Written by Matt Walsh

Some people have accused me of being against marriage equality. This is completely unfair. I’m not against it. I’m not anti-it. I don’t oppose it. I don’t think it should be prevented. I don’t think we should ban marriage equality or make it illegal.

I have no problem with marriage equality — except that it doesn’t exist. It can’t exist. It never has existed. It never will exist. ‘Marriage equality’ — that is, the idea that the union between a man and a man can achieve equality with the union between a man and a woman — is nonsense.

How would I oppose that which cannot be? That’s like trying to pass a law to deny Santa Claus his voting rights.

I bring this up because yesterday the Supreme Court, acting with its usual courage and fortitude, decided to take the ‘gay marriage’ ball and punt it back down the field. In one swoop, they rejected appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin, effectively granting legalization by deferring to the rulings of lower courts, which had already abolished the bans in those states. Now, by my count, the ‘states with gay marriage’ count will rapidly jump from nine to about 30.

This isn’t a surprise, of course. And it won’t be a surprise when there’s something called ‘gay marriage’ everywhere in the country. Sometime between the divorce rate skyrocketing and out-of-wedlock births reaching 40 percent nationwide, it became obvious that our society has very little energy for preserving, defending, respecting, or even participating in marriage. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t bother resisting ‘gay marriage,’ it’s simply to say that we are poorly equipped to do so. And barely interested, it would seem.

Progressives brag that the cultural tide is moving in their direction. They’re right, it is. A society that communicates in emoticons and watches Adam Sandler movies also tends to think liberal ideas are pretty solid. Makes perfect sense, really. They’ve won over fools with foolishness, and I think it’s pretty cute that they’re so proud of it.

But foolish or not, their ideology is winning the day (and the decade, and the last century or so), which is why, at some point, people on the other side better grow enough of a collective brain and spine to oppose it. And if we started precisely with the two issues we’ve gotten so used to avoiding — ‘gay marriage’ and abortion — we would find that the entire progressive house of intellectual cards comes tumbling down rather easily.

‘Gay marriage’ and abortion are the holiest liberal sacraments because they alter the nature of life and of the family. If progressives can reconstitute human life just so they can get laid more frequently, and if they can remodel the family in service of their political agenda, and if these little fine tunes become accepted and promoted in the mainstream, then their agenda can go anywhere and do anything. It has, so it has.

You think you can win an argument about immigration now? Gun rights? Education? Ice cream flavors? Dude, they just waved their magic wand and turned a baby into a lifeless chunk of cells. They snapped their fingers and made the institution of marriage bend to their whim. You don’t stand a chance on any issue when you’re living in a world recreated in their image.

But ‘gay marriage’ and abortion aren’t merely ‘issues.’ They are the bedrock on which all progressive philosophy rests. If we aren’t going to attack the foundation, then we might as well shut up and learn to get along.

And so today, as liberals again trumpet this conflicted notion of ‘marriage equality’ (check out this handy marriage equality map from BuzzFeed!) Despite the compelling case made by the pink Facebook equal sign, I’d like to take it back to the basics and explain why ‘gay marriage’ is not and can never be equal to ‘traditional marriage.’ After the news of the court decision (or lack thereof) broke, Huffington Post declared in big bold letter across their front page: FIVE STATES GET MARRIAGE EQUALITY. Yet marriage equality is a logical and physical impossibility; it can’t be gotten or granted or instated.

To flesh out my reasoning, I’m going to ask myself questions and then answer them, which is either a good way to illustrate a point or an early sign of dementia.

Here goes:

-Is there a basic and fundamental difference between the union of two men and the union of a man and a woman?

Yes.

Here is a list of those differences:

1) One involves people of the same sex, the other does not.

2) In one there is never any possibility of procreation, whereas in the other there is.

These are two solid, objective, observable differences right out of the gate. Before we go any further, we already know that the two things cannot be equal because in order to be equal they would need to be the same. They are not the same, and so they are not equal.

Case closed.

But I’m longwinded, so lets continue.

-OK, but are the differences significant?

It’s interesting that we even have to ask this question.

This is a country where we go out and buy new iPhones because they’re slightly different from the iPhones we bought 14 months ago. We pay for upgraded seats on an airplane because they’re slightly better than the seats three rows back. We cry discrimination and persecution if we find out that our coworker makes slightly more than us, or has a slightly bigger office, or a slightly more comfortable chair. We purchase TVs for a slightly clearer picture. In other words, we find immense, world-shattering connotations in the faintest little cosmetic changes and deviations, yet we struggle to appreciate the difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples; a difference that, if I must remind you, involves the creation of human life.

A man and a woman can get together and make a person. They can, between the two of them, conceive a human child. If I have to put this in terms that my fellow nostalgic millennials will comprehend: a man and a woman can combine their powers, much like the kids from Captain Planet, and bring forth into the world another sentient being. Only this being hopefully won’t be a spandex-clad vigilante who goes around assaulting people for littering in a public park.

Of course, the birth control industry and Planned Parenthood would like for us to see our procreative capacity as some minor and unimpressive little nuisance, but that’s only because they’ve got a product to sell. In reality, we can say what we want about it, but we can’t say that it’s immaterial. A man and a woman can make a baby. This means something. A man and a man cannot. This also means something.

Whatever it means, it means at least that the two relationships differ from one another. They are not equal. One is something, the other is something else. They are not the same. They are not equal.

-Yes, a man and a man can’t make a baby, but not all married heterosexual couples can, either. If two fellas can’t get married for this reason, what about infertile people or people who simply choose not to have kids?

Much like the ancient blogger Socrates, I will answer this question with more questions:

Is it accurate to say that, in principle, human beings have eardrums?

If so, what about a person born deaf or a person who loses their hearing in a tragic accident later in life?

Are they now subhuman?

Do they belong to some other species?

What about teenage girls who choose to ignore the constructive potential of their eardrums by using them to listen to Nicki Minaj or that new Taylor Swift song?

Do any of these examples falsify my “human beings have eardrums” statement?

Or do they simply reflect the fact that abnormalities sometimes occur?

So, yes, some heterosexual couples can’t conceive children. This happens by disability, mutation, disease, defect, or some other physical misfortune, but we call it a defect precisely because we recognize that there is a procreative potential for which these individuals should share in but do not, through no fault of their own.

These people can’t have kids incidentally, whereas two men or two women can’t have kids by the very nature of their union. One is an accident of nature — an aberration — while the other is a crucial element of nature itself.

As for couples who can have kids but choose to remain childless forever: their marriage is perfectly legitimate, but their choice, in many cases (not all), is not.

Fertile, healthy married couples have not only the ability to procreate, but often the responsibility. Few will say this anymore — we’d much prefer to discuss our rights and freedoms than our duties and obligations — but most married couples who are able to have children are also called to that life.

Nowadays we don’t do anything unless we want to do it, and the idea of doing something we aren’t one hundred percent excited about seems abhorrent to us. But in the old days people had kids because they wanted to and because they felt it was their vocation. I think that’s a beautiful mentality, and a rare one in these ‘me first’ times.

-So the marriage between a man and a woman is different from the marriage between two men or two women, and the difference is quite essential. Fine. But should the government codify that difference by awarding the ‘marriage’ title only to heterosexual couples? Why shouldn’t the government just stay out of it entirely?

Great question, Self, but worded wrongly.

The government doesn’t ‘award’ marriage or give it away like a cash prize in Wheel of Fortune. All of the government can do — and should do — is recognize the natural reality of the situation.

If marriage is anything, then it is an institution meant to bind a husband to his wife, a wife to her husband, and both mother and father to their children. If it is something at all, then it is the foundation of civilization. It establishes the context in which families are formed and children are raised.

It is that or it is nothing. It is that or it is what people say it is now: just a temporary and soluble agreement between two people who feel some sort of mutual attraction. And if that’s all it is, then certainly the government shouldn’t acknowledge it or say anything about it one way or another.

Why do we need governments and courts to involve themselves in creating rules and tax codes for some provisional alliance between two (or three or 57) adults who merely wish to live together (or apart, or whatever they want) and ‘love each other’?

You see, if gay marriage is even possible — if marriage can fundamentally be an institution that includes same sex partnerships — then it is, by definition, not solid enough or essential enough to our civilization to warrant any of these legal challenges and ballot measures. You want to love another person? Go. Go love them. Nothing is stopping you. There is no law preventing it. If marriage is only a bond between two (or however many) lovers, why would anyone ask for it to be ‘legalized’? It’s not illegal, and it never could be,

The very fact that we are having this conversation proves that everyone involved sees marriage as something greater than a ‘contract between consenting adults.’ And if it’s something more significant, then we are back to the old definition, which is the only definition that makes sense in the first place.

You can’t argue for gay marriage without arguing against it.

In the end, we find out that I have worded my own arguments wrongly. It’s not that gay marriage isn’t equal to straight marriage, it’s that gay marriage can’t exist, no matter what words we use, but ‘traditional’ marriage does, no matter how progressive we all are.

Then the question becomes: should the government grant any special protections or acknowledgments to the ‘traditional’ marriage institution? Should it be given a special status, or should Uncle Sam just stay out of it?

Obviously. Obviously marriage should be both recognized and, to some extent, protected by the State. The only other options are for the government to pretend it doesn’t exist, or to pretend that it’s something other than what it is.

