Violent Rapist? Get Rehabilitated In Vermont

If you've watched the news, you know about the little "missing" girl from Vermont. Well, her remains were found yesterday on her uncle's property. Vermont, it turns out, has a wonderful sex offenders rehabilitation program. Daniel Goleman (of Primal Leadership fame) enthuses in the New York Times fifteen years ago:

The sex offender treatment program in Vermont, among the most sophisticated in the country, showed similar successes, according to a report at the Kent State meeting. In an evaluation of 473 sex offenders who have been released from prison for up to eight years, the average rate of sex crimes in the same period for a comparison group who received no treatment was 38 percent, at least double the rate of those treated for various sex crimes.

For child molesters in the treated group, the rate of sex crimes after release from prison was just 7 percent; for exhibitionists or voyeurs, 3 percent; for rapists, 19 percent. While the figure for rapists is highest, it is still just half that of those who did not receive any treatment.

To be sure, not all sex offenders respond to treatment. Among rapists, for instance, rape is often more an act of violence than of sex. This kind of rapist is less likely to benefit than are those for whom fantasies are more important than violence.

So my take away is that treatment may or may not work and we have no way of telling who it will work on, but we should be thrilled because maybe it will work on someone. And of those treated, one out of five will offend again. That means that one out of five will commit a violent rape again.

Let's just look at Brooke Bennett's case. Her uncle Michael Jacques has done this before:

In 1993, he was convicted of kidnapping and rape committed in June 1992. Court records show that the victim was an 18-year-old young woman he supervised at a fast-food business in Rutland. The records show he and a friend got her drunk and then Jacques alone forced her into his car and over the next four hours raped her several times. The police affidavit says she was choked with a rope around her neck, gagged with a cloth in her mouth, and handcuffed with police-style cuffs. Police say Jacques eventually let her go after he told her he needed help and was going to seek psychiatric counseling.

The victim told police that Jacques said he had killed a 12-year-old girl he raped in Arizona in 1985 because she threatened to go to the police, "so he had to kill her."

And he has been treated in Vermont's stellar program:

The police were unable to confirm his claimed killing of the 12-year-old in Arizona, but Jacques did plead no contest to the charges of kidnap and rape in Vermont. In return, under a plea agreement, he got six years in prison, but was released after serving only four and half with credit for good time.

That 1992 plea deal also required Jacques to complete the sex offender treatment program before he could be released from probation. According to the records, he did complete the therapy program, and was released from state supervision in December 2006. Corrections officials say Jacques completed his sex offender treatment program in 2000.

Do you see how insane it is to release these criminals from prison with or without treatment? If they don't get treatment, nearly half repeat offend. If they do get treatment, only one out of five re-offend--that get caught, anyway.

Since no one knows who will or who won't re-offend, why are any of these people released back into the community? And I don't put the flashers or oglers in the same category as a violent rapist. A violent rapist should know that if he gets convicted, he's in prison for life, period. Sure, some of these guys might reform or go impotent or get too old to have the energy to commit their dastardly deeds. The problem is, since no on knows who will and who won't offend, the risk is too great.

Let them rot in prison. Keep society safe from these freaks. Prison does not reform these jerks. At best, some inhibit their impulses. Let them be free of temptation. Keep them in prison.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Texas is Great! Give Me Chocolate Cake!

That was an inane Bill Cosby comedy reference. But check this out via Don Surber:

Brian Stevens told News 4 his wife, whose six months pregnant, had just called him after she noticed someone lurking around the house. When Stevens got home, he saw the suspect going house to house. He went inside his home and then heard some rattling coming from his own back fence. Stevens then ran upstairs and grabbed his gun.

"I was waiting for the police, and he just walked in the door. He just walked in," explained Stevens.

Stevens said a man later identified as Stephen Garcia made his way inside the home and started walking towards him.

"I gave him plenty of times. I mean, I was screaming at him, telling him 'Get out of my house. Who do you think you are? Just get out. Get out!'," Stevens told News 4.

But Stevens said the 21-year-old intruder kept coming.

Castle doctrine. Smart wife. Armed husband. Almost dead dumbbell burglar. All in all, a good day for crime abatement in Texas.

Don't Mess .... In Texas, You'll Get Shot and Killed Dead

Why would you be a bad guy in Texas? Everyone owns a gun and people really, really like to use them. Dave from Ace's blog has been watching this case, as have I. He explains what happened:

To recap: Joe Horn, a resident of Pasadena Texas observed two men (illegal aliens as it happens), burglarizing a neighbor's home, and he called 911.

