Monday, July 15, 2013

SCOTUS Voting Patterns 2012-2013


I’ve finally gathered enough data to take an overall look at this past Supreme Court session. The question I’m looking at concerns cohesiveness vs. division on the court. How much agreement overall, and how much ideological division? The data may not answer the specific questions we have about ideology, but it’s an interesting piece of data.
There were 79 cases in the session; five were per curiam, so in the overall count I have eliminated those and dealt with the remaining 74 cases. Of those, 35 are essentially unanimous (some are listed as unanimous; some are unanimous with concurring opinions; some are listed as majority with concurring, but no dissents.) The probability is that those cases are mainly non-political, and just technical issues of law. I may take another look at the data later, removing the unanimous cases. But with those included, there is quite a lot of agreement on the court.
The photo is the draft I printed out after organizing the actual votes. Blue means majority, concurring, and unanimous opinions. Yellow is dissent. Orange is abstaining (recusal of a justice on a particular case). You can see there is a sea of blue.

 
Last time I did a piece like this (April 2012), it was relatively early in the session, to see if there was possibly any predictive information prior to the Obamacare ruling. The data was small enough not to be unwieldy. While I have the database of all the votes for this year’s session, I haven’t got a way to condense it to be looked at in this blog. So I’m only presenting the sub-database concerning how often each voted with the majority (including concurring opinions, which means agreement with the ruling but for different reasoning), how many dissents. And from that we can also see connection to voting blocks.
The conservative voting bloc is Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts, with sometimes Kennedy. The liberal voting bloc is Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg, and sometimes Kennedy. If there was a bloc on a case, that meant there were at least three of the bloc voting together (either with the majority or the dissent). When a bloc was two-two, Kennedy determined whether to consider whether a bloc existed. Note that it is possible on a case for a justice to be either with both blocs or against both blocs.
 
I don’t know whether we can say what this all means. But there are probably a few observations we can make from this data, so we’ll that in the next post.

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Extra on HB2 in Texas

This is a Saturday extra, following up on Wednesday’s post, on HB2, Texas legislation to ban unnecessary abortions past 20 weeks (the point at which the fetus is known to feel pain) and to upgrade clinics to the standards required of other ambulatory surgical clinics. The bill passed the Senate Friday evening at 11:59 PM by a vote of 19-11, which makes it law pending Governor Perry’s willing signature.

This is good news. Both in the House and in the Senate, the strong majority votes included bipartisan agreement, and the legislation was introduced and strongly supported by women—meaning the president’s kneejerk reaction was wrong yet again.
On Wednesday I pointed out that the pro-death-to-infants side reveals their savage tendencies by their behavior during the process. That was again on full display Friday at the Texas Capitol.  Department of Public Safety officers did their job to keep the mobs at bay. Bricks, tampons, and glitter were confiscated before they could be thrown at pro-lifers gathered at the capitol; also confiscated were about 18 jars of urine and feces intended by pro-abortionists to be thrown on those who don’t share their opinions. I'm not sure how they supposed that throwing human waste on people would persuade them toward their point of view.
There were no reports of materials confiscated or any other sort of disturbances or intended disturbances by pro-life supporters.
One side is civilized. One side is savage. When given the chance to show who they really are, each side shows it pretty clearly.

Friday, July 12, 2013

Meanwhile, a Little Movie Preview


I’ve been planning, since the end of the Supreme Court session at the end of June, to look again at SCOTUS voting patterns. The first such post is April 13, 2012. We were looking at data prior to the ruling on Obamacare, to see if there was a clue about what to expect. What we found was that, while there is a liberal bloc and a conservative bloc, the early decisions of the 2011 session showed a fair amount of congeniality on the Court.  (A session starts in the fall and ends in June of the following year. So those rulings in spring 2012 were part of the 2011 session.)
The 2012 session, now complete, includes all the cases, not just the early ones of the session. So building the data base is a fair amount more work than last time (79 cases, compared to 14). So I set aside a day for it, built the data base, saved it (multiple times while working, plus a final time before closing the file for dinnertime)—and then, because of my technical challenges, the file disappeared. No amount of searching so far has yielded anything but the original few.
Such is life. Maybe I’ll be able to redo the work for Monday’s post.
In the meantime, a little movie preview.


