Our hat is off to the good Christians who visited the Illinois state Capitol in Springfield Wednesday, to champion marriage between and man and a woman. We would have joined the group except for other commitments.
Springfield Rally for Marriage
We hope their presence sends the message that you can’t fool Mother Nature, and you can’t change the natural law or the Divine Positive Law, and that our legislators had better not try to change state law to allow unnatural unions.
Same sex unions are so intrinsically unnatural and repulsive that we marvel at people who pretend they have something to do with civil rights. Fortunately, the real civil rights groups are complaining about the specious arguments that civil rights for racial minorities can be compared to gays’ demands for marriage and other special recognition. Racial minorities are rightfully outraged as they point out how irrational this comparison is.
No civil rights are violated in not granting special rights to gay couples. Homosexuals do need special help in overcoming their illness, but none in accommodating it. Two of our staff went on the trip to Springfield. Look for a report on Friday.
Slouching Towards Gomorrah
If you’ve never read Judge Robert Bork’s Slouching Towards Gomorrah, you should. At least read Chapter 10, “Killing for Convenience, Abortion, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.” It is about as direct an approach to these crimes as we’ve read and says in essence that we’re at the bottom of a moral pit and the climb out is going to be tough.
We like Bork’s style. Too bad he wasn’t Ronald Reagan’s first appointment to the U. S. Supreme Court instead of pro-abort Sandra Day O’Connor. Bork could probably have made it early on. We’ll never figure out that Reagan blunder. Incidentally America has slouched even a bit more toward Gomorrah since Bork’s book was published in 1996.
Sun-Times Editorial Almost All Wrong
A scary editorial in Monday’s Chicago Sun-Times headed, “Fetus-protection act doesn’t threaten right to choose” actually concedes that pro-life may have won a battle, but then insists that pro-life has lost the war. If battles are still raging, we observe, the war is obviously still going on.
What the abortion crowd got from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 was not winning a war but a free ride for a time. Sooner or later justice will prevail, legal protection will be returned to the unborn, and our national abortion nightmare will have ended. Meanwhile the abortion war continues but almost all of the significant battles are now being won by pro-life, and the pro-aborts know it.
The cynical editorial boasts that generations of women have “enjoyed the freedoms that reproductive rights offer them.” Tell that to the Silent No More women who hold signs saying, “I Regret My Abortion,” and women attending Rachael’s Vineyard. Tell the millions of the walking wounded how much they’ve enjoyed their reproductive rights.
And don’t even bother reading your own newspaper or you might learn that RICO isn’t preventing pro-lifers from talking women out of abortion at the abortion mills. We won that one, too.
But the editors do admit that so called “abortion rights” don’t give someone else a right to harm a woman’s “unborn child”– not “fetus,” “blob of tissue” or “acorn,” but “unborn child.” Even the Sun-Times editor couldn’t help himself for a brief moment.
Not-So-Hidden Agenda? You Bet
Cindy Richards, also in the Sun-Times Wednesday, says the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” seems righteous but might invade on a woman’s right to abortion. Cindy fears this might be a trick to make the unborn child a human being. She writes that there is a not-so-hidden agenda at work here, and a woman’s right to choose could be the unnamed victim of this act.
We sure hope so.