No matter what the State does, the essence of marriage cannot be changed, and marriage will still be a sacrament bestowed by God through a husband onto his wife and a wife onto her husband. But where is the value in having a government that either ignores this fundamental human institution, or worse, constructs some kind of wild fantasy where the laws of biology and physics are changed so that the love between two men can suddenly be seen as identical to the love between a man and woman?

Generally, if our country sees something as crucial to our very survival as a nation (not to mention as a species) we don’t ask our politicians to rally around a battle cry to overlook it or invent some delusional version of it.

Yes, then, I want the government involved in marriage, in the sense that I want the government to acknowledge its existence and recognize how momentously important it is to our national prosperity. If that makes me forfeit my libertarian credentials, so be it.

Marriage equality does not exist.

Marriage isn’t equal to anything because there aren’t any other versions competing with it.

Marriage is only one particular thing, and it will never be anything else.

We don’t have to like that fact, but we need to accept it.

---

This article was originally posted at TheBlaze.com website.

It’s called Pandora’s Box.

And the Supreme Court just opened it.

Did you actually think the debate over “gay marriage” was about marriage? Have you really come to believe that this cultural kerfuffle has anything to do with “civil rights” or “equality”? Have you bought into the popular premise that this is a legitimate discussion on federalism – that it’s a reasonable disagreement over whether the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause requires that newfangled “gay marriage,” something rooted in same-sex sodomy, a deviant and disease-prone behavior our Constitution’s framers officially declared “the infamous crime against nature,” be made law of the land?

A lot of people have, so don’t feel bad. A lot of reasonable, well-meaning and even, at times, intelligent people have taken the bait.

But that’s all window dressing. It’s superficial. It’s collateral. It’s chaff, a diversion, a squirrel. Don’t chase it.

At its core, this increasingly heated fight over “gay marriage” is about two diametrically opposed and profoundly incompatible views of reality (or lack thereof). It’s the modern manifestation of a millennia-old clash between worldviews. This ugly cultural conflict is, in reality, neither legal nor political in nature, but, rather, is fundamentally a philosophical debate. Ultimately, it derives from, and is illustrative of, deep-seated spiritual warfare. Quite simply, the clash over “gay marriage” is emblematic of the larger, and much older, clash between good and evil.

And it’s reaching critical mass.

On the one hand, on the natural marriage side, we have a worldview that recognizes absolute truth – that acknowledges the fixed moral and natural law, authored and enforced from time immemorial by the sovereign and loving Creator of the universe. This same Creator, incidentally, just happened to design and define the very institution over which we quarrel. Those with this worldview concede that every man, woman and child is accountable to this sovereign Creator and will, one day, stand before Him to face final judgment for what they did or did not do during their infinitesimally short-lived stint here on earth.

This, though not a comprehensive representation, is the biblical worldview.

On the other hand, on the unnatural marriage side (or the “marriage equality” side as these self-styled “progressives” euphemistically prefer), we have a worldview that denies absolute truth. It imagines there are no fixed lines of demarcation between right and wrong – that morality, that reality, is entirely relative and, therefore, the very notion of good and evil, right and wrong, sin and repentance are but false and limiting constructs concocted in the narrow minds of a dull bevy of sheepherders some thousands of years ago.

Since those with this worldview either deny God’s very existence altogether or, alternatively, believe that some version of god, like marriage, can be defined, or redefined, in the mind of the beholder, they claim accountability to no one (except goddess political correctness) and, thus, declare reality to be that which they, the secular-”progressive” intelligentsia, proclaim it to be (e.g., that manmade, credulity-straining, reality-warping and oxymoronic counterfeit called “same-sex marriage”).

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who happens to be both a big fan of unnatural marriage and one of the aforementioned intelligentsia, summarized this worldview neatly when he wrote the following in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He did so while attempting to rationalize government-sanctioned child sacrifice, the evil twin to “gay marriage”: “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,” he pontificated.

Right. Lay off the ‘shrooms, dude.

In other words, man is the measure of all things. Man is god, and there is no god but man. According to Kennedy, and as was first suggested by a garden snake a very long time ago, truth is defined by man’s “individual concept of existence.”

This, of course, is empirically and manifestly stupid.

And so both of these worldviews cannot be right. It’s impossible. The law of non-contradiction precludes it.

So who is right?

It’s simple. Those who acknowledge objective reality, natural morality and absolute truth are right. Those who recognize that there are fixed biological, moral and natural laws – that despite the rebellious machinations of fallen man, can be neither altered nor ignored – won the debate before the debate even began.

There is no debate.

Yet the debate goes on.

As for the continuing kangaroo courtrooms overseeing and facilitating the destruction of marriage via judicial fiat, I fully expect that additional reality-denying judges will call up down, black white and evil good. They’ll declare a “constitutional right” to sodomy-based marriage.

It’s all the rage right now.

Still, there is no legitimate legal argument to be made in favor of this absurdity. The common law, natural law and reality itself preclude any man, any court, any government, even state governments, from presuming to redefine the institution of marriage to exclude the necessary element of binary male-female complementarity.

Mankind can no more redefine marriage to include same-sex parings than can he suspend the laws of gravity.

Yet these arrogant, godless, black-robed autocrats presume to do just that.

The courts are tossing around spiritual nitroglycerin here. It’s the stuff that brings down entire civilizations. Here’s the bad news: The aforementioned Justice Kennedy is the swing vote in favor of imposing fuax marriage on everyone.

Here’s the good news: God will not be mocked.

Written by Richard Mayer, Assistant Managing Editor of the Palatine Journal & Topics

 Zoning Board Hears Colfax Plan Oct. 14th

Palatine village councilmen in the coming weeks will be presented with another special use proposal for a medical marijuana dispensary facility, this time at 310 W. Colfax St. in the village’s manufacturing district north of downtown.

Councilmen on Sept. 15 denied a proposal by Northwest Medical Distribution to operate a business at 400 S. Vermont St. in an industrial area west of S. Hicks Road and south of Northwest Highway after many people in attendance that night spoke out on how they were concerned with security, traffic and overall safety of their nearby neighborhoods.

The new Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act allows for 60 dispensaries throughout the state. One dispensary permit will be used for Barrington, Hanover, and Palatine townships combined.

The new plan, which is expected to be presented to the Palatine Zoning Board of Appeals at 7 p.m. Oct. 14 at the police station off Hicks Road, is being led by Mitch Meyers of Nature’s Care LLC.

According to Meyers, she has submitted to the state three applications for a medical marijuana dispensary facility. One is in Palatine, while the other two are downstate.

“We will not know if we have a license until mid-November or early December,” Meyers said, who could see all three applications approved by the state and be granted three licenses.

“A person can be granted up to five licenses for dispensaries,” Meyers commented.

Meyers said she hasn’t seen the 10,000 sq. ft warehouse facility in Palatine currently occupied by tile wholesaler Peko Tile, but said someone she knows and works with, knows the area and suggested this facility would be a suitable location for her business. She has seen the parcel online though.

Meyers’ attorney Tom Burney said Peko has tried to sell the facility for some time and should Meyers take over, she would lease the building at first with an option to purchase at a later date.

Should she open a dispensary at that location, Meyers said she would only consume 3,200 sq. ft. of the building at first and then figure out what to do with the remaining space. However, she would not be able to lease any remaining space to another businesses since her operation must be very secure at all times.

“My security plan is unbelievable,” Meyers said. “We have very expensive cameras everywhere inside and outside. We will have lighting and motion detectors too. Every part of the area will be secured and we will always know who is coming and going.”

Meyers said there are “layers” of security in place in terms of employees and guards located at the facility.

“When a patient comes in though, we don’t want them to feel threatened in any way,” Meyers said. “We are going to be more like a wellness clinic. We will have palliative counselors on board so patients are familiar with what they are purchasing.”

In addition to smoking cannabis, Meyers said there would be oils and edible food for people to purchase that will have the same effect as the traditional method.

At the beginning, Meyers said she would employ 12-15 individuals. Her hours of operation would be Monday-Friday 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.; Saturday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and closed on Sunday.  Meyers said she has a business background and has worked for Fortune 100 companies.  She said she partnered with a gentleman who is a horticultural grower and is considered the 25th largest plant grower in the country. She said she began to learn about the cultivation aspect of the business from him and decided to team up together.

According to Meyers, Palatine is a good location because it is near the train station so it would be accessible to people that don’t drive.

At first, she would expect approximately 30 patients to visit the facility on a daily basis.

If she receives approval to operate in Palatine, she expects to begin the business by next summer.

“It all depends on when product is available through the cultivation houses,” Meyers said.

Once the zoning board listens to the proposal, it will go in front of the village council for final approval. That proposal could be on the village council’s agenda for Oct. 20, otherwise one of the first three Mondays in November at 7 p.m. at the police station.

Since state law mandates municipalities are not permitted to prohibit a dispensary site in their community, the issue the council will decide is whether or not conditions are met and the location is appropriate.

The deadline to apply to the state for a dispensary license was Monday, Sept. 22. Dispensaries are not permitted within 1,000 ft. of any public or private preschool or elementary or secondary school or daycare center.

Cardholders must have a qualifying medical condition, be at least 18 years of age, submit an application to the Dept. of Public Health, provide a written certification from a physician and pass a background investigation.  Cardholders will be allowed to receive up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana every 14 days. Additionally, cannabis they receive must be produced and obtained only in Illinois.