 

This fall the classic science fiction book Ender’s Game comes to the big screen. I’ve been aware of this story for a long time. The novel, I think, was published in 1991, but it was a short story in a collection before that, where I first encountered it. Orson Scott Card was a graduate student at the university I attended more than a decade before this novel, but even then he was a name on campus, because so few English majors go on to make it big. The story is powerful. I don’t recommend it to young readers, but it can be good for more mature teen readers. It’s clean, but there is some raw violence and a lot of psychological struggle.
A couple of years ago I read three of the sequels: Speaker for the Dead, Children of the Mind, and Xenocide, and I’ve occasionally mentioned them. Ideas come up in his writing related to civilization; some have become among my favorite quotes. So Orson Scott Card comes up April 28, 2011; May 31,2011; June 6, 2011; October 14, 2011; and a year later October 15, 2012.
There have been rumors about an Ender’s Game movie almost since it came out, but the author wasn’t willing to lose control to Hollywood. He’s a screenwriter himself as well. So when I heard earlier this year that the movie was really going to happen, I was hopeful it would do the story justice. I’m still a little apprehensive about it (the trailer makes it look like Ender is aware of things he doesn’t know in the book). But Harrison Ford plays the commander, so that’s a possible plus. And then you add in Ben Kingsley and Viola Davis.
Card also authored a nonfiction book for fiction writers called Characters and Viewpoint. It was clearer and more useful than anything on the subject I came across in college. I have a lot of respect for him as a writer.
I think he’s a writing teacher in North Carolina. I haven’t been following closely for a while, but he used to do a regular column for the local newspaper, and it often got picked up by The Mormon Times, an online news and opinion publication. I would often see his articles linked, and several over the years have been worth saving in a file.
His writing is only occasionally political. He’s a Democrat, but I’m puzzled by that, because he feels strongly about the Constitution, and I think he warned us, both times, against the disaster that would follow an Obama election. Once in a while he has written about traditional marriage, as I do. [My Defense of Marriage collection is here]. In 2009 Card joined the board of the National Organization for Marriage, an organization I appreciate. I get their newsletters, and follow their efforts in the courts, as well as with local organizations in many states.
The other day I came across a story about a boycott of the movie—because of Card’s controversial view. Presumably that “controversial” view is the majority opinion that marriage should continue to be defined as it has for  all of the millennia up until now, by all civilizations until the decadent ones we are beginning to experience. Because he has opinions in favor of family, and in favor of children being raised by their own two parents in a committed real marriage, these people who believe they know better than us all think he should be shut down and silenced as a human being, because they deem his opinion unacceptable.
If the rest of us boycotted every movie in any way associated with anyone who has differences of opinions with us on things totally unrelated to their movies, we would simply never see movies. We conservatives tend to value actual tolerance much more than the “we order you to be tolerant” crowd, apparently.
Anyway, if you think there’s a chance the movie coming from this excellent classic book might be worth seeing, maybe you should not pay heed to SkipEndersGame.com (hyperlink purposely omitted). Check it out with some friends and family (preview before sharing with children, please).

