The bottom line? Keep Las Vegas in Las Vegas!

• 67% – or two-thirds – of respondents want Internet gambling to remain illegal

• 46% said casinos have a negative local impact, while 38% say casinos have a positive impact (remaining didn’t know)

• A majority also opposed sports betting and legalizing sports betting for government revenues.

Memo to Rep. Barney Frank:
The majority of people (67%) do not want Internet gambling legalized.

Please stop being a finger puppet for the foreign, online gambling cartel. Stop your reckless push to legalize and tax online gambling.

If Americans don’t want a single casino in their own town, they certainly don’t want several thousand online casinos piped into their homes!

Please represent the U.S. citizens who elected you – not the foreign gambling cartel (and their money). Please stop gambling with our economy and being irresponsible. Put this issue to bed.

Please do implement UIGEA regulations that prohibit illegal, online gambling payments. This allows states to decide what forms of gambling are legal, gives voters a voice and offers greater protection for families and children.

Thank you for listening.

Sincerely,
Responsible citizens who care more about families and the future of our Nation than we care about foreign gambling interests and poker

__________________

Read more about the battle to keep families protected from online gambling predators.

The Guardian reports that an estimated 5.7 million South Africans are living with HIV, which is about one in every five – or 20% – of adults, a truly sobering statistic.

Casual sex outside of marriage is never a wise choice, and it’s particularly risky in Africa. But if Britain is sending 42 million condoms, one would expect that condoms are extremely effective in preventing HIV, right?

According to research, condoms are only effective against preventing HIV transmission 85% of the time. And consider that here, in the U.S., approximately one in every four people with HIV is undiagnosed and unaware that he or she is infected with HIV. Even more African sex workers are likely unaware of their HIV-positive status.

Perhaps abstinence while in HIV-laden South Africa is a better alternative than being part of the 15% or so who fall into the condom-failure zone, who will return home potentially – and unknowingly - infected with HIV. Wouldn’t you agree?

And, contrary to growing popular belief, HIV/AIDS infection is still lethal. The HIV “treatments” only delay the death of those who are infected. There is no “cure” or vaccination for HIV/AIDS at this time.

Are you traveling to see the World Cup games in South Africa? My advice: watch the games, enjoy South Africa and avoid playing Russian roulette with HIV/AIDS.

“We are called upon to decide whether the teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, by students in public schools constitutes an establishment of religion prohibited by the United States Constitution. We hold it does not; the Pledge is Constitutional.”

The full 193 page decision is found here.

The 9th Circuit also today found the National Motto “In God We Trust” constitutional. That decision is here.

Ever-hopeful atheist Michael Newdow, who brought these cases, could appeal to a larger 9th Circuit panel of judges called an “en banc” panel, or directly to the Supreme Court. I don’t look for him to have any success in either venue.

The 9th  Circuit’s biggest liberal, Stephen Reinhardt, dissented in the Pledge case and would have also in the Motto case if the 9th Circuit hadn’t previously ruled on that very issue. But he made it clear he thinks both decisions are wrong. We’ll talk more about him and pending 9th Circuit nominee Professor Goodwin Liu as birds of a feather in an upcoming post.

And then she feels bad about feeling bad. “When you cry about things not working out, you’re crying not only because a guy you slept with now doesn’t seem to care you’re alive,” [Julie] Klausner writes, “but also because you’re ashamed of yourself for crying.”

The women expressing their near-regret deny the real reason for their emotions—sex is best when the man has committed to love and care for you–but at least some are honest about the emptiness.

I’ve heard this sort of thing before.  Abortion proponents have also had to admit that grief-like emotions are experienced by women who have abortions.  I wrote a brief piece about a 2001 Ms. magazine article in which abortion proponents recognized that many women experienced sadness after an abortion.  They claimed that post-abortion stress (PAS) was a “bogus infliction invented by the religious right.”  They also claimed that rather than grief, women were suffering from stress induced by “anti-abortion movement” protesters.

The casual sex proponents are similar. The author of the Slate article writes,

From whence this confusing, shame-feedback loop? Compelling research shows that hooking up is not psychologically damaging, and only purity-ring-clutching evangelicals believe that it’s wrong to have sex before marriage.

First, I’ll just say that historically, sex and marriage were linked by more than the people who claimed faith in Jesus Christ.

Secondly, why is any woman defending activity which requires women to deny their emotions?  Isn’t emotion one of the reasons a woman likes sex?

Denial is necessary, of course, because to admit the source of the emotions would be to admit that women and men are different, approach sex differently, and that a woman’s right of refusal is her true source of power.

Admit it.  Virgins are the new revolutionaries.

Thank god that Christians are such self-doubting people. Despite Focus on the Family’s efforts to brand this program as snake oil, I know there are thousands of Christians who realize that the day is coming when LGBT people can and should be warmly accepted and fully valued within their congregations, when Biblical arguments against gay couples will feel as antiquated as Biblical arguments for slavery or keeping women away from the workforce. Thank god that BelieveOutLoud.com is as well organized and clear as it is, and thank god that someone’s finally stepping up to oppose the propagandist lies that Focus on the Family continues to spread within the church about gay people.

