Disclaimer.

None of the below means I particularly like or support the Texas sodomy law, the structure and enforcement of which strikes me as deeply stupid.

But the nebulous reasoning and "logic" of the Court in Lawrence is stupider by far, and will be much more destructive, based as it is on evolving notions of right and wrong. This is especially so when you have degreed degenerates (read the link and then tell me I went overboard) cooing that all sorts of hideous behavior really ain't that bad after all.

"O, brave new world/That has such people in it."

A tempest indeed.

Lawyer Brain Teasers!

Try this, fellow barristers, solicitors, and overbillers:

Construct a coherent, rational, non-special pleading basis for continuing to outlaw polygamy using the reasoning of the majority in Lawrence v. Texas:

And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions....

The laws involved in Bowers and here are, to be sure, statutes that purport to do no more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals....

This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice....

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."...

The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Rotsa ruck!

Make the hurting stop....

The Tigers continue their death spiral. As of last Tuesday, they were on a pace to finish the season with a record of 40-122.

Of course, they've lost every game since. Alan Trammell is getting fed up with the Kitties' poor play, and is threatening more lateral moves to Toledo:

"We seem to be having a little bit of a pity party," Trammell said, disgustedly. "This is something that will never be acceptable -- sloppy baseball. That's why we'll be sitting down tonight ... There could definitely be more changes."

Prediction: Alan will be on suicide watch by game 95.

All of which means that wins over the Tigers are as remarkable as, say, sunrise.

At the rate things are going, the Tigs are making a strong move to market themselves as a contraction candidate.

I'm just going to rename this blog "Mel!"

Yet another post about Mr. Gibson's film, this time a full review by Barbara Nicolosi. Here's a sample that indicates that Boys & The Boys were quite wrong to jump ugly with Gibson:

Let's get the controversy out of the way right at the top. The film is faithful to the Gospel, particularly St. John. It is no more anti-Semitic than is the Gospel. There are at least two members of the Sanhedrin who come forward to protest on Jesus' behalf during the sham trial. The Romans are just as guilty of cruelty and hatred against Jesus in the film. And best of all is a final look right into the camera of Mary, holding her dead Son. She is looking at all of us with a kind of , "Look what you've done"/This is for you" expression. A cinematic Pieta worthy of Michelangelo.

An apology from B&TB will not be forthcoming.

Bet on it.

The Anglicans have found their Athanasius.

Catholics are still looking for theirs.

If you have an interest in the looming disintegration of the Anglican Communion (and you should), I strongly recommend Christopher Johnson's weblog. Today, he reports on the response of Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola to the assorted "It's raining men!" doings in Episcopaland, with the magnificently-titled post "Fellowship This, Bwana."

Go. Read the whole thing.

If you are Catholic, I have a followup: where is the bishop who will speak with similar urgency to the crisis in the American Church?

Thanks!

To Lane for his reference to "All Mel. All the Time" immediately below.

Shawn McElhinney had some thoughts which Lane blogged in the same post. Shawn e-mailed them to me, too, but I didn't see them until this afternoon. The delay was caused by (1) a two hour war to install Big Cooler, our new 10,000 BTU room air conditioner, (2) an EKG test on yours truly (more about that--perhaps--later), and (3) our discovery that Heather will have to be on leave for a year, with all the financial permutations that involves.

Blogging will continue, but expect it to be scattershot.

All Mel. All The Time.

Yet another look the blow-up surrounding Mel's film, this time by the CT Weblog. The Catholic members of the Disclaimer Committee just won't shut up:

An unnamed "leading Catholic theologian" called the script "one of the more anti-Semitic documents most of us have seen in a long time." (It had to be one of the following Catholics, all members of an advisory committee to the Bishops Conference on Catholic-Jewish affairs: Mary Boys of the Union Theological Seminary; Philip Cunningham, executive director of the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College; Lawrence Frizzell, director of the Institute of Judeo-Christian Studies at Seton Hall University; John Pawlikowski, director of Catholic Jewish studies at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago.)

"The Anti-Defamation League and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reviewed the script and we wrote a report that was sent to Mr. Gibson's company," Boys told The Herald Sun of Melbourne, Australia . But apparently Sister Mary and her colleagues lost sight of the very important distinction between a statement by the conference and the one of members of the conference. The opinion of advisory board members is even more removed.

What is needed, of course, is some helpful context about the theological inclinations of Boys & The Boys. Your diligent host here at DM is happy to provide it. From last October, via Touchstone's Lee Podles, when this endeavor was still waddling around in short pants:

"In August 2002 a committee of US Conference of Catholic Bishops, co-chaired by William Cardinal Keeler of Baltimore, issued a report, Reflections on Covenant and Mission. It contained some odd statements about the relationship of Judaism and Christianity, and was attacked by some Catholics. The chief offending sentence stated that “targeting Jews for conversion to Christianity” is “no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.”

Cardinal Avery Dulles in America (10-21-2002) doesn’t like this sentence either. He does not see how it is consistent with statements in Paul and Hebrews.

Although Cardinal Keeler pointed out that Reflections document was unofficial, such unofficial documents have a way of being presented as official teaching. A draft of a report of a bishops’ committee, All Our Children, is always trotted out as the official teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality.

Three members of the Advisory Committee on Catholic-Jewish Relations for the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (the committee that wrote the controversial report) responded in America to Dulles: Mary Boys, Philip Cunningham, and John Pawlikowski.

Boys, Cunningham, and Pawlikowski claim that “The magisterium can explicitly contradict an idea of an individual New Testament author because the Catholic tradition is one of commentary, not of sola scriptura (Scripture alone).”

Really? Well, I guess Jack Chick was right after all.

Now hear this: Stop. Speaking. On. My. Behalf. Right. Now.

Why is "ecumenical dialogue" so often the preserve of sloppy, free-range, compromising malcontents, anyway? Of what value are the fruits of such "dialogue" when you've abandoned your own position from the get-go?

Time to get the Motrin.

Ad Orientem is now Irish Elk.

Same url and love of good liturgy, baseball, and architecture, though.

For example, there's this exploration of various images of deadball-era Tigers' manager Hughie Jennings.

A new blog worth watching.

I've met Doug Sirman in Real Life, about a year or so ago over at Zach Frey's house. A very likeable, opinionated and ebullient guy who brought the most brutal (to the waistline) dessert imaginable.

With that in mind, I can't think of an adequate intro to his new blog, except to get to the point and say that he's detailing real life from the standpoint of a rehabbing alcoholic.

Go to Rehab! The Musical.

Dale Price's Sports Machine.

1. The Detroit Red Wings could be facing a very expensive goaltending problem: the Dominator is talking about coming out of retirement.

Which $8 million goaltender does Detroit keep? Hint: the one who has a Cup ring....

2. The most depressing article I've read in years: Tiger Stadium goes gently into that good night.

The pictures are enough to bring a tear to the eye of any baseball fan. I don't think there's a prayer of saving it from demolition at this point.

By the way.

Just to be clear, I still like "Rush." The last CD I bought (along with a Matthew Sweet compilation) was a one-volume "Best of."

I just couldn't make the connection between Mark Twain's fence-painter and "His mind is not for rent/To any god or government" in that particular song.

Until last week. Thanks, Jeff.