He spent some time on the phone with the 911 dispatcher, waiting for law enforcement to arrive.

They didn't, and he grabbed a shotgun and went out to confront them.

According to the transcript, the 911 operator repeatedly urged Joe to stay inside and wait for law enforcement. Joe waited a while, then said 'he did not believe it would be right to let the burglars get away'.

"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn can be heard telling the operator. "You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."

He went out, told em to stop. They didn't. And he shot both of them, in the back.

Allah says:

There’s the “stand your ground” provision. If it justifies him leaving the house to face them down, it’s not so much an exemption from the duty to retreat as an affirmative right to advance. And how was deadly force “immediately” necessary if it could have been prevented just by sitting tight? He’s got the shotgun and he’s watching them; if they try to come in his house, they’ll never know what hit them. Eh, whatever. It’s not worth parsing the statutes too finely since ultimately it’s in a (grand) jury’s hands and they’re not going to send an old man to jail for shooting two felons caught in the act, whatever the felony and time of day.

Well, this is Texas. The police took a long time to show up. A plain clothes detective saw it and did nothing. Will this force a change in Texas concealed hand gun statutes? Doubtful. Will the Castle Doctrine and its parts and pieces get revoked? Doubt that, too. Will it confirm for knobby-headed elites that Texas is a barbaric, cowboy-attitude-infested wasteland? Probably. Just want to remind the naysayers of this.

One would think that a few instances like this would be a major deterrent to crime. Move to DC, it's safer to be a criminal there.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Annie Git Yer Gun--Even In D.C.

Via the Scotusblog:

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Justice Scalia’s opinion stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales. [Opinion here.]

Well, the solution to yesterday's problem, seems to be this: Keep your child with you at all times, arm yourself and shoot the f__________. (John won't let me use swear words. Sometimes they just fit.)

The thing that seem unfathomable to me is that four justices voted against this obviousness. Anyone who reads the constitution, sees the right to own a gun. Only lawyers twisting themselves into self-righteous pretzels could see this any other way.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Supreme Arrogance and Common Sense

Even Barack Obama feels the Supreme Court overreached with their asinine ruling where they came to the conclusion that there is a "cultural consensus" against capital punishment for child rapists. It seems that there's a cultural consensus, alright, and it is exactly opposite to the court's. Here is what Obama said:

Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday he disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of people who rape children, a crime he said states have the right to consider for capital punishment.

"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes," Obama said at a news conference. "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."

Well, duh. The constitution is clear. The justices are pushing for a situation where the death penalty is never permissible. I mean, if men who rape five year olds don't qualify to get a one-way ticket to meet their Maker, who does?

And to address the fear of "murdering the witness" should the death penalty be allowed.. The court doesn't seem to follow their own logic. What will happen is this: People will take the law into their own hands. When justice isn't swift or just, people get frustrated. And who would blame the guy who goes after the child rapists? And these guys are not exactly treated well in prison. That's not cruel and unusual? So the justices essentially condone street justice for these freaks.

Here's the consensus, since the justices seem to be breathing the same elite rarefied air: Normal, average people have children. They watch the news and know that there are depraved people who are incapable of rehabilitation. A person who can do these things to a child ceases to demonstrate any ability to function in society. Period. For the safety of the community, they need to be dead. I don't want my tax dollars feeding this animal. I don't want my tax dollars spent protecting him in prison. I want him dead. And I'm not alone. Every person I know, liberal or conservative feels the same way. I call that a consensus.

Some truths are so self-evident they are call common sense. The Supreme Court's decision yesterday demonstrated a decided lack of this increasingly rare trait. They also demonstrated that they have no problem taking legislative power as their own.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Because A Child Rapist's Life Is Worth Saving

The Supreme Court issued another stellar ruling: It is "disproportionate" to take the life of a child rapist. That would be cruel and unusual punishment. As opposed to what the child endured, which falls into the category "lucky to be alive". Lucky, lucky child! Here is a sampling of the reasoning: (Opinion here.)

Part of the Court’s rationale for nullifying a death sentence for raping a child was that the child victim gets enlisted, perhaps repeatedly, to recount the crime, forcing on the child “a moral choice” that the youngster is not mature enough to make. “The way the death penalty here involves the child victim in its enforcement can compromise a decent legal system,” Justice Kennedy wrote.