Village councilmen earlier this year approved a text amendment to village code adding certain locations where marijuana cultivation (growing) centers and dispensaries (facilitating centers) are allowed.

A Sad Milestone for Marriage and Morality

A giant milestone in the moral revolution passed this week when the U.S. Supreme Court turned down every single appeal from several states on the issue of same-sex marriage. This decision not to take at least one case under consideration stunned both sides in the same-sex marriage battle. Last weekend’s edition of USA Today featured a front-page story that declared the virtual certainty that the Court would take at least one of the cases and declared same-sex marriage to be “a cause whose time has come.”

Well, same-sex marriage may well be an issue whose time has come in the culture, due to the massive moral shift that has taken place over the last few decades, but the nation’s highest court has decided that now is not the time for it to take up such a case. Faced with the opportunity either to stop same-sex marriage in its tracks or to hand down a sweeping decision tantamount to a new Roe v. Wade, the Court took a pass.

Some will argue that the Court’s decision was a strategic choice intended to preserve its dignity and stature. Already, many defenders of natural marriage are doing their best to argue that the Court’s refusal to take a case is better for the cause of marriage than a sweeping decision in favor of same-sex marriage. The proponents of same-sex marriage had hoped for just such a decision, and attorneys were jockeying for position, wanting to be the lead counsel for the “gay marriage Roe decision.” But make no mistake, the proponents of same-sex marriage won this round, and they won big. They did not get the sweeping coast to coast ruling they wanted, but what they got was an even faster track to the same result.

Had the Court taken one of the cases, the oral arguments would not have taken place until early 2015, and the decision would not have been likely until the end of next June. Until then, same-sex marriage would be on hold to some degree. Now, the Court’s decision to allow lower court rulings to stand sends an immediate signal — it is full steam ahead for same-sex marriage coast to coast.

As of last week, 19 states and the District of Columbia had legalized same-sex marriage by one means or another. The Court’s decision not to take one of the cases from the lower Federal courts means that every one of them stands. Therefore, not only will same-sex marriage be legal in the states that made a direct appeal, but in every state included within the same U.S. Circuit.

That result is that the decision made clear by the Court will lead, automatically, to the fact that 30 states will have legal same-sex marriage within weeks, if not days. The news from the Court means that the vast majority of Americans will live where same-sex marriage is legal, and three fifths of the states will have legalized same-sex marriage.

But the Court’s decision also sent another even more powerful message. The remaining federal courts were put on notice that same-sex marriage is now the expectation of the Supreme Court and that no appeal on the question is likely to be successful, or even heard. You can expect the lower courts to hear that message loudly and clearly — and fast.

This day in U.S. legal history will be remembered for many years to come as a landmark day toward same-sex marriage. It was the day the nation’s highest court took one of the lowest paths of least resistance. It now seeks to maintain its prestige by avoiding the backlash the Court experienced in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade in 1973. It wants to have its victory without taking further risks to its reputation.

Given the recent remarks made by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, even some of the Court’s most liberal justices wanted to avoid a backlash while achieving the same eventual result. This week’s announcement means that their hopes were achieved.

But the decision also indicates something further — it points to the vindication of Justice Antonin Scalia. When the Court handed down the decision striking down all state sodomy statutes in 2003 in Lawrence v Texas, Justice Scalia declared that it meant the end of all morals legislation. The majority opinion in that decision was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose legal reasoning was ridiculed by Scalia in one of his most scathing dissents.

Kennedy, said Scalia, had created “a massive disruption of the current social order,” that could not be stopped. Further: “Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”

Eleven years earlier, Scalia had dissented from another Kennedy majority opinion, that time on abortion. Justice Kennedy had sustained a right to abortion, maintaining the central impact of Roe and pushing further toward a mysterious existential argument. Kennedy had written, “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.”

Scalia famously rejected that language as Kennedy’s “sweet-mystery-of-life passage,” and he saw that same reasoning behind the Lawrencedecision.

But Scalia also said this about the 2003 decision: “This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.” Further: “Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as a formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples?”

Indeed, the Lawrence decision did put all laws limiting marriage to opposite sex couples on shaky ground. Very shaky ground. Justice Scalia saw what now appears obvious. The Court’s decision in Lawrence in 2003 set the stage for this week’s news.

Even more recently, Justice Kennedy was the author of the Court’s majority opinion in the Windsor decision striking down the federal government’s Defense of Marriage Act. That decision, handed down in June of 2013, set the stage for this week’s development in a big way.

Once again, Justice Scalia saw it coming. He called the Court’s decision to strike down DOMA “jaw-dropping” in both its audacity and its reasoning. Then he offered these memorable words: “As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.”

That “other shoe” was the inevitability of same-sex marriage as a national reality.

What happened this week at the Court — or perhaps what didn’t happen — is a direct vindication of Scalia’s warnings. He saw it coming and he warned us.

What the Court’s majority has now decided, evidently, is to allow shoes to fall at the hands of lower courts that will follow its reasoning and obey its signals.

The news from the Court means a sad vindication for Justice Antonin Scalia. It means an even sadder day for marriage in America.

And it means, no matter what you think you heard or didn’t hear from Washington, that the other shoe has dropped.

---

This article was originally posted at the AlbertMohler.com blog.

Written by Katrina Trinko

This isn’t OK.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to hear any of the cases on same-sex marriage means, as my colleague Ryan T. Anderson writes, that “lower court rulings that struck down state marriage laws now will go into effect, forcing the redefinition of marriage in [Indiana, Wisconsin, Virginia, Oklahoma and Utah] and potentially in other states in the 4th, 7th, and 10th circuits.”

That shouldn’t be acceptable—regardless of your position on same-sex marriage.

Voters in 31 states voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Liberal California voted for that in 2008, and so did red Texas in 2005. From 1998 to 2012—not say, from 1870 to 1890, or some other long-gone time period—34 states voted on defining marriage as being between a man and a woman—and only three voted against it.

And now the will of the people is being struck down by judge after judge.

If you think same-sex marriage should be legal, put it on the ballot. Ask the people of your state to decide in a vote.

Pundits have been pointing out that polls show Americans’ views on same-sex marriage have changed in recent years. “The Supreme Court confirms what we already knew: The fight over gay marriage is over,” tweeted the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, including a chart that shows higher support for than opposition to same-sex marriage.

But those polls are irrelevant. If people want to change a law they now consider to be wrong, they should do it at the ballot box, not at the courthouse. Unless, of course, the law is in clear violation of the text of the U.S. Constitution. But no one seriously thinks that when we ratified the 14th Amendment, we were voting to redefine marriage.

Americans deserve the right to choose the laws governing marriage. Everyone who values the will of the people, no matter what they think on the issue of same-sex marriage, should be decrying how it’s judges, not Americans, getting to decide this important issue.

---

This article was originally posted at The Daily Signal blog.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decided that it would not hear any of the marriage redefinition cases currently before it, including cases from Indiana, Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia and Wisconsin. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s refusal to accept appeals to this judicial activism:

“The Supreme Court decision to not take up these lower court rulings, which undermine natural marriage and the rule of law, for now, puts the issue of marriage back before the US Congress. This decision, in part, is an indication that those on the Court who desire to redefine natural marriage recognize the country will not accept a Roe v. Wade type decision on marriage.

Unfortunately, by failing to take up these marriage cases, the High Court will allow rogue lower court judges who have ignored history and true legal precedent to silence the elected representatives of the people and the voice of the people themselves by overturning state provisions on marriage. Even more alarming, lower court judges are undermining our form of government and the rights and freedoms of citizens to govern themselves. This judicially led effort to force same sex ‘marriage’ on people will have negative consequences for our Republic, not only as it relates to natural marriage but also undermining the rule of and respect for law.

The Court decision ensures that the debate over natural marriage will continue and the good news is that time is not on the side of those who want to redefine marriage. As more states are forced to redefine marriage, contrary to nature and directly in conflict with the will of millions, more Americans will see and experience attacks on their religious freedom. Parents will find a wedge being driven between them and their children as school curriculum is changed to contradict the morals parents are teaching their children. As more and more people lose their livelihoods because they refuse to not just tolerate but celebrate same-sex marriage, Americans will see the true goal, which is for activists to use the Court to impose a redefinition of natural marriage on the entire nation.

Congress should respond to today’s announcement by moving forward with the State Marriage Defense Act, which is consistent with last year’s Windsor ruling and ensures that the federal government in its definition of marriage respects the duly enacted marriage laws of the states.

An article in the Washington Examiner on September 18 carried the headline:

“Census: Marriage rate at 93-year low, even including same-sex couples.“

The article states:

“The Census Bureau reported Thursday that the nation’s marriage rate is the lowest since 1920, and the first-time inclusion of same sex married couples did little to reverse the decline.”

The Examiner was citing a Pew Research Center analysis of new data from the Census Bureau’s 2013 American Community Survey. Pew described the story this way:

“The Census Bureau released new data today that for the first time counted same-sex spouses along with all other married couples in its largest household survey, which, despite the new additions, showed no reversal in the long-term national decline in marriage.”

