Law

Dumb Blondes and Dumb Lawyers


Growing up blonde had some advantages and disadvantages. One disadvantage is suffering through one dumb blonde joke after another. Then after I became an attorney, I endured one silly lawyer joke after another. My daughter, Megan, loved to tease me with the double whammy--dumb blonde/dumb lawyer jokes.

I wonder just how many women are treated like they are dumb blondes, regardless of their hair color. Or just as bad, I wonder how many women hold this view of themselves. Sadly many girls grow up thinking that their looks are more important than their minds.

But guess what I discovered?

Women (and men) are created in the image of God!

And my God is smart. In fact, Jesus is the smartest man who ever lived. (Yes I ripped off this idea from the brilliant Dallas Willard.) So let's not fool ourselves, ladies, into thinking our minds don't matter. We were created to be smart.

Jesus said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind." Luke 10:27

How can you love God with your mind if your mind is full of junk? Go feed your mind with "good food." Put away the mommy porn, romantic fantasies, and gossip magazines. Try some manna. Learn some deeper stuff, especially about God, the One who created you because He loves you and has a plan for your life.

What's wrong with the HHS Mandate?


          Earlier this year, the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services unveiled a new policy now known at the “HHS Mandate.” The new Mandate would require nearly all private health insurance plans to include coverage for all FDA-approved prescription contraceptive drugs and devices, surgical sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs—drugs that interfere with implantation in the womb and therefore destroy the life of a human being in the earliest stage of development. This Mandate is the result of Affordable Care Act, commonly known as “Obamacare,” passed in 2010. Although the HHS Mandate provides an exemption for “religious employers,” the exemption is so narrow, most religious institutions providing health, educational or charitable services will have no protection.
          On February 10, 2012, responding to intense opposition from a broad spectrum of religious institutions all over the country, President Obama announced there would be an “accommodation” for religious institutions opposed to facilitating practices contrary to their moral teachings through their employee health plans. In the so-called accommodation, insurance companies—not the religious employers themselves—would be forced to pay for the abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. However, since any funds the insurance companies would use to make such payments ultimately come from the premiums paid by employers, the “accommodation” is nothing more than a kind of economic shell-game.
          The HHS Mandate violates freedom of conscience, a right that is guaranteed by the First Amendment and even several federal laws. The right to practice one’s religious beliefs is protected by The Bill of Rights. The Obama administration’s attempt to force all Americans to buy coverage for sterilization and contraceptives, including drugs that induce abortion, is a radical incursion into freedom of conscience.
          Christians across the country are rising up in response to this unprecedented attack on religious liberty, freedom of conscience and the sanctity of life. Learn how you can get involved by speaking out and signing petitions by visiting Stand Up for Religious Freedom.

(The above information was taken from Stand Up for Religious Freedom.)

Universities--a marketplace for only CERTAIN ideas


     Earlier this month I wrote a letter to the editor of Chapman University's student run newspaper, responding to previous articles printed by my alma mater about the gay marriage issue generally, and Professor John Eastman's appointment to National Organization for Marriage specifically. All the articles were from one perspective--in favor of same sex marriage. This was incredibly ironic seeing as how the editors boasted the university was a marketplace where ideas and views could be discussed and debated. Conveniently they had forgotten to print the other "side" of the gay marriage issue. I took them to task. Below is my letter, "edited" of course by the editors. Notice the title-- "Re: 'Gay marriage can be love story, too'." I had a different title for my letter. They made up this title to "control the debate." Interesting. As they say, "He who frames the question controls the debate..."