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Texas House Passes HB2


This is breaking news. Testimony was taken well into the evening Tuesday, so the vote came fairly late.  The unofficial total is 94 yeas, 51 nays, 1 present not voting. Good for Texas!
This is the bill that got Wendy Davis and her pink tennis shoes notoriety at the close of the first special session, when she filibustered to prevent the vote. (Bill text here.) 
The bill will still face a Senate vote before becoming law; the Senate has a companion bill, SB1, with hearings scheduled for July 11. I think it is very likely to pass. This bill is the main reason for holding this second special session.
The bill’s main purpose is to ban late-term abortions beyond 20 weeks gestation—the point at which evidence shows the fetus feels pain. Exceptions are made in critical health situations. The 20-month point is already well beyond limitations for abortions in most European countries. It is difficult to envision a situation in which a woman, knowing she is pregnant and not wanting to be, cannot act before five months gestation. So the bill is seen as not causing an undue burden.
Another purpose of the bill is an effort to avoid the lack of regulation that allowed for the filth and horror seen in the Gosnell case. Pro-abortionists claimed that case should not represent their purposes, because lack of regulation was the problem. So this bill requires that abortion clinics abide by the same standards as other ambulatory surgery centers, such as those that do Lasik eye surgery or colonoscopies. Opponents of the bill claimed this was an unfair burden, because it would require 37 of 42 abortion clinics in Texas to upgrade or close. Let me repeat that another way: currently 88% of Texas abortion clinics cannot meet the minimum standards of safety and health required of all other types of clinics—yet the opposition wants to keep the standard lower “for the sake of women’s health.” Right.
People who clamor for the “right” to behave in uncivilized ways will show their savagery in the process.
That was true at the end of the first legislative session, when their “free speech” was actually a raucous mob preventing civil society from functioning. Rallies have shown them hollering “hail Satan,” and hurling profanities at churches in particular and anyone who disagrees with them. They offer up death threats to the Lieutenant Governor and threats against family members of pro-life legislators.   
Their visual aid during Tuesday hearings was to carry coat hangers and claim the law would force women into using such devices on themselves—but of course without any logical connection between the actual law and the “need” to use a coat hanger on oneself. Choosing to stab an unborn infant with a coat hanger isn’t what horrifies them; it is that infanticide isn’t made more convenient for the woman choosing to kill the infant. That is savagery.
Their best argument about the “unborn pain” part of the law is, “not all science agrees.” They are not concerned with the infant’s pain. Nor can they give a decent reason for a woman—without medical need but only personal life choice of whether to be pregnant after engaging in behavior that led to pregnancy—to require the option of offing the child at will a full five months into the child's growth. She suddenly gets concerned about stretch marks? I’m not sure.
For reasons they don’t comprehend, uncivilized demands don’t persuade well in Texas.

Monday, July 8, 2013

Ideology vs. Politics


I am more ideological than political. I recognize that participation in the political world is necessary in order to prevent those with opposing ideologies from imposing them on me. But I do not enjoy the political game. I am much more content to talk about ideas, and I would like to trust that wording things well so that everyone can make informed decisions will lead to the right outcome. That is, in large part, my mission here at the Spherical Model.
Meanwhile, what politically minded people know is that ideology only wins if the politics win—if the movement of public opinion is handled like a well-advertised business. Not enough people are thinkers. Not enough people pay attention. Yes, it’s important that I explore the ideas and think clearly, for my own sake and for sharing with others. But that is not enough.
This is an off-election year, so I don’t feel as pressed to engage politically. But maybe that makes it a good time to explore a discomfort zone without undue pressure.
I came across a discussion of this dichotomy over the weekend. The spelling (and bio of the author, Stephen Masty) show a British or beyond-American perspective, but the conversation applies to America nevertheless. The overall piece makes a few main points:
·        Progressives don’t engage in truthful ideological discussion; instead, they claim a desire to serve mankind and other untruths that sell.
·        Politicians, whether they claim progressive or conservative ideologies, are about building power; that is the profit they seek in their peculiar market-view.
·        Because growth of their circle of power is the goal, cutting back big government isn’t going to get done by politicians.
But the piece ended with the challenge I find I face:
Real conservatives, noble and reflective for the most part, usually debate an idea on its merits and avoid stooping to conquer. They ought to reconsider. It is not to say that conservatives should stop dissecting the misdirections and false hopes of the Progressives, but they must also engage in real-politik and expose the political agendas behind the platitudes; some groups do this already. How the bureaucracy and politicians benefit by department and function and overall, will reveal their greed for their own kinds of profit.
But exposure requires research, which is harder work than sitting in the study with Aristotle, Jefferson and even Russell Kirk. Both tasks are essential; one to provide cultural bearings and civilisational direction, the other to sell the product to a cynical multitude that is already suspicious of politicians.
It might be true, then, that we need to learn or discover ways to “sell” the truths of freedom, free enterprise, and civilization, rather than just “convey” them.
If we were to look at the last presidential election, we’d find this challenge laid out. Romney conveyed conservative ideology—always. He had done so consistently for many years before even his first run. You can’t find non-conservative ideas, unless you parse a phrase here and there during his challenging effort to convey the ideas to people who don’t understand conservative principles. The enemy portrayed him, successfully and completely untruthfully, as privileged and out of touch with real people, to build class envy against someone who knew, through experience, how to fix complicated problems—in business, in government, in volunteer organizations; combining brilliant business sense, strong use of data, and unerring integrity. Everything I knew about Romney before the election, and what I have continued to see since, is that no candidate has ever been better qualified, while also being a completely honorable individual, to be our president in our times. The difference between him and our current president is stunningly stark. [I wrote about Romney here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.]
But on the conservative side, he is still spoken of as the wrong candidate, because he wasn’t conservative enough—according to the arguments of only his enemies (primary opponents, followed by final election opponents) instead of actual known facts about the man.
I don’t think he ran a bad campaign. But I think there may be some truth in the assessment that honorable conservatives go into the debate assuming it’s about ideas. The enemy goes in assuming it’s about grabbing power, any and every way possible, and any means to that end are justified in their minds.
I don’t know the answer to how truth tellers can move the masses. When we look at Reagan, that is what he seemed to
President Ronald Reagan 1981
official portrait
have—an ability to cut through the ideologically leftist-controlled media and speak directly to people in a way that resonated. He was clear. He was direct. He rendered complicated matters uncomplicated: “Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win; they lose.” Diplomats cringed. But the boldness and directness translated into the principle of “peace through strength.” Using bold words was leadership.
I don’t think you’ll find significant ideological differences between Reagan and Romney. I think in Romney you would see peace through strength as a guiding principle, and limited government as designed by the Constitution a guide for economic recovery. Both men can be described as resolute and consistent in their conservatism. But Reagan had power over the message in ways we haven’t seen since.
I don’t know why Reagan had power over the message. I believe there are many today who articulate the message well, and often with similar plainness and boldness. It is the selling of the ideas to the masses that I fail to understand.
I don’t think we’ll find a candidate more perfect than Romney was. A more experienced and better human being is unlikely to appear again in a generation. So what we will need is someone conservative enough, resolute enough, articulate enough—surrounding by an army of people who not only understand and believe in ideological truth, but also know how to connect that truth to an attention deficit public. We need honorable idea salesmen.