More here. Ann Althouse notes Alito's dissent:

ADDED: In dissent, Justice Alito (joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas) emphasizes the breadth of the decision:
The Court today holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. This is so, according to the Court, no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be. The Court provides two reasons for this sweeping conclusion: First, the Court claims to have identified “a national consensus” that the death penalty is never acceptable for the rape of a child; second, the Court concludes, based on its “independent judgment,” that imposing the death penalty for child rape is inconsistent with “ ‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’ ”

Leaving aside that gem, the Court took more rights from the state to punish as they see fit. Taking away states rights has become a disturbing trend of the Supreme Court.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

High Gas Prices Are Turning More Consumers Into Criminals

I am not freaking kidding. MSNBC's national news blames oil prices for making people criminals. My brother said, "Next up, unemployment turns more people into armed robbers." And the genius they quoted said, "stolen fuel costs the industry $140 million last year, and I expect it to go up this year." Ya think? I mean gas prices have doubled. If less gas gets stolen this year, and this is a stretch because I was public school educated, it will still cost the industry more money. Sometimes I'm so impressive. I can't help it.

And there isn't a direct link for this stupidity because it's not on their website yet.

Thank God Abortion Is Legal

I mean, if it were illegal, people would prey on women and women would be harmed by untrained people posing as medical personnel:

The owner of a clinic has been charged with posing as a doctor to perform abortions, some of them unsuccessful or resulting in severe complications and hospitalization, prosecutors said Friday.

Bertha Pinedo Bugarin, 48, was arrested Thursday after a yearlong investigation, San Diego County district attorney spokesman Paul Levikow said.
She was charged with 10 felony counts, including performing medical procedures without a license and grand theft, he said. She faces more than nine years in prison if convicted.

Bugarin, who was being held on $500,000 bail, was scheduled to be arraigned July 2. An call to her attorney Peter Hughes after business hours Friday was not immediately returned.

Prosecutors said Bugarin at one time operated six clinics in Southern California that provided abortions. For her clinic in Chula Vista, near the Mexican border, she advertised her service on Spanish-language television and charged $500 for an abortion.

Wow, America dodged a bullet. Legal abortion makes everyone safe.

Thong-Induced Injuries Deserves Class Action Status

Some things are inevitable, you just wonder why it took so long:

As she was attempting to put on a Victoria's Secret thong, a Los Angeles woman claims that a decorative metallic piece flew off the garment and struck her in the eye, causing injuries and a new product liability lawsuit against the underwear giant. Macrida Patterson, 52, alleges that she was hurt last May by a defective "low-rise v-string" from the Victoria's Secret "Sexy Little Thing" line, according to a lawsuit filed last week in Los Angeles Superior Court. A copy of her June 9 complaint, which does not specify monetary damages, can be found below. Patterson's lawyer, Jason Buccat, told TSG that a "design problem" caused the decorative piece to come loose and strike Patterson in the eye, causing damage to her cornea. He added that the eye injury, which caused Patterson to miss a few days of work, will be "affecting her the rest of her life."

Most women I know have been injured by thongs. Besides the physical damage, there's the humiliation of knowing that she's willfully put a clothing garment in her butt crack ostensibly to avoid a lesser disaster: the dreaded panty lines. Men wouldn't wear a bra. Men wouldn't wear high heels. Men wouldn't wear panty hose. And men certainly wouldn't wear thongs. It's a conspiracy to create a perpetual state of discomfort and misery in the fairer sex.

This lawsuit deserves a lot more attention. Women of the world unite! Bring Victoria's Secret down for being the purveyors of a clothing product that has complete disregard for human health and dignity.


Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Guantanamo Military Tribunals: Bush Reviving al Qaeda According To Tim Rutten

Here we go. The trials for those accused of plotting 9/11 and other terrorist acts began last week. They are military tribunals and the rat scum who committed the crimes are doing the things one would suspect a terrorist to do--like claim mental illness, decline counsel in hopes that the trial will be null and void, and generally acting persecuted. For all their plots and planning, turns out these jerks rather like life and want to prolong this process. If they can garner sympathy and can make themselves look like a martyr, they'll do it.