The Panther Online 

Re: “Gay marriage can be love story, too”

Published: Sunday, November 13, 2011
Updated: Sunday, November 13, 2011 23:11

     It appears from the October and November issues of The Panther that the editors have a liberal political and social agenda. In October, The Panther wrote a news article about professor of law and former dean of Chapman's School of Law, being selected as the new chairman of National Organization for Marriage. It also printed a staff editorial and two opinion-editorials from guest columnists on the topic.    
   Ignoring the journalistic equivalent of "piling on," the editorial board, incredibly, boasted, "A compromise will only be reached through conversation, but it's hard to engage in conversation when only one party may speak."
   If anyone held out hope that The Panther would engage in "conversation" on the marriage debate, that hope was dashed in the November issue. It contains a guest column by President Jim Doti expressing his personal opinion in favor of same sex marriage and reminding us that Chapman is a "marketplace where ideas and views are discussed, deliberated and debated."
   Somehow, The Panther seems to have exempted itself from this marketplace, since neither the October nor November issues included any editorials or guest columns supporting Eastman's National Organization for Marriage appointment or traditional marriage.
   Although I do not share Doti's opinion on same sex marriage, I have not demanded Chapman "dissolve affiliation" with Doti, nor would I imply such, unlike those calling for Chapman to take action against Eastman. Chapman really should be a marketplace of ideas where different opinions are openly discussed. Chapman has a diverse student body and organizations reflecting that diversity. The law school, for example, has a very active LGBT club. However, it is ironic that many gay rights groups don't provide forums where ideas and views really can be discussed, deliberated and debated.
   As one of Eastman's former law students, I speak from experience in saying that he is a brilliant legal scholar as well as a devoted family man. His professional and personal integrity and serious work ethic are some of the reasons for his amazing accomplishments. He deserved applause when he became dean of the law school. Now he deserves applause for courageously taking a public stand for traditional marriage as the chairman of National Organization for Marriage.  
   I caution those who demand respect and tolerance for their same sex marriage ideology and yet try to silence and intimidate those who oppose it, like the majority of California voters who voted twice to define marriage as between one man and one woman. After all, how is being a conservaphobe any different from an alleged homophobe?



[NO] Respect for Marriage Act

You've probably heard of the Federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), a bill signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton. It defines marriage for the Federal government as between one man and one woman; and it protects states who do not want same sex marriage in their state from being forced to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.

Did you know about current efforts to get rid of DOMA? One effort is a bill introduced by the U.S. Congress called the "Respect for Marriage Act." Don't be mislead by the title. The goal of this bill is to force the Federal government to recognize same sex marriage, and eventually, force all the states. Are we surprised? We shouldn't be after the controversial repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT). President Obama signed the repeal of DADT on September 22, 2011, thus ending the long-existing U.S. policy that prohibited homosexuals from being able to serve in the armed forces.

Earlier this year, Respect for Marriage Act bills were submitted to the House and the Senates' Judiciary Committees.  Now, after having successfully repealed DADT, activists on Capitol Hill are preparing to destroy DOMA. Next week, on November 3, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee will commence debate on the bill, leading ultimately to a vote.

Respect for Marriage Act Talking points - From Concerned Women for America
  • Despite its deliberately deceptive name, the “Respect for Marriage Act” insidiously seeks to destroy the historical, traditional definition of marriage.
    • It seeks to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
  • DOMA does not prohibit states from recognizing same-sex “marriages.”
    • It defines marriage as we have always known it, the union between one man and one woman, for federal purposes.
    • DOMA also protects states from being forced to recognized same-sex “marriages” from other states, if a state chooses to do so.
  • The Respect for Marriage Act runs contrary to the will of the majority of Americans who support marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
    • The most comprehensive scientific national survey to date, completed by Public Opinion Strategies (May 16-19, 2011), reveals that 62 percent of Americans believe “marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.” 53%  strongly agreed.
  • The Respect for Marriage Act circumvents the will of the 30 states that have already voted to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman in their state constitutions, forcing the states to go against their own public policy goals to recognize same-sex “marriages” from other states.
    • More than 63 million Americans in 30 state elections have voted on constitutional marriage amendments. Around forty million in all (63 percent) voted to affirm marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
  • The Respect for Marriage Act forces states to recognize any kind of marriage that another state decides to sanction. It is by no means limited to same-sex “marriages.”
  • It was introduced by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) in the House (H.R. 1116) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) in the Senate (S.598).

Keep your eye on the status of these efforts. May the Lord have mercy on us.