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

The Declaration

In honor of tomorrow’s celebration, I am re-reading The Declaration of Independence, which is the point of this holiday.
Image from Wikipedia


I received an invitation from Hillsdale College, open to anyone, to join them in their pledge to read the Declaration of Independence on July 4th. You can of course donate to their cause, of educating people on the founding principles, but no donation is necessary. Just read. Usually The Declaration is printed in the Houston Chronicle, on the editorial page, so that’s a source if you don’t have another.
I’m providing the transcript below (including the list of the signers, who risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor), from the National Archives.
I happened to come across an article this week, quoting the president in a speech to a group of summer interns [see comment below], suggesting they not celebrate the Independence Day. His speech included this:
Peer back into history and ask yourselves—Was a revolution truly necessary? Great Britain may not have had it completely right, but they had many things right.
Presumably he has read The Declaration, with its list of abuses, and finds it too trivial to have led to a separation from the oppressor. Not sure what the limit of his tolerance for oppression (or oppressing) would be. But when I read The Declaration, I believe the founders were justified in declaring a separation. The Revolutionary War was only necessary because the oppressive regime refused to acquiesce without a fight, and freedom from oppression is a just cause to fight for.
It was necessary for our founders to set up a new nation, with new laws, to guarantee our freedoms. We already have such a nation, with such laws. But the list of usurpation of powers is arguably more egregious now that the list in The Declaration. I wrote recently that what we need is not transformation, nor reformation, but restoration.
This is a good time of year to remember what is worth restoring and preserving. Read The Declaration. And then read The Constitution. And marvel with me at the inspiration given to our founders. 

