Checking in

Yes I know it has been awhile since I have posted. And so much to cover - most importantly Hillary effectively removing herself from the Democratic race for the presidential nomination, giving Obama the nod (predicted here - but I also thought Giuliani would take the nomination so you see how far that got me - 50% so far). Hillary will not be the VP pick as I believe the Dems want the Clintons to just go away.

Also in the news is Gay Marriage which of course has become legal in California. In reading the blogs and news today I am struck by how trite some of the supporting ideas for gay marriage is and in fact how devious the actual deconstruction of words everyone knew 10, 20 years ago are now open for re-interpretation.

For example - marriage used to mean a man and a woman uniting as one (whether or not it was religious or before God or not). Now it means whatever a state court wants it to mean. It could mean a man and a man, why not a man and a dog? Why not two men and a woman? Who am I to apply my own sensibilities to a word such as marriage.

Having something that was moral meant measuring it against some sort of metric and judging whether it was good or bad (an action, a attitude, etc.). What was moral or "good" could be applied to all of society as natural guardrails. Now what is moral is defined by individual choice and there are no great moral truths out in the world to know. Everything is relative.

Change used to mean a difference from the norm. Now it is a slogan used by an inexperienced candidate for President to gloss over his own inexperience in pursuing the highest office in the land and his complete lack of grasping the major political issues of our time. Change is now a dodge to basically avoid answering any real questions on specifics and instead obscure the real facts that we, as citizens, have a real crappy choice in November.

Back to Gay Marriage - one thing that really stinks is that this decision also forces adoption agencies such as Catholic Charities to deal with Gay Couples who want to adopt due to these charities accepting state and federal funds. Instead of having the protection to exercise religous beliefs, adoption agencies such as Catholic Charities have decided not to offer adoption services rather than compromise on their religous beliefs. While many see this as cruel, why should a church bend on some of its core beliefs just because a secular entity such as a court makes a decision that is in opposition to it? Why can't Catholic Charities be left alone to do the Lord's work (no pun intended) and let homosexual couples pursue adoption from other venues. Maggie Gallagher has a great article on this at Townhall.com here.

Another word that used to mean something that now has a different meaning - Freedom (religous and otherwise). Now it means what the Left allows it to mean (i.e. anything that the Left agrees with).

OS