Enter liberals. I love this headline "Just as Al Qaeda is falling apart, Bush's terrorist tribunals are reviving it." It goes with the equally inane editorial by Tim Rutten of the LA Times. Consider this:

It's a sad but salutary thing to recall that number and that terrible day. The consolations of legal justice never can be complete, but they're all we as a society have to offer the injured and the grieving. That's why, when it comes to the handling of these cases, the Bush administration's willful overreaching, contempt for fundamental American values and defiance of basic American notions of due process have set the stage for travesty and further tragedy.

Presidents Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt used military tribunals. Did they demonstrate "contempt for fundamental American values?"

The tragedy that the press currently endures is not having complete, unfettered access to the courtroom. Another tragedy: the press isn't being allowed to hear every word of testimony to achieve precisely the ends Rutten claims to want to avoid--inflaming the " fanatic-infested backwaters across the Islamic world." You see, the government knows that the press doesn't mind inflaming the idiots in these backwaters. So, to prevent that happening, they will blank out words and phrases used by the terrorists that would be used to stoke and inflame those who would definitely hear it from guys like Rutten.

Here are some of the ways the press has done it's part to help "calm" those backwaters:

Editing the President's comments about Iraq and "civil war"--May 19

Remember the flushing the Koran story that was totally bogus?

How about the rush to judgment and broadcasting the Haditha marines story? Real story here.

That's just three stories I can think of off the top of my head. Any lie, distortion or piece of sensitive information spouted by one of these bastards would be presented as absolute fact by the likes of Rutten, turning the trial into a big propaganda enterprise for al Qaeda, just what Rutten claims Bush is doing.

This trial will end one of two ways--life in prison or execution. I hope for the latter. Like the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the enemy understands nothing except complete and total domination. What Rutten ignores is the mind of the enemy where everything is "en Shallah" or "God willing". Should these guys end up at the end of a noose, it must be God's will. It will be further demoralizing and humiliating. They will have died helplessly, ignominiously and worthlessly revealing the al Qaeda way for the dead end it is.

As an aside, Rutten ignores the massive resources, also known as tax dollars, that would go into housing these guys in American prisons and pushing them through the American legal system. Americans do not want that. As an American citizen, I don't really care what those in the backwaters think, feel or believe about our legal system and military choices. I rather like the notion that terrorists would worry about being snagged as an enemy. Americans might be nice as prison guards, but American justice needs to be viewed as strong. Part of the reason these yahoos think they have a chance against the "Great Satan" is they think we're weak.

If America is weak, what does that make the terrorist being sent to meet Allah by the American? Super double weak. The message will be uncomfortable for would-be terrorists to receive. Good.

Californians Push Back

The California Supreme Court usurped the will of the people by overturning the results of the previous referendum (Proposition 22) banning gay marriage. Now, the people are fighting back:

An initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. It is similar to gay marriage bans that have been adopted in 26 other states.

La Shawn Barber makes some great points about this, saying:

As I read this opinion, I kept wondering when I’d run into the inevitable discussion about incest and polygamy. Those of us who oppose homosexual “marriage” often argue, with good reason, that allowing two men to “marry” opens the floodgate to allowing just about anyone to marry. I never found that discussion because there wasn’t one. Instead, there’s a footnote. A footnote. From page 79 (emphasis added):

“We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships. Past judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.”

Wait a second. Our nation’s culture has also considered homosexual relationships “inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry,” has it not?

So Californians will fight back. Will the Supremes subvert the will of the people again? They'll try. They say that marriage is a constitutional right. I figure that's just what the framers imagined when they wrote the constitution: We hold these truths to be self evident--that all created beings were imbued by their Creator to have the right to marry whomever and whatever they please.

What do you think?

Gay Marriage.....
	Should be legal
	Should be illegal, but I support Civil Unions
	Should be illegal and the laws as they exist are fine
pollcode.com free polls

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Child Pornography As Art

In America, it's "spiritual marriages" or slut baby clothing. In Australia, it's "art". Either way, exploiting children seems to becoming more normed throughout Western civilization. Make sure to watch the news clip at the link. Even Australia's leftist Prime Minister is appalled.

My question, upon watching all this, is where are the parents? There are laws against child pornography, but there's no law that can stop parents from being complete morons. Why would a parent allow this? The child has no consent. The child will grow up some day and see these images and try to rationalize his parent's failure to protect him and worse, his parents cooperated.