In God's light, we see light. Psalm 36:9

No 1st Amendment Protection for Mosque at Ground Zero?

Islamic leaders have a constitutional right to build the mosque at Ground Zero because of "religious freedom," but they should be sensitive to the complaints of others and not build it. This sentiment is frequently repeated in the news by well-meaning conservatives. The question is, do they really have a constitutional right to build it? Not if it is financed by terrorists or those bent on destroying America--that would be treason. There is no constitutional protection for treason.

Bryan Fischer recently wrote an interesting article for American Family Association worth pondering, arguing against 1st Amendment protection for building the mosque near Ground Zero. Fischer wrote, "Our enemy is authentic Islam and our enemies are devout Muslims who actually believe in their holy scripture and are determined to follow the sacred teachings of their god. They are our enemies for the simple reason that their god commands them to kill us...All this blather about religious liberty is just that—blather. The First Amendment, for devout Muslims in the U.S., is nothing more than a borrowed cloak of righteousness to conceal a heart of darkness."

You can read the entire article here

Irony of Same-Sex Marriage Arguments

            I should not have been surprised that a California Federal District Court struck down the state marriage amendment (Proposition 8). But I was. Maybe I was a fool. Maybe I was just hopeful that Judge Walker might open his eyes to the truth about the sanctity of marriage and make a right ruling.
            Regardless, the decision to strike down the marriage amendment stands, for now. It is already on appeal. Most people believe this issue will continue in active controversy until the U.S. Supreme Court finally weighs and decides once and for all if states can define marriage or if there is some new fundamental right to same sex marriage to be implied from our Constitution.
            What I find particularly ironic is how Judge Walker and others can claim states cannot mandate morals, that is, morality has no basis in forming laws. And yet, that is exactly what gay activists want, to legislative morality. Just a different kind of morality.
            LGBT activist Chai Feldblum, a recent EEOC appointee by President Obama, has gone on record with a clear strategy to promote homosexual rights. She claims gay sex is morally good, and as such, government has a duty to teach it. Wait a minute—isn’t that government mandating morality? Ah, yes, but it is a different kind of morality.
            This kind of hypocrisy reminds me of how the liberals initially used the buzzword tolerance to push their agenda. Social conservatives and people of faith needed to be tolerant of homosexual conduct and the desire for same-sex marriage. However, their demand for tolerance is only a one-way street. Progressives are intolerant of anyone who opposes their agenda, especially if there is a moral or religious reason for opposing homosexual conduct and relationships.
            That reminds me of another buzzword used by LGBT activists, equality. They assert state recognized civil unions or domestic partnerships are not equal to traditional marriages, but instead makes them second-class citizens and inferior. Therefore, they demand their committed relationships be recognized as the same, as marriage. Gay partnerships equal traditional marriage. Now, religious and moral arguments aside, equal protection under our Constitution does not mean that things that are different in fact or opinion must be treated the same in law. There is one huge obvious difference between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples—gay couples cannot make babies. No matter how activist courts choose to define marriage, we simply cannot make something that is not the same, the same.  
            One final irony worth pointing out, gay activists consistently use the interracial marriage analogy to promote same sex marriage. They justify court intervention in defining marriage because they point to the U.S. Supreme Court appropriately striking down anti-miscegenation laws (laws banning interracial marriage). However, the analogy not only fails, it actually hurts the gay marriage argument. At common law, there was no ban on interracial marriages. Americans passed anti-miscegenation laws only after the institution of enslavement of Africans on American soil. This means interracial marriage was a common law liberty before anti-miscegenation laws. Court abolishment of anti-miscegenation laws merely returned us to common law. Moreover, the purpose of anti-miscegenation laws (awful as they were) was racial purity, because interracial couples could naturally produce interracial children.
Same sex marriage, on the other hand, was never a common law liberty before traditional marriage laws were passed. The purpose of traditional marriage laws is not to preserve anything akin to racial purity, because it goes without saying that same sex couples can never produce children. Traditional marriage is a naturally emerging social institution because when men and women come together, they create children, totally independent of government recognition. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is completely a creation of the state.  Not only does the interracial marriage argument not help same-sex marriage advocates, it may actually work against them.
I cannot close without mentioning the issue of immutability.  Do you remember back when special legal protections were first granted to homosexuals to prevent discrimination, like bullying and physical harm? Back then, arguments were made that homosexual orientation was genetic and could not be changed. Sympathetic to the claim that gays were born that way and not exercising choice in conduct, special protections were enacted. This paved the way for additional gay rights, which led to gay marriage and the new argument that gay sex is morally good. The issue of whether sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic is hotly contested today by the fact that there are now many ex-gays. Studies show that sexual orientation is fluid and hard to define. Ex-gays exist, but I don’t know any ex-blacks. 
It is true that we are all born with a sinful nature. But by faith in Jesus, we are set free from the penalty and power of all sin. (1 Cor. 6:9-11) As believers, we have a choice to follow the flesh or follow the Spirit. We will be accountable to God for the choices we make. God “will give to each person according to what he has done.” Romans 2:6
Let us be aware of how fuzzy notions of equality, tolerance, and morality have been deceptively twisted to distort the truth about marriage. Marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman, a physical representation of the ultimate marriage yet to take place between the bride (the church) and the groom (Jesus Christ). Anything else is a cheap masquerade.