The Examiner and Pew Research Center both seem to consider it somehow ironic, paradoxical, or counter-intuitive that the marriage rate is declining “even” with or “despite” the inclusion of “same sex married couples” for the first time. After all, civil marriage licenses are now issued to same-sex couples in nineteen states and counting. Wouldn’t opening the door to legal marriage for a whole new population that (presumably) would not have married before—namely, people with homosexual partners—be expected to boost marriage rates, at least temporarily?

I was not at all surprised by this data, though. It is consistent with three important facts that everyone following the debate over the homosexual redefinition of marriage should know:

1) As a percentage of the overall U.S. population, the homosexual population is tiny.

This was demonstrated once again in a recent federal survey whose results were released in July 2014. It found that only 1.6% of American adults self-identify as “gay” or “lesbian,” with another 0.7 percent self-identifying as “bisexual.” TheNational Health Interview Survey, conducted under the auspices of the National Center for Health Statistics in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, collected data from a large sample of 34,557 adults through 2013.

Although plenty of evidence was already available, this finding reinforced the fact that the widely reported claim that “one in ten” people is homosexual is sheer mythology. The “10 percent” figure was a misinterpretation of a statement made by the notorious sex researcher Alfred Kinsey in the 1940’s, and his “research” has long since been discredited. However, a 2011 poll by Gallup showed that the ubiquitous presence of homosexual activism in our politics and of homosexuals or pro-homosexual agitation in our media has led a majority of Americans to the astonishing belief that over 20 percent of the population is homosexual—more than ten times higher than the actual number.

The reality is that homosexuals are not one in five Americans, or one in ten, or even one in twenty. In reality, only about one in sixty Americans self-identifies as homosexual.

2) The percentage of the homosexual population that consists of people living together in long-term, committed partnerships is significantly lower than the percentage of the heterosexual population that does so.

The 2010 census collected information on both “husband-wife households” and “unmarried partner” households, with the latter being broken down into opposite-sex and same-sex partners. We can calculate the number of opposite-sex couples by adding together “husband-wife” and opposite-sex “unmarried partner” households. All same-sex couples, at the time of the 2010 Census and reports based on it, were classified as “unmarried partners” even if legally “married” in some state, because the federal Defense of Marriage Act (in a provision struck down by the Supreme Court in June 2013) had prohibited any federal agency from regarding them as “married.”

These calculations result in a conclusion that only about 34.5 percent of the homosexual population consists of people living together in a partnership, whereas 54.9 percent of the remaining population live together in an opposite-sex partnership of some type. (Note also that if we increase the estimate of people interested in same-sex relationships—for example, by including bisexuals—that would only reduce the percentage figure, while if we limit the opposite-sex calculation only to the 96.6 percent who explicitly self-identify as “straight,” it would increase that percentage).

These figures suggest that heterosexuals are about 60 percent more likely to form long-term, committed partnerships than homosexuals are.

3) Even homosexuals who are already in a committed, long-term relationship with a partner are much less likely to legally marry, even if they live in jurisdictions that already permit them to do so.

The most recent data from the Census Bureau, the American Community Survey for 2013, includes an estimate (from a large sample, but not from a canvas of the entire population like in the decennial census itself) that there are now 726,600 same-sex couple households in the United States. Of those, 34.6 percent report themselves to be same-sex “spouses.”

Not all of those couples (about 250,000) are necessarily legally “married,” however. The Census Bureau relies entirely on the respondent’s self-report as to the couple’s relationship, and does not inquire into whether they have obtained a legal civil marriage license. In 2010, an openly homosexual Census Bureau official actually urged same-sex couples to indicate they were “married” even without a legal marriage license. Therefore, the percentage of same-sex couples who are legally “married” in the U.S. is probably even lower than 34.6 percent.

The Pew Research Center reported in June of 2013 that only 71,165 legal same-sex “marriages” could be confirmed to have taken place in the United States. While the actual number is certain to be higher (Maryland and DC had not yet reported numbers of same-sex unions since they had redefined “marriage,” and some couples have “married” in other countries), it is nowhere near 250,000.

Of course, a majority of states still do not issue civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (Virtually all states that do, however, will allow people from any state to marry there, so being unable to obtain such a license in one’s state of residence is no bar to getting “married” in another state.) Nevertheless, even if we look at data only for the seven U.S. jurisdictions that had already permitted same-sex “marriages” for more than a year before 2013 began (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, D.C., and New York), we find that the percentage of same-sex couples who reported as “spouses” in those states was barely over half, at 54.9 percent.

This is in sharp contrast to the situation among opposite-sex couples. Despite the dramatic increase in cohabitation in recent decades, 89.3 percent of all opposite-sex couples who live together are married, with only 10.7 percent cohabiting without benefit of marriage. To put it another way—same-sex couples who live together are at least four times as likely as opposite-sex couples to reject marriage, even when it is available to them.

The combination of these three factors—the minuscule size of the homosexual population, the failure of most homosexuals to form long-term relationships, and the ironic unwillingness to marry (despite the zealous campaign for the “right” to do so) on the part of nearly half of cohabiting homosexual partners—all add up to same-sex “marriages” being an almost negligible factor in the number of “married-couple” households. Only 0.45 percent of all such households—about 1 in 220—are headed by self-described same-sex “spouses.”

Setting a bad example

The fact that homosexuals are much less likely than heterosexuals to enter into committed relationships, and are much less likely to solemnize such relationships in marriage even when they have formed them, should seriously call into question the myth of the marriage redefinition movement that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships except the gender of their partners.

However, it should do even more than that. It should raise an alarm about one of the implications of redefining civil marriage to include same-sex couples. Advocates of redefinition often ask how a same-sex couple getting married could possibly hurt anyone else. Ironically, their rejection of marriage, even when offered to them, may be one source of harm.

We are all influenced by the behavior of those around us. Seeing our friends, neighbors, classmates and co-workers sleep around in casual relationships with no commitment makes it seem more acceptable for us to do the same. Seeing them live together rather than make a life-long commitment in marriage makes it more thinkable for us to follow suit. Seeing couples around us divorce may make divorce seem like an option for us, too.

If we redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships, it will amount to an official declaration, as a matter of public policy, that homosexual relationships are indistinguishable from heterosexual ones. As a consequence, heterosexuals will become more likely to look to their homosexual acquaintances—and their sexual and relationship conduct—as role models for themselves. But what homosexuals model is a lack of committed relationships in general and a lack of commitment to marriage in particular.

Therefore, as a growing number of heterosexuals begin to follow the example of the homosexuals with which they are acquainted, a likely consequence of redefining marriage will be, ironically, that fewer people will marry at all. So the long-term decline of marriage will continue not in spite of same-sex “marriage,” as the Washington Examiner and the Pew Research Center seemed to assume, but because of it.

This is only one of the harms which should give pause to our nation in general—and our courts in particular—about rushing into the radical social experiment of redefining marriage.

---

This article was originally posted at the ChristianPost.com website.

Judge Richard Posner, a federal judge with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, recently become a hero to the pro-”gay marriage” left when, by way of a “legal analysis” free from the troublesome constraints of logic, case precedent, biology, tradition and reality in general, he managed to somehow divine a long-hidden constitutional “right” for two dudes to get “married.” “How can tradition be a reason for anything?” an incredulous Posner demanded last month of attorneys defending marriage protection amendments in both Wisconsin and Indiana.

It would seem that Posner’s contempt for tradition extends to all things sexual, up to and including the puritanical presupposition that it’s always wrong for a man to rape a woman. This idea, according to Posner in his 2011 book “Economic Analysis of the Law” (8th edition), is evidently an equally archaic tradition that, like the institution of natural marriage, needs a significant overhaul.

Posner’s suggestion? Perhaps it’s time the government begin issuing “rape licenses” (I kid you not) since, and based upon an exclusively utilitarian and morally relative cost-benefit analysis, the “right to rape,” for some men at least, “exceeds the victim’s physical and emotional pain.”

On page 216, Posner, a Reagan appointee considered “conservative” in “progressive” circles, writes, “Rape bypasses the market in sexual relations (marital and otherwise) in the same way that theft bypasses markets in ordinary goods and services, and it should therefore be forbidden.”

OK, while this is an oddly detached and clinical start to a discussion on rape, it is, so far, not entirely unreasonable. Posner would have been well served to stop here. But, and much like those who are the subject of his rape analysis, he does not stop.

“But,” continues Posner – I didn’t know there were any “buts” when it comes to rape – “But some rapists derive extra pleasure from the fact that the woman has not consented. For these rapists, there is no market substitute … and it could be argued therefore that, for them, rape is not a purely coercive transfer and should not be punished if the pleasure to the rapist (as measured by what he would be willing to pay – though not to the victim – for the right to rape) exceeds the victim’s physical and emotional pain. There are practical objections [No, really? Practical objections to rape?] … [b]ut the fact that any sort of rape license is even thinkable [what kind of bigoted rape-o-phobe would suggest otherwise?] … is a limitation on the usefulness of that theory.

“What generates the possibility of a rape license,” he persists (hold off, fellas, they’re not available yet), “is the fact that the rapist’s utility is weighted the same as his victim’s utility. If it were given a zero weight in the calculus of costs and benefits, a rape license could not be efficient. The only persuasive basis for such a weighting, however, would be a moral principle different from efficiency.”

And herein lies the rub. We all know what Posner thinks about “moral principles.” He’s a moral relativist. There are no moral principles, most especially “traditional” moral principles. I mean, “How can tradition be a reason for anything?”