Of course, the art community feels persecuted because police are investigating. Enter the obligatory Nazi references:

Commenting on the decision to shut down the Henson exhibition, he said it was "a sad day that an artist or a gallerist has to edit an exhibition on the basis of public fear".

"It's like Australia's way back in the 1950s again," he added. "It's a reminder that we still live very much in basically a philistine country."

Judy Annear, senior curator of photography at the Art Gallery of NSW, says artists like Henson need to continue to push the boundaries, despite public opinion.

"The day art museums and artists decide that the only thing they can do is react to public opinion is the day that we are in the same scenario as people were in the 1930s in Germany," she said.

So, the Nazi's were preventing children from being exploited? Why, if my cursory understanding of history serves, it was the Nazis who were doing the exploiting. Lampshades were art, no doubt. Hitler hated modernism and artists in general because of his own failings as an artist. What deep chasm in the modern public psyche accounts for the outrage at seeing children exploited?

It is never possible that the artist has crossed a inviolable moral line. Nope. The Australian populace are a bunch of Philistines. How open minded! Only if you agree with the art communities are you a free thinking genius, but if you disagree--you're a Philistine. To the true artist, there are no boundaries. To the average person, artists have no sense.

H/T Reader Dana Hanley

FLDS's Culture of Depravity and CPS' Culture of Duplicity And I'm Sick of Kids Being Harmed By Those Who are Supposed To Help

Fox News shares these absolutely disgusting pictures of FLDS "spiritual leader" Warren Jeffs spiritually sticking his tongue down the child-wife of his "spiritual marriage". No, he and his followers aren't pedophiles. No way.

Now, I know that Texas social workers can behave badly. In fact, any agent of the state I suspect almost as a matter of course. I'm just saying that it's possible that funky stuff is going down in that compound and that sending girls back there will be endangering them. The fact that Texas CPS acts above the law and family courts in general have no constraints engenders doubt even in legitimate cases.

Children will be harmed because of this mess and if f*cking pisses me off. Man, I'm in a bad mood and this kind of shit makes me even more irritated. Oh, and in case American kids are not sexed up enough, LL Cool J is here to help. I thought that guy was supposedly a Christian. Oh, and here's more irritation: imagine being forced to have only one kid and the kid being crushed in a substandard government-built building. Some days I just want to smash some stupid skulls. This is one of those days. Damn. How am I going to sleep with my BP this high?

Due Process In The Texas Polygamy Case

Darlene Click has more about this case. She believes this will make other cases of abuse difficult to prosecute.

Polygamists Might Get Their Kids Back

A Texas appellate court says that the removal of the kids from their moms is unlawful. I wonder if that means the 15 year old moms married to 50 year old men, too. Holy f*ck what a disgusting mess. There is just something about seeing these moronic Little House on the Prairie women running out of the courthouse that pisses me off. You don't have to dress like Britney Spears to be in the culture but not of the culture. According to the New York Times:

The ruling asserted that the state’s child protection agency acted hastily in removing the children from the Yearning for Zion ranch in April and did not make a reasonable effort “to ascertain if some measure short of removal and/or separation from parents would have eliminated the risk” of abuse toward the children of 48 mothers who filed the suit. The district court was ordered to remove its restraining order giving the state custody of those children, but it was not immediately clear how the hundreds of other children, now in foster care, would be affected.

Using religion as a cloak for pedophilia prone middle aged men grates (link via Maggie's Farm). I want those kids back in that situation like I want boils on my feet. But I'm just not sure about the best environment for these kids... And while it seems excessive to lump all 400+ kids in the abused category, it seems equally excessive to lump all the kids into the everything-is-hunky-dory category. (Which isn't the case, I guess this ruling only applies to 38 kids.)

Forget the abuse, isn't polygamy illegal in Texas? And why don't we prosecute them? And say the kids aren't "abused", what of the rest of it? And does this case mean the state will go after Muslims practicing polygamy?

And yes, I see the implications for parents worried about their kids being yanked away on the "evidence" of one anonymous phone call. I recognize that some kids suffer because the greater good is the presumption of innocence and sanctity of the family relationship.

What a mess.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Gays Unions, Polygamy, and Marriage, Oh My!--UPDATED

I don't want to do it. I just don't. But I feel compelled, based on Rachel Lucas' provoking prose to do it. Blast that woman and her infernal commitment to casting a spot light on popular culture. So, last week the dumbasses that rule California decided against the people and for the few, the out, the proud and the inclined to marry. It's a clear case of judicial activism, but it's California. No one should be surprised.

