San Diego Clerk Sues Over Gay Marriage
Ken Klukowski, Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, wrote an article for Breitbart.com. San Diego County Clerk Ernest Dronenburg has petitioned the California Supreme Court to not give out marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in order to further confirm that California law declares marriage as one man and one woman. The only court that had jurisdiction to determine whether Prop 8 violates the Constitution was the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where homosexual Judge Vaughn Walker decided it did. It is unclear whether he had the authority to do so because there was only one county clerk named as a defendant in Hollingsworth v. Perry. Ken made the following statements:
“…the California Supreme Court is solidly liberal, and became more so after Brown appointed ultra-left Goodwin Liu to the court. And the reason Prop 8 was passed in 2008 is because this same court struck down California’s previous traditional-marriage law as unconstitutional.”
“His (Dronenburg) oath of office presumably includes obeying the Constitution of the United States and the California Constitution. The former is silent on marriage (given that there is no federal ruling on the question as far as he is concerned), and the latter says marriage is only one man with one woman. He should be on firm legal footing.”
“Then gay couples would sue him, and he could defend himself all the way to the California Supreme Court. Where, of course, the outcome might be the same.”
Court Rules For Hobby Lobby in HHS Mandate Case, Supreme Court Next?
Ken Klukowski, Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, wrote an article for Breitbart.com about the recent court victory for Hobby Lobby. There have been two major victories for Hobby Lobby. The first happened on June 27th. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decided that the HHS Mandate violates the Religious Restoration Act and places a burden on corporations whose owners and operators hold to religious beliefs. Last Friday, the U.S. Oklahoma district court gave a temporary exemption for Hobby Lobby to refuse the mandate without penalty until they have time to fully rule on the preliminary injunction. Ken gave further explanation:
“This is a black eye for the Obama administration and could lead additional federal courts to similarly block the HHS Mandate. (As we’ve written, some already have.) The Justice Department likely has no choice but to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take this case at this time, rather than waiting until the case goes all the way to final judgment in the district court and on appeal, which could easily take at least another full year.”
“The problem for the administration is that there are very likely five votes on the Supreme Court to hold that the HHS Mandate violates RFRA, in which case the mandate will be struck down nationwide.”
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s Rolling Stone Crime and Punishment
Bob Morrison, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, wrote an article for the Christian Post comparing the glamorization of history’s criminals by media to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, accused of bombing the Boston Marathon back in April. Bob is referencing the August edition of Rolling Stone magazine, featuring on its cover the picture of the Boston Marathon bomber. It is a direct insult on those who were affected by the terrorist attack, and other news outlets, like CVS, are acknowledging that by refusing to carry the issue. This is not the first time attention is drawn to the attacker. During World War II, TIME magazine featured Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on their covers, even naming them ‘Man of the Year.’ Bob had the following to say about this pattern seen throughout history:
“So, will TIME nominate Dzhokhar Tsarnaev their 2013 "Person of the Year"? Rolling Stone, in effect, has already scooped them. The key to all of our efforts to understand the motives of great criminals may have been given to us before Hitler, Stalin, or even Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, ever drew a breath.”
“In 19th century Russia, novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote Crime and Punishment. In it, a hungry former university student in Petersburg, one Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, realizes that even the great conqueror Napoleon had to start somewhere on the trail of gloire and gore. Young Raskolnikov rationalizes that he should kill a grasping, greedy pawnbroker, an old woman. He has a right to do it, he fantasizes, for he is an extraordinary man.”
“What are we supposed to learn from Rolling Stone today-or TIME in 1938 and 1943-that we couldn't have learned from the great Russian novelist? And why must we keep learning these lessons year after year?”