But wait, there’s more. You gals trapped in one of those “traditional” marriages needn’t fret. Posner’s got you covered, too. “Marital rape?” C’mon, is there really such a thing?

“In a society that prizes premarital virginity and marital chastity [I know, sheesh, right?], the cardinal harm from rape is the destruction of those goods and is not inflicted by marital rape,” he writes.

“… The nature of the harm to the wife raped by her husband is a little obscure,” he continues. “If she is beaten or threatened, these of course are real harms inflicted by an ordinary assault and battery. Especially since the goods of virginity and of chastity are not endangered, the fact of her having intercourse one more time with a man with whom she has had intercourse many times before seems peripheral to the harm actually inflicted but is critical to making the offense rape.

“Most of the reasons for not making marital rape a crime have lost force with time,” he laments.

Of late a fanciful meme has taken root among the “progressive” left. It’s one that imagines ours as a patriarchal “rape culture,” which fosters an environment wherein women are systematically raped with impunity (especially on our nation’s college campuses).

Apparently, the solution is for chicks to pierce and tattoo themselves, declare “slut pride” and parade nude in “slut walks” across the globe. But that’s an outlier.

I finally get it. Posner is the “rape culture.” I wonder how these mouth-frothing “marriage equality” lefties will react to his permissive approach to rape. In much the same way, I suppose, they reacted to myriad accusations of sexual harassment and assault lodged against Bill “depends-on-what-is-is” Clinton. With total silence and self-serving hypocrisy.

None of this should surprise anyone. Richard Posner is a faithful disciple of Alfred Kinsey, the anti-science, anti-morality left’s sexual messiah. Kinsey was a bug doctor turned “sexologist.” Though married to a woman who took part in his many filmed “scientific” orgies, Kinsey was a promiscuous homosexual and sadomasochist. He managed to completely upend and twist the world’s perception of human sexuality in the 1950s and ’60s with his world famous “Kinsey Reports.”

Even today, most are completely unaware that during his tenure at Indiana University, Kinsey facilitated, with stopwatches and ledgers, the systematic sexual abuse of hundreds, if not thousands, of children and infants – all in the name of science. His research also “found” that rape doesn’t really hurt women. In his 1953 volume “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female” at page 122, Kinsey wrote, “Among the 4,441 females [reporting rape] on whom we have data, there was only one clear cut case of injury … and very few instances of vaginal bleeding, which however, did not appear to do any appreciable damage.”

Starting to see what makes Posner click? “His Honor” is a dyed-in-the-wool Kinseyite.

Though Kinsey’s “research” has long since been completely debunked and discredited, the elitist left, to include Judge Posner, even still relies on it to push its own sexual anarchist worldview. Writing in his 1992 book, “Sex and Reason,” for instance, Posner gushed, “The two Kinsey reports remain the high-water mark of descriptive sexology.” He calls Kinsey the “central figure” in the “scholarly science” of sexology.

Raped? Well, suck it up, walk it off and congratulate yourself.

You’ve reached Posner’s “high-water mark.”

Reporter Charlo Greene of the CBS television affiliate in Alaska used an obscenity on the air, announcing she was quitting her job, and revealed that she had been president of the Alaska Cannabis Club even while reporting on it for station KTVA. She then walked off the set.

Greene announced she was going to openly campaign for passage of ballot measure 2, the Alaska Marijuana Legalization initiative, on the November 4, 2014, Election Day ballot.

In a new development, TMZ reports that Greene allegedly smoked so much pot at home that her next-door neighbor’s kid got sick from the fumes. The neighbor complained, was threatened by Greene, and got a restraining order against her.

Whether Green had simply gone nuts on the air, or else was demonstrating the effects of the use of the weed on her own mental faculties, the lesson was clear: the media can’t be trusted to report fairly and honestly on the marijuana issue. We know the media have a liberal bias. But this case caused us to wonder how many “objective” reporters covering the issue are actually secret tokers.

Kristina Woolston, the Vote No on 2 spokesperson, told Accuracy in Media, “We are shocked and disappointed at what has transpired. Our campaign has twice expressed concern to KTVA about Charlo Greene’s coverage. First, we met with the news director and walked him through our issues about her biased coverage of the marijuana initiative. Then Kalie Klaysmat at the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police sent a strongly worded email to the news director, again expressing concern about Greene’s biased coverage.”

Calvina L. Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation, commented, “It is not uncommon to hear such inappropriate language used by the advocates of marijuana legalization.  To have used this type of language while on the air, clearly demonstrates a lack of respect for her employer and for the public. It appears that she has no problem violating the rules in the workplace. I wonder if this problem will be carried over in her management style of her company and result in abuses and violations of Alaska marijuana laws—whatever they will be come November. I hope that the media will shift the attention from her towards covering why this proposal to legalize pot is a very bad idea.”

Having come out of the closet as a pothead, Charlo Greene’s Facebook Page now shows her in a group of marijuana plants. She also changed her profile picture to one showing her lighting up a marijuana cigarette.

As shocking as this case was, less attention has been devoted to the more sensational story of Vladimir Baptiste, a psychotic pot user who drove his truck through the headquarters of WMAR-TV in Towson, Maryland. The Baptiste case demonstrates how marijuana is hardly the benign, or even beneficial, substance depicted by its apologists. He is charged with attempted murder, assault, burglary and malicious destruction of property and theft.

Before he stole a truck and rammed the building, a WMAR reporter said Baptiste had come to the front door screaming that he was God and demanding to be let in.

His mother told WNEW that her son’s behavior began changing when he started smoking marijuana. She said he had been a chronic marijuana user for eight years and needed psychiatric help.

WBAL-TV reported that, in the charging documents, “Baptiste said he was a reincarnation of King Tut and Jesus Christ and lives in a world of multiverses [alternative universes] where bad things happen to people, and they disappear because they are not real. He said the disappearance of Malaysian Flight 370 and the kidnapping of the Nigerian school girls were examples of multiverses in that they never actually happened.”

The case is not as unique as you might think. The link between marijuana and mental illness is well-established in medical literature, but has been mostly ignored by the media.

In Florida, meanwhile, a pro-marijuana initiative known as Amendment 2, is backed by famous trial lawyer John Morgan, who was recently caught on camera at a local bar cursing and appearing drunk, while praising “reefer” and urging young people to turn out to pass the ballot measure. The video carries the title, “Unplugged and Uncensored.”

Morgan is the “Yes on 2” campaign chairman. His side calls it the “United for Care” measure, designed to create the impression that it is all being done for sick people who need pot.

In this case, some in the media aren’t buying it. The Tampa Tribune said Morgan’s rant proves that the measure was not intended to help sick people, and noted that the crowd howled at Morgan’s profanity. People could be heard screaming “Smoke weed,” and “Where’s the cocaine?”

Charlie Crist, the former Republican governor of Florida, was a lawyer at Morgan’s firm. He’s now running for governor as a Democrat.

In response to the antics of Morgan and others, the “Don’t Let Florida Go to Pot coalition” has been formed.

The Charlo Greene case, however, is getting the headlines, and the bizarre incident has backfired on the pro-pot forces treating the former reporter as a heroine.

In this context, the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police has posted “14 Reasons Against Marijuana Legalization,” including the argument that marijuana contributes to psychosis and schizophrenia, addiction for one out of six kids who ever use it once, and it reduces IQ among those who started smoking before age 18.

The IQ problem was clearly evident in the Charlo Greene fiasco.

Dumbed-down marijuana users have been praising Greene for coming out of the marijuana closet. But a liberal website called the Inquisitr said she is “every bad stereotype of the pot community rolled into one.” It explained, “She starts a cannabis club and campaigns for ‘medical marijuana legalization’ yet she shows in a short 30-second clip that she has no tact, no sense of professionalism and no concern for what her future might hold.”

The column went on, “What is so irksome about Charlo Greene and those like her is this: they hide behind the ‘medical marijuana’ argument when all they really want is to get high.”

Where did this pothead reporter come from? She says she graduated cum laude from the University of Texas. She also worked for WOWK, the CBS affiliate for Charleston-Huntington, West Virginia, and WJHL in Johnson City, Tennessee.

Bert Rudman of KTVA-11 News in Anchorage posted a “Dear Viewers” note after her outburst, saying, “We sincerely apologize for the inappropriate language used by a KTVA reporter during her live presentation on the air tonight. The employee has been terminated.”

Perhaps some drug tests are in order for his employees.

As bizarre as it was, the Greene episode could help derail the George Soros-funded campaign to legalize dope in Alaska.

The pro-pot side in Alaska is represented by the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, whose top contributors are the Marijuana Policy Project and the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance.

But the group also has backers with Republican and Democratic credentials.

The spokesman for the pro-marijuana group is Taylor Bickford, who previously worked for the Republican National Committee, and says he got his start in politics interning for Alaska Republican U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski. Bickford is director of Alaska operations for the Seattle-based marketing firm known as Strategies 360.

The group’s senior vice president is Ethan Berkowitz, the 2010 Democratic nominee for governor of Alaska.

Bickford is quoted by the AP as saying, “he hopes Alaska voters look beyond Greene’s salty language” because she has an “important” message about legalizing dope.