Of course, this finding begs the question: Why shouldn't gay people marry? Why can't anyone marry anyone?

First, let's discuss definitions. Semantics--Marriage is, by definition, a union between one man and one woman. Anything else is not marriage. Call it something else, just don't define away marriage.

Second, this discussion is about social sanction not legal remedy. There are legal remedies for people who want to give, share, commit to, or in some way, shape or form, entwine their life with someone else's life. For example, an acquaintance who hated his wife (who hated him) but didn't believe in divorce, gave his true love the Power of Attorney at the end of his life. Well, you don't want someone who hates you deciding when to pull the plug, right? Any person can will anything to anyone for any reason. There are no stoppers there. If you want to mingle your life's possessions with someone else, you are legally free to do it. It's called a contract.

Third, marriage is an ideal. All the clap-trap about same sex partners who love each other being better parents than a father and mother who hate each other is a stupid argument. And a loving father and mother is a better situation for children than loving gay parents--in ideal terms. A child needs both positive male and female role model in their daily lives. And before you start hating on me, there is plenty o' evidence for this. Look at the inner cities where father-involvement and two parent families are scarce. Kids with divorced parents want their parents married. Kids with same sex parents want a "mom" or a "dad"--whichever one they're missing. There are consequences for mucking around with a social arrangement that has worked for thousands of years.

Fourth, polygamy is stupid. By it's very nature, women (and I don't want to hear abut societies where women marry multiple men, let's be real here) are denigrated in polygamous marriage. Go back to the old bible story about Jacob and Leah and Rachel. There will be an alpha female. There just will. The rest of the women are relegated to lesser status. But it's their choice, goes the argument. No it's not. In America, we are all viewed as created equal, therefore we are not going to encourage social relationships built on fundamental inequality. It is wrong. And forget the consenting moronic women who enter these relationships. Kids come from these relationships and they suffer. They don't get a choice about their freak parents. A polygamous relationship is unstable for the kids, it is socially isolating, it is weird. Oh, and lets not even get into the younger, horny guys who can't get a woman because all the old dudes scoop 'em up.

Fifth, marriage the sacrament should be taken out of the government realm. This is where I part ways with many conservatives. What is between a couple and God is between them. A religious ceremony is just that. I think it's a great thing. I'm all for it. I believe that when people marry, they are uniting themselves in ways that are physical, material and spiritual and that no amount of God-avoidance changes that. And that's exactly why many gays want to get married--they want the religious sanction. Their problem is with God and they need to take it up with Him. Find a church that believes the part of the Bible that speaks out against sexual sin is bunk and get unioned there. The same goes for heteros. Marriage as a sacrament is acknowledging God in your marriage. That belongs in a church.

Sixth, marriage is about the children. As a social construct, marriage is meant to protect kids and keep them supported. A man and woman who have sex chance having a child from their union. Birth control does not work 100% of the time. Abortions are the lazy man's answer to unthinking sex. The best environment for a child to be born into is one where there is a committed man and woman. You see, shit happens. Sometimes children have health problems that require one parents 100% devotion. Sometimes one parent gets sick or is otherwise incapacitated. Sometimes a parent loses his or her mind. Sometimes one person loses her job. A two-parent family is a family with back-up. A gay union, in contrast cannot, without going outside the union, create a child. Gay unions are not for the express purpose of having children. They are for the express purpose of displaying commitment to each other. There is a difference. Now, there are childless couples who choose to not have kids. Fine. Marriage is an ideal and not defined by the exceptions.

Seventh, anyone who wants a marriage-like relationship with all the implied benefits should write up a contract. Some (smart) rich people have prenups. Everyone should have them. Explicitly state what your expectations are and put them in writing. Yes, it would be more trouble on the front end, but it would be less on the back end. Too many people head into the biggest decision of their lives without thinking a rational thought. A contract would slow people down. Most people who would never dream of entering a business agreement without a contract, get married without one. The whole, "love, honor, cherish" is rather vague. What does that mean? Because people in committed marriages having children is such a good thing for society, society should encourage these relationships (as it already does, to an extent). Tax breaks, generous whatever the state wants to encourage. Bottom line, make marriage challenging to get into and a sweet deal once it's entered. Societally, we want committed, dedicated, loving, rational people to get married and procreate. That is, we want this if we value the continuation of our species, our society and our culture.