Defamation of Religion Law May Silence Christians

Are you following the news? I mean, the real news. And, are you following world events? It is interesting, as John and I travel the world, I have come to discover that much of the rest of the world is quite knowledgeable and conversant with world events, even those in developing third world nations. At home in America though, I find fewer people taking the time to stay abreast of global events.  At a time such as this, I urge Americans to wake up and pay attention. Global events are impacting law, culture, and religious liberty in America.

Have you heard about the Defamation of Religion resolution? The ACLJ had this to say:

The United Nations (U.N.) is currently considering a ''Defamation of Religions'' resolution being pushed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the largest group of nations within the U.N.The resolution would criminalize the proclamation of the Gospel worldwide - an issue with such international ramifications, we've responded with force.We're sending legal teams to our New York City office, which is just down the street from the U.N., in order to speak out - and loudly - against this very anti-Christian move.

You can read an interesting article from USA Today by Jonathan Turley about the Obama Administration’s support of an effort to restrict religious speech that may bear watching. Click here to read.

Something to Consider...a Biblical Worldview of Government Healthcare Plans

Let me preface this post with a personal statement, lest I am accused of being partisan or too political. As a follower of Christ, I seek the Scriptures for truth in all areas of life. The Bible is the basis for Christian faith and practice. "Practice" means "how to live my life" as a follower of Jesus. Paul tells us in II Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good works."  I believe God's Word and the Holy Spirit are able to guide us in daily decisions we make, transforming how we think, speak, and act. (Romans 12:1-2) This necessarily must include decisions we make about civic affairs. It is true the Lord instructs us that "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established." (Romans 13:1). It is also true that "We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29) Therefore, when men act, including acting in the civic arena, we must examine the actions or proposed actions, through the lens of Scripture. Because in God's light we see light. (Psalm 36:9)

Having said this, I was recently provoked to deeper thought about proposed government run health care after receiving an email sent to me by a friend and after reading a blog posted on August 19, 2009 in the Wall Street Journal which was titled, "Obama Tells Religious Leaders Health Care Is a Moral Issue."

"President Barack Obama joined a health care conference call with religious organizations just past 5:30 p.m. this evening, and didn’t waste a moment before putting the debate onto a higher plane: 'The one thing you all share is a moral conviction. You know this debate over health care goes to the heart of who we are in America,' he said." Read more here.

Is health care a "moral" issue? I suppose it could be, if we turn to the government to provide for our needs instead of turning to God for our needs. Consider Genesis 47:13-27.

Below is story circulating on the internet.  It may or may not be apocryphal. The point is the sermon's simple message is worthy of prayerful consideration. By the way, to avoid any misunderstanding, I want to make clear that just because I am sharing this story,  I am NOT claiming President Obama is Pharaoh.