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
·         He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
·         He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
·         He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
·         He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
·         He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
·         He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
·         He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
·         He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
·         He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
·         He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
·         He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
·         He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
·         He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
o   For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
o   For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
o   For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
o   For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
o   For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
o   For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
o   For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
o   For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
o   For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
·         He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
·         He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
·         He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
·         He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
·         He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
    Button Gwinnett
    Lyman Hall
    George Walton 

Column 2
North Carolina:
    William Hooper
    Joseph Hewes
    John Penn
South Carolina:
    Edward Rutledge
    Thomas Heyward, Jr.
    Thomas Lynch, Jr.
    Arthur Middleton 

Column 3
Massachusetts:
 John Hancock
Maryland:
 Samuel Chase
 William Paca
 Thomas Stone
 Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
 George Wythe
 Richard Henry Lee
 Thomas Jefferson
 Benjamin Harrison
 Thomas Nelson, Jr.
 Francis Lightfoot Lee
 Carter Braxton 

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
   Robert Morris
    Benjamin Rush
    Benjamin Franklin
    John Morton
    George Clymer
    James Smith
    George Taylor
    James Wilson
    George Ross
Delaware:
    Caesar Rodney
    George Read
    Thomas McKean 

Column 5
New York:
    William Floyd
    Philip Livingston
    Francis Lewis
    Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
    Richard Stockton
    John Witherspoon
    Francis Hopkinson
    John Hart
    Abraham Clark 

Column 6
New Hampshire:
    Josiah Bartlett
    William Whipple
Massachusetts:
    Samuel Adams
    John Adams
    Robert Treat Paine
    Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
    Stephen Hopkins
    William Ellery
Connecticut:
    Roger Sherman
    Samuel Huntington
    William Williams
    Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
    Matthew Thornton

Monday, July 1, 2013

Defense of Marriage Collection


A couple of weeks ago, when the Spherical Model blog reached the 400th post, I posted a “best of” list for three days, relating to the three spheres: Political, Economic, and Social/Civilization. However, there are some topics that I cover fairly frequently, and over time I intend to offer links to those collections. One of those is the collection of pieces I’ve written about defending marriage.
After last week’s Supreme Court ruling declaring a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional—the part that allows the federal government to define the term—the majority took the opportunity to defame the majority of humankind as “enemies of the human race.” They include me in that definition.
Personally, I believe anything that sets out to undermine the basic unit of society is an enemy of the human race. But, while I think their ideas have that savagery-inducing effect, the people themselves are not de facto subhuman—just wrong. They’re deceived in the way the Old Testament prophet Isaiah predicted:
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!—Isaiah 5:20
While I still have the freedom of speech to express these ideas (a freedom which tends to become illegal wherever same-sex “marriage” becomes the law), I offer examples of what I believe is both a logical and humanity-loving point of view. These examples are more or less limited to the definition of marriage, so there’s a lot about motherhood, fatherhood, population decline, and family that I’m not including in this list. (In other words, as long as this list is, it could be longer.) I did include two on the Boy Scouts, related to the homosexual agenda but not specifically to same-sex “marriage.”
·         My Rational Belief in Traditional Marriage, June 24, 2011
·         New York—If Only You’d Asked, We Have Answers, June 27, 2011
·         Devaluing Marriage and Family = Decay of Civilization: Part I—Vico and Unwin, June30, 2011
·         Devaluing Marriage: Part II—Death of Marriage in Scandinavia, July 1, 2011
·         Devaluing Marriage: Part III—Decay of Civilization, July 7, 2011
·         Speaking Up, August 31, 2011
·         One Small Victory, November 18, 2011
·         War against Women and Children, March 19, 2012
·         In Defense of Marriage, reprint, April 25, 2012
·         Defining Marriage and Making Cream Sauce, reprint, April 30, 2012
·         Controversy Still (The Gay Marriage Fantasy, reprint), May 4, 2012
·         Why Protect Marriage (Why Texans Will Vote Yes to Protect Marriage, reprint), May 8, 2012 
·         Loving and Logical, May 14, 2012
·         Tolerance—You Keep Using That Word, May 16, 2012
·         Remembering Richard Wilkins, November 30, 2012
·         Each Life That Touches Ours for Good (Remembering Richard Wilkins, Part II), December3, 2012
·         Defending the Boy Scouts, Part I, February 11, 2013
·         Defending the Boy Scouts, Part II, February 14, 2013
·         Supreme Court and the Definition of Marriage, March 27, 2013 
·         SCOTUS on Marriage, Part II: The Gotcha Question, March 29, 2013
·         SCOTUS on Marriage, Part III: Outcomes of the Cases, April 1, 2013
·         Marriage Rulings, June 28, 2013