Western Civilization is built on the family, equal rights, and freedom. People are free to enter contracts (not children or animals) with whomever they'd like. People are free to go to the church of their choice and take part of the sacrament of their choice. People are free to get married if they meet the requirements of being a man and a woman of legal age. The problem with Gay "marriage" or polygamous relationships is that neither are a "right", no matter how much the California Supremes want it to be. The will of the people determines what is best for the people. And the people decided against gay marriage. They have thousands of years of evidence and wisdom to back them up--the wisdom that the Constitution itself was written from.

By what authority do the California Supreme Court Justices claim their ruling beyond their own?

Aside: Jeff Goldstein has some of the best views on this topic that have been expressed.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse wonders about Obama: Is he a modern segregationist and support "separate but equal"?

Texas Tort Reform

Good for doctors and consumers, bad for lawyers. And Texas has more Fortune 500 companies now than California or New York. Come on down, ya'll!

Remember Crystal Magnum?

Duke. Rape. Stripper. False. Accusation.

Remember? Yeah, well this lovely piece of humanity received her college degree in, wait for it, Police Psychology. She should be in jail for wrecking lives and wreaking havoc on our justice system.

For the record, things are still whack in Durhum and KC Johnson is still on the job which is why he's still on my blog roll. Congressional sub-committees discuss the erosion of public confidence in the Federal Justice System. Hmmm.....now why would anyone lose faith?

Suing A Spouse For Fraud

Governor James McGreevy sued his wife, Dina, for divorce and she is claiming fraud. If a person believes they are marrying a heterosexual spouse and then the spouse, who knew he was gay continues to be gay but pretends to be straight, does the pretender commit fraud? I would say yes. It becomes a question of who knew what and when, doesn't it?

What do you think? Should people who knowingly enter a marriage being gay (when assumed straight), indebted (when assumed solvent), fertile (when assumed infertile) etc. be sued for fraud?

Should spouses who misrepresent themselves before marriage be sued for fraud?
	Yes
	No
pollcode.com free polls

Interesting Things You Should Know

I'm going to start on a spiritual note. What is it like to be spiritually abused? A Christian talks about how her ten years in spiritual darkness.

"Did Wright matter?" Yes. Wright will matter in the general. And Gaius writes about the failure of the press in dealing with Obama. As an aside, BlueCrabBoulevard has such a pleasing layout. And I really like the date next to each post. The whole website is restful. Obama is omniscient. Aren't all saviors? Oh, and MKH highlights the press bias with photographic proof (via Cassy at Wizbang) . Amazing that the MSM can do what they do with a straight face. Give me a break.

Something more to worry about if you're so inclined: Geomagnetic storms.

I love Firefly. You know this. Nerd alert: So does Rachel. Shiny! (For what it's worth, I'm a Mal girl, myself, but I do so, so love Kaylee. She is just yummy!) And I'd like to remind Firefly lovers why Mal is hotter than Jayne. When Jayne sold out his crew Mal nearly blew Jayne out the hatch. Captain Malcolm Reynolds showed Jayne who was boss. Yes, sir!

Why is there no sympathy for Muslims claiming discrimination? Canadian Muslims cry foul and Mark Steyn defends himself and answers.

It is time to discuss the ugliness that are Crocs. They are fine for children. Although, they do leave kid's feet stinky in adult rugby player ways. Whew!

No freaking way! Al Gore is an opportunist? Nooooo..... It's perfectly fine to exploit the deaths of over 60,000 people to bring up your pet theory. Perfectly. Fine.

Is the middle class drowning in debt? No.

Cry a sartorial tear for Hillary. If you can muster the emotion.... No tears here.

Stephen King hates the military and he's a moron. Sorry, to family members who love him, or rather, love his freaky writing.

Be careful talking sexy on the internet. Don't say you haven't been warned.

The right to free speech is trumped by the right to an abortion. What?

You know the dude who imprisoned his daughter? Yeah, well he raped someone back in the day, was convicted and spent time in prison, but guess what? Stupid Austria doesn't keep that crime on the books after fifteen years so it's like it never happened. And when his daughter went missing, no one asked because no one had the info to ask. You have got to be kidding me.

60 years of Israel. Why weren't they named Jewland?

Just a reminder to hit the awesome blogs in my blog roll. They are there for a reason. I love them!