: upon what moral code would this definition rest?

Liberals have recently hinted at how they would discriminate to define marriage. Mike Raven, the brother of a lesbian, has created an online petition through Change.org, challenging Dictionary.com to “correct” its definition of marriage. He has gathered over 95,000 signatures. Raven began the petition after his lesbian sister became offended when North Carolina overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Dictionary.com currently defines marriage as, “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” An alternative definition (the “b” definition) is given as, “A similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.” However, this isn’t good enough for Raven and those like-minded. They want the definition to read, “the social institution under which a man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man establish their decision to live as spouses by legal commitments, etc.”

Notice the “discrimination?” Raven’s definition only includes couples. What about the polygamists? What if one couple wanted to “marry” another?

As a conservative, I understand well how marriage should be defined and the moral reasons why my discriminatory definition is justified. First of all, as a Christian I accept that God gave us the institution of marriage, and that the union of one man and one woman is THE foundation of every social institution the world over. Strong and healthy marriages lead to strong and healthy families. Strong and healthy families lead to strong and healthy communities. Strong and healthy communities lead to strong and healthy churches, schools, businesses, governments, and so on.

Also, science supports what common sense (for most) has long revealed: children, and society, function best when men and women are united in strong and healthy marriages. In “Marriage and the Law: A Statement of Principles” published by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, the authors note that, “Children raised outside of intact marriages have higher rates of poverty, mental illness, teen suicide, conduct disorders, infant mortality, physical illness, juvenile delinquency, and adult criminality. They are more likely to drop out of school, be held back a grade, and launch into early and promiscuous sexual activity, leading to higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases and early unwed parenthood.” Thus, it is simply a matter of good government to promote an institution—not redefine it—that is so beneficial to society.

However, I suspect that the real effort of liberals (whether some realize it or not) in the marriage debate is NOT simply “marriage equality.” Many in this debate have been deceived; for you see, ultimately, this battle is not, nor has it ever been, about marriage or discrimination.

Dan Brown of the National Organization for Marriage hinted at this when, after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned California’s Proposition 8 (a constitutional ballot initiative that defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman), he declared that, “The goal of this movement is to use the law to reshape the culture so that disagreement with their views on sex and marriage gets stigmatized and repressed like bigotry.” In other words, the pro-same-sex marriage movement is an attempt to morally legitimize homosexual behavior.

Doug Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, also hinted at this in his 2005 Becket Fund (a nonprofit institute dedicated to protecting freedom of religion) paper when he wrote, ‘Were federal equal protection or substantive due process to be construed to require states to license same-sex marriage, those who have profound moral or religious objection to the social affirmation of homosexual conduct would be argued to be the out-liers of civil society.’ Therefore, he argues that churches could be targeted for legal penalties and disadvantages as were universities that participated in racial discrimination decades ago.

There you have it. Marriage is just the means to a more sinister end for the homosexual movement and their like-minded liberal allies. This is about sex and about legitimizing, through the American judicial system and discrimination law, a sexual lifestyle many Americans find immoral (along with destructive and dangerous).

So, in the marriage debate (or any of the other “social issues”—or as I prefer, “moral issues”), if a liberal throws out the “discrimination” charge, or cries out with “how dare you try and force your morality on me!” remind them that their position requires discrimination and a moral stance as well.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com