IS HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?  

Sermon from a church in Virginia recently
Gen 47:13-27


Good morning, brothers and sisters; it's always a delight to see the pews crowded on Sunday morning, and so eager to get into God's Word. Turn with me in your Bibles, if you will, to the 47th chapter of Genesis; we'll begin our reading at verse 13, and go through verse 27.


Brother Ray, would you stand and read that great passage for us?

Thank you for that fine reading, Brother Ray. So we see that economic hard times fell upon Egypt, and the people turned to the government of Pharaoh to deal with this for them. And Pharaoh nationalized the grain harvest, and placed the grain in great storehouses that he had built. So the people brought their money to Pharaoh, like a great tax increase, and gave it all to him willingly in return for grain. And this went on until their money ran out, and they were hungry again.

So when they went to Pharaoh after that, they brought their livestock - their cattle, their horses, their sheep, and their donkey - to barter for grain, and verse 17 says that only took them through the end of that year.  But the famine wasn't over, was it?

So the next year, the people came before Pharaoh and admitted they had nothing left, except their land and their own lives. "There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh." So they surrendered their homes, their land, and their real estate to Pharaoh's government, and then sold themselves into slavery to him, in return for grain.

What can we learn from this, brothers and sisters?

That turning to the government instead of to God to be our provider in hard times only leads to slavery? Yes. That the only reason government wants to be our provider is to also become our master? Yes.

But look how that passage ends, brothers and sisters! "Thus Israel settled in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen. And they gained possessions in it, and were fruitful and multiplied greatly."  God provided for His people, just as He always has! They didn't end up giving all their possessions to the government, no, it says they gained possessions!

But I also tell you a great truth today, and an ominous one. We see the same thing happening today - the government today wants to "share the wealth" once again, to take it from us and redistribute it back to us. It wants to take control of healthcare, just as it has taken control of education, and ration it back to us, and when government rations it, then government decides who gets it, and how much, and what kind.

And if we go along with it, and do it willingly, then we will wind up no differently than the people of Egypt did four thousand years ago - as slaves to the government, and as slaves to our leaders.

What Mr. Obama's government is doing now is no different from what Pharaoh's government did then, and it will end the same. And a lot of people like to call Mr. Obama a "Messiah," don't they?  Is he a Messiah, a savior? Didn't the Egyptians say, after Pharaoh made them his slaves, "You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh"?

Well, I tell you this - I know the Messiah; the Messiah is a friend of mine; and Mr. Obama is no Messiah! No, brothers and sisters, if Mr Obama is a character from the Bible, then he is Pharaoh.

Bow with me in prayer, if you will.

“Zero to Five Plan” – Government as the New Parents?

President Obama hums a familiar tune — we need education reform to better prepare our children to be successful in college and the workplace. But exactly what does he propose? In his education initiative, the Zero to Five Plan, President Obama proposes “early care and education for infants.” To implement this, states will be given grants to start moving towards universal preschools.

Obama’s theory is the earlier children begin formal education, the better chance they have to compete in the global economy. However, a 2005 Stanford University study found, “attendance in preschool centers, even for short periods of time each week, hinders the rate at which young children develop social skills and display the motivation to engage classroom task.” According to a report by the Southwest Policy Institute, "Contrary to common belief, early institutional schooling can harm children emotionally, intellectually and socially, and may later lead to greater peer dependency."

Child psychologist, David Elkind, has researched early education and written several book on the subject. He found pushing elementary academic education into the very early years of a child could actually have lasting harm on children, putting them at risk for short-term stress and long-term personality damage, especially hindering social development.

Obama’s Zero to Five Plan encourages less parental involvement and more governmental involvement in child development because preschool will be offered for free. Who do you want indoctrinating our babies and toddlers? Parents, let’s not abdicate parental responsibility to the state, which has become increasingly hostile towards Christianity. Instead, let’s spend more time together with our children, teaching them biblical truth (Deuteronomy 6:4-7).  Children, parents and society will all reap the benefits.