At the same time, a relatively new group, Republicans Against Marijuana Prohibition, was active at the recent Ron Paul-sponsored Liberty Political Action Conference. The group was founded by Ann and Bob Lee, parents of Richard Lee of “Oaksterdam University” fame. Oaksterdam University in Oakland, California, is also known as “America’s First Cannabis College.” It teaches people how to grow high-quality dope.

Is this America’s future?

---

This article was originally posted at the Accuracy in Media website.

The Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky once wrote that “the degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” He spoke from experience, having spent four years in Siberia after having his death sentence commuted.

LISTEN TO THIS COMMENTARY HERE

Unfortunately, many Americans can also speak from experience on this score. As regular BreakPoint listeners know, many of our prisons are overcrowded and dangerous places where men and women are kept in conditions that should shock our consciences.

Let me be clear: I’m not laying this at the feet of our nation’s corrections officials. If our prisons speak poorly of the state of our civilization, it’s largely because we incarcerate far too many people for low-level offenses and care too little about what happens to them after we’ve locked them up.

But there are many people who, despite the public’s lack of concern, are making a difference in the lives of those entrusted to their care. One of them sits on Prison Fellowship’s board of directors: Burl Cain, the warden of Louisiana’s Angola Prison.

Actually, to call Angola a “prison” and Cain its “warden” is a bit off the mark. With 6,300 inmates and 1,800 employees and covering 18,000 acres, the Louisiana State Penitentiary, as it is officially known, is more like a small city with Cain as its mayor.

Cain was the subject of a recent First Things magazine piece by Peter Leithart entitled “Remember the Prisoner.” That is a fair summary of Cain’s approach. In far too many prisons, the word “penitentiary,” from the Christian word “penitent,” is a misnomer. Men and women are warehoused and then released in no better and often worse shape than when they arrived.

Cain’s approach was summed up by Richard Peabody, a guard who has worked at the prison for 37 years. He told Leithart that “prisoners are offered incentives to better themselves, and when they prove trustworthy, they take positions of responsibility within the prison.”

Many of the opportunities to better themselves and prove themselves worthy of responsibility take their inspiration from Cain’s Christian faith. One such opportunity is Malachi Dads in which prisoners “pledge to provide spiritual leadership for their kids” and thus break the generational cycle of crime.

Another is the on-campus seminary. You heard that correctly, a seminary. New Orleans Baptist Seminary offers a four-year degree that inmates can earn behind bars. Graduates of the program become “prisoner-pastors” who minister to other prisoners.

Some even transfer from Angola to other prisons where they minister to offenders in those institutions. As Leithart put it, “Angola has become a missionary-sending prison.”

Perhaps the most telling touch is Cain’s overhauling of the way dying and dead inmates were treated. Angola has a hospice program where prisoners care for their dying companions. And when a prisoner dies, his remains “are carried to marked graves in a Victorian hearse, drawn by two horses and driven by [an inmate nicknamed] ‘Bones,’ who is dressed in tux and top hat.”

It’s all a part of Angola’s commitment to honoring prisoners’ humanity. Cain and his employees treat prisoners with dignity, in life as in death. And they seek their moral transformation and restoration to society—as Cain has been discussing with fellow wardens over the past several months under the auspices of Prison Fellowship.

Resources:

Remember the Prisoner: How Angola Became a Missionary-Sending Prison
Peter J. Leithart | First Things | September 12, 2014

Bible College Helps Some at Louisiana Prison Find Peace
Erik Eckholm | New York Times | October 5, 2013

By God’s Grace: Easter at Angola
Chuck Colson | BreakPoint.org | May 6, 2002

Angola Prison: A Place of Encouragement
Interview with Burl Cain | Acton Institute

Get Involved!
Prison Fellowship Ministries website

Warden Exchange Program, Prison Fellowship Ministries

---

This article was originally posted at the BreakPoint.org website.

 

During a recent CNN discussion about NFL player Ray Rice’s infamous elevator assault on his then-fiancée Janay, someone brought up the fact that it was she who had thrown the initial blow. The comment was made that had a man—even a smaller, weaker man—slapped or punched Ray Rice first, Rice’s punch would not have generated the outrage it has. The point was that men ought not punch women even if women initiate a physical altercation. The larger point—which should be obvious—is that men and women are inherently and fundamentally different.

Some random thoughts:

• Why would it be permissible for a man to respond to a physical assault by a smaller, weaker man with a punch but not to a physical assault by a woman of similar stature and strength or even to a woman commensurate in stature and strength to the man assaulted?

• If as a society we largely agree that a man should not respond with physical aggression to an assault by a woman—either because of women’s lesser strength or because of some less concretely measurable differences between men and women—what are the implications for women in combat?

• If there are no differences between men and women relevant to combat, perhaps the military will create all female combat divisions, which would at least mitigate problems related to sexual tension and privacy/modesty.

• Women who object to a proposal for the creation of all female combat divisions should be asked for their reasons.

• Because of the real—though not always measurable—differences between men and women, if my son were serving in combat, I would much rather have him serving with all men.

Ray Rice’s actions were despicable, dishonorable, and rightly condemned by all decent people. One obvious good has followed in the wake of this ugly story: the serious problem of domestic abuse is being highlighted.

Another tangential issue toward which this story could draw attention is the effort to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, which has passed the Illinois Senate and moved to the Illinois House with a vote possible during the fall lame duck veto session, conveniently scheduled after the November midterm election. The ERA seeks to eradicate in law any recognition of innate differences between men and women—the very differences that are acknowledged even on CNN.

TAKE ACTION: Please click HERE to contact your state representative to ask him/her to vote AGAINST the ERA, SJRCA 75. It’s essential for us to let our state representatives know that this amendment harms women, their families, and our society.

Your emails and faxes are vital tools for fighting this destructive proposal.

---

Click HERE to support IFI

Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center has been doing a great job at National Review Online debunking Judge Richard Posner’s opinion striking down the Indiana and Wisconsin marriage laws for a panel of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on September 4 (see here, here, here, and here).

I will note here just one thing that jumped out at me in both the oral arguments and the opinion. Judge Posner makes the following argument (pp. 22-23 of the opinion):

Consider now the emotional comfort that having married parents is likely to provide to children adopted by same-sex couples. Suppose such a child comes home from school one day and reports to his parents that all his classmates have a mom and a dad, while he has two moms (or two dads, as the case may be). Children, being natural conformists, tend to be upset upon discovering that they’re not in step with their peers. If a child’s same-sex parents are married, however, the parents can tell the child truthfully that an adult is permitted to marry a person of the opposite sex, or if the adult prefers as some do a person of his or her own sex, but that either way the parents are married and therefore the child can feel secure in being the child of a married couple. Conversely, imagine the parents having to tell their child that same-sex couples can’t marry, and so the child is not the child of a married couple, unlike his classmates.

Judge Posner’s set-up of this hypothetical situation sounds like a demonstration of how same-sex “marriage” couldharm children raised by same-sex couples:

Suppose such a child comes home from school one day and reports to his parents that all his classmates have a mom and a dad, while he has two moms (or two dads, as the case may be). Children, being natural conformists, tend to be upset upon discovering that they’re not in step with their peers.

Perhaps it is a function of his long judicial career, but Judge Posner seems to think that it is entirely the law which will determine whether such a child experiences “comfort” or distress from such a situation. If the law says that the two women or two men raising the child cannot be “married,” the child will experience distress. But if the law says that the two women or two men raising the child are “married,” then they will experience “emotional comfort,” presumably from the knowledge that their family is just like that of their friends.

Except, even in Judge Posner’s own framing of the situation, it is not the absence of a marriage certificate that makes the children feel different from his peers. It is that “all his classmates have a mom and a dad, while he has two moms (or two dads, as the case may be).” If the child’s “two moms” or “two dads” are permitted to “marry” — well, “all his classmates” will still have “a mom and a dad,” while the child in question will still be “not in step with [his] peers” because he will still not have a mom and a dad!

Judge Posner is naïve in the extreme if he thinks that such a child would care more about whether his caregivers have a certificate from the government than about whether his family includes something as fundamental on a human level as a mother and a father.

---

This article was originally posted at FRCblog.com.

Target has filed legal briefs in two court cases intended to win marriage rights for homosexuals and lesbians. The cases are being weighed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh District.

“It is our belief that everyone should be treated equally under the law, and that includes rights we believe individuals should have related to marriage,” Target Executive Vice President of Human Resources Jodee Kozlak wrote on the company’s blog.

While other companies are choosing to remain neutral in the culture war, Target is going all out to support homosexual marriage.

This is a company whose leaders make a mockery of marriage. They make a mockery of God’s Word – and every Christian in this nation  should let Target know it is out of step with the majority of Americans who support natural marriage.

Are you going to give Target your money, knowing they’ll use it to undermine your deeply held beliefs?

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to tell Target Corporation that their decision to take sides in the culture wars has cost them your patronage.

You can also call them at Call (612) 304-6073.  Urge  them to withdraw their support for homosexual marriage and stop undermining long-held American values that marriage is only between one man and one woman.

---

This article was originally posted at the American Family Association website.

On September 15, 2014, the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (HFS) will close public comment period on a proposed policy that will increase the state’s Medicaid coverage of long-term birth control.

Despite a deepening state budget crisis, Governor Pat Quinn and his administration hope to not only double the amount Medicaid (i.e., you) pays for vasectomies and intrauterine devices, but pay healthcare providers in advance.