Because this reader raises the issues of homosexuality, slavery and women, I wanted to respond more fully to his assertion that these three issues are directly comparable.

Dear Grumpy Morning Boy,

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

As you’ll see not only in the original “Believe Out Loud” blog but in my replies to some who have responded to it, I agree that people who self-identify as gay, bisexual or “transgender” should be accepted and valued within Christian churches. However, I reiterate that there’s a huge difference between “accepting” someone who experiences a particular proclivity or temptation in the sexual sphere of his or her life and “affirming” them in that which God’s Word clearly says is sinful and outside His created intent for humans sexual expression.

Beyond this, your comment equating homosexuality with the issues of slavery and women is a common argument raised by those who promote the pro-gay revisionist theology. However, the issues are “apples to oranges” as opposed to “apples to apples.”

In fact, what we see in Scripture with the issues of slavery and women is an increasing freedom afforded to both groups of people when looking at the sweep of biblical texts in the context of the surrounding cultures. So, in this sense, one can say that slavery and women are “apples to apples” and more directly comparable.

In contrast, the biblical treatment of the issue of homosexuality always points back to God’s created intent for human sexuality as described in Genesis. In other words, the biblical standard consistently affirmed in the Bible – particularly in the context of the surrounding cultures – is one that consistently points not to more and more freedom but rather back to the original restrictions put in place by God to harness our powerful sexual energies and proclivities. So, it is incorrect to compare homosexuality to the issues of women or slaves.

For a fuller explanation along these lines, I’d encourage you to check out William J. Webb’s book, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals:  Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Intervarsity Press, 2001). While I do not necessarily agree with everything that Webb argues in this work, he very ably demonstrates that the redemptive movement of Scripture points in opposite directions when comparing homosexuality to slavery and women in the Bible.

I hope this helps.

Now Chief Justice Roberts has finally addressed the issue in responding to questions from University of Alabama law students this week:

Roberts said anyone is free to criticize the court and that some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

“So I have no problems with that,” he said. “On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court – according the requirements of protocol – has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

Next year’s SOTU will probably have a few extra seats available front and center, methinks.

And oddly enough, the case is apparently not even ready for closing arguments just yet, as a document discovery dispute has only within the last several days been resolved, requiring the LGBT opponent groups to produce certain internal documents of the kind that the Prop 8 proponents were required to produce. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a case where discovery was still going on after the trial finished up, but nothing about this case has been “normal,” so we’ll just wait and see. I assume that if the documents produced turn up any evidence that the Prop 8 lawyers want to introduce into evidence before closing arguments proceed, they will be allowed to do so.

I am aware that several Virginia colleges and universities have included “sexual orientation” in their respective policies. For the reasons stated, any college or university that has done so has acted without proper authority…Accordingly, I would advise the Boards of each college to take appropriate actions to bring their policies in conformance with the law and the public policy of Virginia.

The Virginia chapter of the ACLU is predictably indignant over this development. Exec. Director Kent Willis:

“Regardless of state law or policy, not only should universities prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but they are required to do so under the U.S. Constitution.”

Required, eh? That’s quite a stretch.

And if you don’t remember what the problem is with those non-discrimination policies, let me remind you.

For 35 years, mandatory disclosure of political contributions has been the most popular part of the campaign-finance “reform” agenda. Yet the idea that Americans should report their political activity to the government is, in many ways, the most un-American part of that agenda. Excessive disclosure invades privacy to little benefit and provides government—and others—the information they need to retaliate against people holding unpopular or inconvenient views. Moreover, compulsory disclosure sends the message that identity, not ideas, matter. Call the result “ad hominem democracy,” an atmosphere in which serious, civil debate about issues seems ever harder to find.

The usual defense for disclosure laws is that they are needed to prevent corruption of the candidates and, hence, the process. But Smith points out that federal laws mandate disclosure of all donations over $200. And 40 states have a threshold of $100 or less. Can anyone seriously argue that you can buy a candidate for those amounts? And most of those states and federal government require the disclosure of the contributors’ occupations and employers. To what end?

Some of the stories of intimidation and retribution that Smith recounts in the name of “disclosure” are pretty eye-opening. It’s worth a read.

Signed,

Publius

A recent study, “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and for All Fifty States,” shows that divorce and family fragmentation is very expensive for taxpayers.  In addition to the pain experienced by children and their parents, taxpayers pick up the costs to society due to:

… taxpayer expenditures for antipoverty, criminal justice, education programs, and through lower level of taxes paid by individuals who, as adults, earn less because of reduced opportunities as a result of having been more likely to grow up in poverty.

The principal investigator, Benjamin Scafidi, used a low estimate in his conclusion, but it’s an unbelievable amount.  The final estimate was that “family fragmentation costs U.S. taxpayers at least $112 billion each and every year.”

As an international organization with outreach to hurting families around the globe and our nation, it goes without saying that Focus on the Family would like to see more children growing up with their married mom and dad. This research helps reveal that marriage is a great investment for our communities.

Read more about this report at The Institute for American Values Web site.