A vasectomy, which sterilizes a male, commonly costs between $350 and $1000. An IUD, which is inserted into a woman’s uterus to remain between five and ten years, costs between $500 and $1500.

HFS Director Julie Hamos (formerly a state representative and shortly after losing a bid for U.S. Congress in 2010, was appointed by Governor Quinn to HFS Director) told the Chicago Tribune she didn’t know how much the program would cost Illinois taxpayers. But, she emphasized, 90 percent of the state’s Medicaid cost is reimbursed by the federal government, as if it comes from somewhere other than our pockets.

Hamos claims a similar initiative in Colorado cut teen birthrates by 40 percent from 2009 through 2013, reduced abortions and saved the state $42.5 million in 2010.

Conveniently, Planned Parenthood worked with HFS and other groups on the proposal and has expanded its services to include performing non-surgical vasectomies on men and inserting IUDs into women of childbearing age.

Other than Planned Parenthood, not everyone is so upbeat about the program HFS expects to begin October 1st.

The Catholic healthcare system opposes the HFS proposed rules that will require Catholic healthcare providers to refer patients looking for vasectomies and IUDs to facilities like Planned Parenthood.

To do so would go against their religious beliefs.

And that some find ironic. The recent U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision protecting employers with religious convictions from providing birth control and abortifacients is the reason the Quinn Administration moved to increase Medicaid payments for long-term birth control.

HFS Director Hamos told the Tribune her department “proposed the changes in part to address the recent Supreme Court decision that allowed some companies to exclude contraceptives from their employees’ insurance coverage on religious grounds.”

The Hobby Lobby decision, she said, was of “extreme concern” for Governor Quinn and state health officials.

Controversies surround IUDs and vasectomies

IUDs are controversial in how they work. Mirena, an IUD manufactured by Bayer Pharmaceuticals, is coated with time-released spermicide that inhibits sperm survival. However, if healthy sperm does unite with a fertile egg, the IUD-released hormones, which thin the uterine wall, typically prevent egg implantation necessary to sustain new life.

However, if the new life is able to implant within the uterine wall, doctors recommend the baby be aborted immediately. Otherwise, the uterus may become septic, endangering the mother’s life.

Still, the IUD has increased in popularity over the last decade as an effective birth control method.

However, since the Federal Drug Administration approved the Micena IUD for birth control in 2000, more than 100,000 complaints have been reported.

Women report the device dislocating, including one that moved to the woman’s rib cage and another that damaged the woman’s liver.

Others complain about the IUD causing abdominal pain, while others suffered perforated uteruses.

There are currently more than 2,000 product liability lawsuits involving Mirena birth control filed against Bayer throughout the United States.

And there are questions as to whether vasectomies lead to a higher risk of prostate cancer as men grow older.

A 1995 study concluded that a comparison between normal and vasectomized Chinese males “indirectly support[ed] the hypothesis that there is an elevated risk of prostate cancer among men who underwent vasectomies 20 years or more earlier.”

Other researchers claim there is no verifiable connection between vasectomies and higher prostate cancer risks, and doctors no longer warn male patients of the possible risk.

Planned Parenthood promotes birth control, sexual experimentation

Even though Illinois’ new Medicaid payment plan would double for vasectomies for men, Planned Parenthood gains public sympathy and taxpayer dollars by keeping the focus on lower income women’s birth control costs. And it’s no coincidence that Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider.

Planned Parenthood spokesperson Brigid Leahy told Champaign WCIA News recently the new HCF payment proposal was a good thing because, “Women who are lower income do face higher rates of unintended pregnancies because they cannot access the services they need in order to prevent pregnancies.”

While Planned Parenthood claims it is trying to prevent pregnancies, last spring they successfully pushed through the Illinois General Assembly a sex education program that emphasizes condom use while de-emphasizing abstinence.

“How do you sell an abortion? In the U.S. it’s very simple: You do it through sex education,” states Carol Everett, former abortion clinic director. Everett ran four abortion clinics in Texas from 1977-1983, where an estimated 35,000 unborn children were aborted before her dramatic conversion and departure from the industry.

Illinois Family Institute’s executive director David E. Smith says Illinois’ expanded sex education curriculum feeds into the HRS’ proposal doubling Medicaid payment for long-term birth control.

“While the state of Illinois is dead broke,  more money is being allocated toward birth control,” Smith said. “All the while, lawmakers just mandated the teaching of ‘comprehensive’ sex education – encouraging risky sexual experimentation — the very activity that causes unplanned pregnancies.”

Do you see the connection?

Public comments on the new Medicaid payment proposal will be taken by the Department of Healthcare and Family Services until September 15.  So please take action today!

Take ACTION:  Please click HERE to send an email or a fax to Jeanette Badrov, General Counsel of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services to ask policy makers to stop spending our hard earned tax dollars — federal or state — on birth-control programs that only encourage irresponsible sexual activity.  Taxpayers, especially those with deeply held religious convictions, have no obligation to pay for non-essential medical procedures and/or products that support another person’s risky sexual activities.

This page was created to provide information and research material on the harms of legalizing marijuana for both “medical” and recreational purposes.

Some Illinois lawmakers want legalize recreational marijuana for the purpose of taxing and securing a new revenue source. However, the high costs to society far outweigh any revenue stream, which they are hopeful will bail out decades of wasteful spending. It may not be the panacea they were hoping for.

Be sure to WATCH…

VIDEO – The chemicals being used to grow today’s marijuana are causing an environmental disaster.

Marijuana growers are poisoning the soil, water supplies and are killing wildlife.Dr. Mourad Gabriel, Ph.D in Comparative Pathology (emphasis on wildlife disease ecology). He is the Co-founder of the Integral Ecology Research Center.

VIDEO – Marijuana in Your Schools.

Ron Castagna, educator and retired Colorado high school principal of 27 years, 2012 Principal of the Year

VIDEO – Cannabis in the Emergency Room. 

Dr. Karen Randall talks about the terrible financial burden legalization has put on their hospitals and Medicaid system, due to the increase in homelessness and THC potency. Dr. Karen Randall, Emergency Room Physician in the 3^rd busiest Emergency Department in Colorado; trained in emergency medicine, pediatrics and family practice; holds a certificate in Cannabis Science and Medicine from the University of Vermont.

VIDEO – Black market thrives, crime and driving fatalities increase.

Chelsea Clarke, Strategic Intelligence Unit Supervisor for the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. She is a primary contributor to the annual Threat Assessment and The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact reports, as well as a leader in the Colorado Heroin Response Work Group. 

VIDEO – Marijuana’s hidden price: the environmental, economic and human impact of legalization in California.  R

oger Morgan, Chairman/founder of Take Back America Campaign; former chairman and executive director of the Coalition for a Drug-Free California; founding chairman of the Colorado SAFE Foundation in 1997; prior Board Member of the San Diego Prevention Coalition; member of the National Coalition for Student Drug Testing.

VIDEO – “It’s Changed My Home.”  

Aubree Adam’s son started using marijuana in the 8^th grade, soon after Colorado legalized the drug for recreational use. As a freshman, Aubree’s son had a psychotic break and tried to kill himself. Her son continued a cycle of addiction and mental illness for several years. He is now in recovery, and admits marijuana almost killed him and was his gateway to other drugs. 

VIDEO – Legalization has not curbed the opioid epidemic in Colorado, which saw a record year of opioid deaths in 2017. 

Dr. Ken Finn, Board Certified in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Board Certified in Pain Medicine and Pain Management;  licensed in Colorado, Utah and Arizona; president and founder of several Rehab Medicine businesses;  serves on the American Board of Pain Medicine Executive Board and Exam Council; Volunteer Clinical Instructor at University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Medical Branch; published several papers related to cannabis in the face of the opioid epidemic and societal effects. 

VIDEO – “If It’s Legal, Why Test? Addressing the Marijuana Bully in the Workplace.”

Illinois business owners must be aware of the implications legalization will have on their business. Chuck Marting serves on the Board of the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association; former law enforcement officer where he spent 17 years as a Drug Recognition Expert; expertise in workplace impact, has trained district attorneys, school administrators and business owners on workplace impairment testing.

Rocky Mountain High Brings State to New Lows Recreational marijuana has negatively affected every part of Colorado’s culture: schools with increased youth use, poisonings, car fatalities, hospital admissions… But what’s little known, and Big Marijuana wants to keep it that way, is the effect it’s having on neighborhoods, the environment, and homelessness. Big Marijuana lied to Coloradans. Illinois residents should expect the same to happen here. Watch this.

Effects on Society

A Second Drug Wave Is Coming 

Colorado Law Officer Warns Other States Not to Legalize

Five Years Later, Colorado Sees Toll of Pot Legalization

Colorado Impact Study by Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area

Analyzing Colorado’s Grand Experiment

Pot is a Gateway Drug

Colorado’s $1 Billion Pot Industry Saves Towns as it Sows Mayhem

What to Expect if a Marijuana Cultivation Center or Dispensary Opens in Your Community

Denver Drug Agent: Our problems ‘Have Exploded’ with Pot Legalization

Costs to Teens and Adolescents

[VIDEO] Truth and Consequences of Medical Marijuana by Peter Bensinger

Marijuana Legalization: The Issues

Addictive, Stronger & Dangerous

9 in 10 Teens at Drug Clinics Being Treated for Marijuana Use

• • Cannabis is responsible for 91% of drug addiction cases involving teenagers
  • Skunk – high-potency herbal cannabis – causing more people to seek treatment 
  • Backs up research that skunk is having detrimental impact on mental health

How safe is super-concentrated marijuana?

Pot Plenty Dangerous Today

Potent THC Levels

Pot Contains Heavy Metals & Fungus

Stop Pretending Marijuana is Harmless

Bigger Habit for College Students than Cigarettes

Cannabis Can be Highly Addictive, Major Study Finds

Getting Marijuana Addiction Treatment

Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy

“Marijuana is currently a growing risk to the public in the United States. Following expanding public opinion that marijuana provides little risk to health, state and federal legislatures have begun changing laws that will significantly increase accessibility of marijuana. Greater marijuana accessibility, resulting in more use, will lead to increased health risks in all demographic categories across the country. Violence is a well-publicized, prominent risk from the more potent, current marijuana available.”

Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago’s EVIDENCE-BASED POSITION STATEMENT
In Opposition to Legalization of Possession and Use of Marijuana for Non-Medical Reasons by Adults in Illinois 

According to Narconon:

• Of all the people who use marijuana, about one in eleven will become addicted.
• When a young person begins smoking marijuana in his or her TEENS, he (or she) has a one in six chance of becoming addicted.

The American Society of Addiction Medicine:

“Marijuana is a mood-altering drug capable of producing dependency. While popularly thought to be a fairly benign ‘drug,’ marijuana can have adverse effects on memory and learning, perception, behavior and functioning, and on pregnancy.”

The American Psychiatric Association:

“There is no current scientific evidence that marijuana is in any way beneficial for the treatment of any psychiatric disorder. In contrast, current evidence supports, at minimum, a strong association of cannabis use with the onset of psychiatric disorders. Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to harm, given the effects of cannabis on neurological development.”

Psychotic/Violent Incidents

INCONTROVERTIBLE – Heavy Cannabis Use Increases Risk of Psychosis

Cannabis-Induced Psychosis – Judge Rules

Teen Killed for Smoking His Friend’s Weed

5 Teens Face 1st Degree Murder Over Pot and Meth

Psychotic Episode – Man Beats 82-yr-old Mother to Death

Strong Cannabis Causes 1 in 4 Cases of Psychosis

“American Sniper” Chris Kyle Murdered

This Is How One Pot Smoker Learned That Weed Plays a Mysterious Role in Psychosis

Pothead gets 25 Yrs for Attempted Murder of President

Lancaster County Mom Charged with Infant Daughter’s Asphyxiation Death

13-Yr-Old Stabbed to Death

High on Edibles Pleads Guilty to Wife’s Murder

Tucson Massacre: 6 Killed, 14 Injured

TN Shooter Smoked Pot

PA Man High on Pot Charged with Killing Infant Daughter

CO Theatre Shooter Killed 12, Injured Dozens

Clackamas Shooter “Smoked a Bowl” Before Killing 2, Injuring 1

Boston Marathon Bombing

Mother Shoots 17-Yr-Old Son

Staunton Murder-Suicide

Charleston Church Shooting

Chattanooga Shooter Changed After Mideast Visit, Friend Says

Chilling Account of O.C. Mansion Slayings

Robert Durst, ‘The Jinx,’ Charged with First-Degree Murder

Poisoned by the Weed: Marijuana and Pretty Little Killers

Marijuana Use Increases Violent Behavior

1-Armed Man Accused in Pot-Fueled Samurai Sword Attack

Baby’s Death Investigated

Deaths & Suicides

THC Deaths 

Synthetic Marijuana Cause of 3 Dead, 107 Hospitalized, Severe Bleeding

Mother Fell Asleep, Rolled on Top of Child After Using Marijuana

Mom Charged in Baby Smothering Death

Highland County Coroner: Marijuana is ‘gateway to hell’

How safe is super-concentrated marijuana?

Marijuana Blamed in More Deaths

Edibles Linked to Attempted Suicide

Babysitter Crushes Toddler under Vehicle

College Grad Commits Suicide

Who Said No One Ever Died From Marijuana?

Denver Coroner: Man Fell to Death After Eating Marijuana Cookies

Jacksonville Police: Girlfriend Shot in Face While Playing with Gun, Smoking Marijuana

Couple Dies in Marijuana-Related Crash

Hash Oil Explosion Leaves 1 Dead

Father, Son Staged Slain Alaska Troopers’ Bodies, Indictment Says

Impaired Driving & Fatalities

More Drivers Killed Under the Influence of Drugs Than Alcohol

Driver High on Pot Kills 3 (2 are kids)

Illinois Marijuana Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes are Increasing

Legalizing Recreational Marijuana Linked to Increased Crashes

Prom Night Ends Tragically

Woman Accused of DUI in Fatal Crash Ordered to Stand Trial

Fatal Road Crashes Involving Marijuana Double 

Effects of Marijuana on Driving Performance

Children

3-Year-Old Hospitalized After Ingesting Marijuana

More Children Hospitalized for Mistaking Pot Brownies, Cookies for Treats

Rise in babies Born with Marijuana in System

Baby’s Death Investigated

Study Shows What Happens to Babies of Mother Smokes Marijuana

Baby Ate Cannabis Oil

The American Medical Association:

“Heavy cannabis use in adolescence causes persistent impairments in neurocognitive performance and IQ, and use is associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood and psychotic thought disorders.”

Adolescents, Teens & Schools

Legalized pot sends more teens to ER in Colorado, study finds

10 Serious Risks for Youth

Marijuana & School Failure

Teen Use & Treatment Rises

Adolescent Pot Use & Abnormal Conditions

Middle School Drug Cases Increase

Scores Arrested for Underage Possession

Colorado School’s #1 Problem is Pot

Northwestern Study Poor Memory Loss in Teens

Teen: CO Voters Were Duped 

The Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America:

“As a national organization that builds coalitions to prevent youth alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, CADCA has long believed that marijuana legalization is a bad idea that will increase youth drug use.”

Drug Use in the Work Place

Workplace Drug Use at a 12-Year High

Drug Use a Problem for Employers

Employers Can Fire for Off-Duty Pot Use

Study Confirms Pot Use Up Drastically in Workforce

Company Says Pot Pushed Them out of State

Marijuana’s Effects on Health

Cannabis Linked to Bipolar Symptoms in Young Adults

Greater Marijuana Use Linked to More Severe Schizophrenia

Cannabis & the Brain: NIDA Sounds the Alarm

New Study is Bad News if You’re a Marijuana Supporter

[VIDEO] Dr. Andrea Barthwell on Marijuana as Medicine [Part 1] [Part 2] 

American Society of Addiction Medicine: White Paper on State-Level Proposals to Legalize Marijuana

This is Your Brain on Drugs

Cannabis toxicity and adverse biological activity

Regular pot smokers have shrunken brains, study says

Additional resources on the health effects of marijuana can be found HERE.

Marijuana Decriminalization and Legalization

Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No

Prisons Not Filled With Pot Users

Cannabis Myths Exposed

Criminal Justice: Myths and Facts

National Association of Drug Court Professionals: The Facts on Marijuana

Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No

Taxing Marijuana

State Worker Becomes New Marijuana Lobbyist

Colorado Rethinks Legalization

Pacific Garden Mission Letter Opposing Decriminalization

Medical & Law Enforcement Nightmare

The Hidden Costs of Marijuana Use in CO: One Emergency Department’s Experience

Lawsuit Against Marijuana Company for Fatal Shooting

Hospital Incurs $20 Million in Loss Due to Marijuana-Related Admissions

Former Drug Czar Opposes Legalization

Few IL Doctors Will Certify Patients for Medical Marijuana

Prosecutors & Law Enforcement Sue Colorado  Press Release

Pot Not Staying in Colorado

Black Market

Big Marijuana Trashes Democratic Process

Black Market Thriving in Colorado

A pro-marijuana group admits the key to full legalization is legalizing “medical marijuana” first.

“The key to it is medical access, because once you have hundreds of thousands of people using marijuana under medical supervision the whole scam is going to be bought. Once there’s medical access…then we will get full legalization.”
~Richard Cowan, former director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana.

Most Medical Organizations Oppose Marijuana as Medicine

The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes medical marijuana outside the regulatory process of the FDA and opposes legalization because of the potential harms to children and adolescents.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry’s policy statement warns of the negative effects.

The American Academy of Neurology warns that medical marijuana legislation is not supported by medical research.

The American Society of Addiction Medicine recognizes “there are several potential medical and public health consequences of marijuana use that require further research.”

The Glaucoma Research Institute’s position: “To date, no studies have shown that marijuana— or any of its approximately 400 chemical components—can safely and effectively lower intraocular pressure better than the variety of drugs currently on the market. Currently, there are no National Eye Institute studies in the United States concerning the use of marijuana to treat glaucoma.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse has sounded the alarm over a possible increase in unknown cognitive and behavioral harms that widespread cannabis use may unmask.

Pot Not Medicine

No Approved ‘Medicine’ in Marijuana

Scant Evidence Medical Pot Helps Many Illnesses

A Bust for “Medical” Marijuana: Health Benefits Go Up in Smoke

Colorado Rejects Pot for PTSD Treatment, Cites Lack of Research

Videos