The Constitution & the Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage: 10 facts Everyone should Know in Plain English & 5 things Everyone should Do

By Cassandra and Petronius

                                                                     

On June 26th, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right.  States are now required to recognize same-sex marriages.  This decision has been met with great rejoicing by some and with great indignation by others.  If you do not understand how the Constitution was used in arriving at this decision – either because you did not feel like reading the 103 page Supreme Court decision or because your high school government class was so long ago – this article is for you. Wherever you stand on the issue, here are 10 facts you should know and 5 things you should do.

1. The Court ruled that the right to marry is protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.  These clauses state: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The justices holding the majority opinion stated that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry because they interpret the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses as guaranteeing certain liberties (Thiis assumption will be addressed by fact 4.). And, in their opinion they state that they believe these liberties are continuously evolving: “…the fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs…. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed” (2015).

2. The justices holding the minority opinion asserted that the decision was guided by the other justices’ personal views on marriage, instead of an objective reading of the Constitution, which gives no indication that it is meant to be read as a “living document.”  They also pointed out that any changes to our nation’s perception of liberty must be voted on by the people or decided by members of elected legislative bodies, instead of decided “by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine” (Scalia, 2015).

3. The majority Justices used legal precedent in their decision since the 14th Amendment had been used in previous judicial cases concerning marriage rights. For example, the 14th Amendment was used to strike down Virginia’s laws prohibiting interracial marriages in the case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

4. The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment was originally written as a guarantee to a person accused of crimes to be given “due process” before having his or her “life, liberty, or property” taken away.  Justice Thomas asserts in his dissenting opinion that the Due Process clause cannot be used to reach this decision because this clause was developed to prevent rights from being infringed upon, not to create new rights. For example, the Due Process clause was used in resolving the case of Loving vs. VA.  Using the clause, the Supreme Court prohibited state governments from criminally charging interracial couples.  In other words, the Supreme Court used this clause to prohibit the government from harming these couples – not to order the government to give benefits to these couples.

5. The majority justices stated that the Supreme Court has made changes to a developing understanding of marriage in its prior cases on marriage, such as Loving vs. VA. Other cases cited included a case which allowed a man to marry despite the state of Wisconsin’s opposition due to his unfulfilled child support obligations (Zablocki v. Redhail, 1978) and another case (Turner v. Safley, 1987) which permitted inmates to marry without the approval of the prison superintendent. Based on this legal precedent, the majority believed that the court can determine, what they see as, a further extension of the definition of marriage.

6. Dissenting Justice Roberts stated that the 14th Amendment was used to change laws governing marriage; it has never before been used to change the definition of marriage. In his dissent, Justice Roberts observed that past cases “did not, however, work any transformation in the core structure of marriage as the union between a man and a woman” (2015). Loving vs. VA still recognized that a marriage exists between a man and woman; it merely prohibited governments from making a marriage between a man and a woman of different races a criminal offense.

7. The reason that the majority opinion (and many in society) believe same-sex couples can truly be married is because they often form long-lasting sexual relationships and desire to get married and often to raise children.  This belief rests on the assumption that the ability to form a long-lasting romantic relationship and the desire to get married = ability to get married.

8. However, Justice Roberts observed that an individual’s desire to get married does not mean that he or she has the constitutional right to do so.  For example, two siblings (opposite sex or same-sex) cannot marry. This particular justice (and many others) see the logic governing the justification of same-sex marriage as potentially opening the door for other relationships to be viewed as a “marriage.”

9. The majority justices believe that the Constitution is a living document and that it can be interpreted by themselves to define new rights. They feel that their interpretation of liberty is sufficient to determine the law of the land. Many would call this pride…

10. All four dissenting justices stated that the primary reason they disagreed with the majority opinion was because it was unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to make this decision for the states.  They seemed more concerned about this than about the redefinition of marriage.  Justice Roberts stated: “…this Court is not a legislature.  Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.  The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment” (2015).

Whatever you think about the Supreme Court decision here is what you should do to facilitate dialogue about this contentious Supreme Court decision (yes, there is still going to be a lot of debate in this matter if you haven’t already noticed!).

1. Be courteous. The Constitution guarantees you freedom of speech on this issue for the time being. Use it, but use it well and remember – you will not convince anyone of the truth of your position through hateful and angry speech.

2. Do not make judgment calls.  Conservatives, don’t judge the hearts of anyone in the LGBT community (only God can do that); assume they are sincerely acting according to their personal understanding of the truth.  Liberals, don’t assume anyone against same-sex marriage is homophobic or say things along the lines of, “You should meet these people you are judging before you say such hateful things.”  Most people – yes, even people against same-sex marriage – know openly gay and lesbian individuals; many people against same-sex marriage even have gay and lesbian friends and family members.  Don’t forget that we all live in 21st century America together.

3. Know your facts. Buzzfeed, facebook, and hearsay don’t count. Super-judgmental news sources that say things like “God will send these Homosexual Sinners to Hell,” or “All these Conservatives against Marriage Equality are Just as Bad as Racists” don’t count either. (By the way, did you know that the only Black member of the Supreme Court voted against legalizing same-sex marriage. Just saying.)

4. Never forget this saying, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Within the past month, I have had some great conversations about same-sex marriage with a few individuals who do not agree with me.  Our conversations remained civil because we agreed on the fundamental premise that we have a right to hold and express our own opinions and that persecuting someone for his or her beliefs is fundamentally wrong. The minute anyone disagrees with this premise, he or she becomes intolerant and bigoted. Don’t let that person be you.

5. Recognize and speak out against the Supreme Court taking away our constitutional rights by creating new ones based on their personal opinions. Whether or not you agree with this Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, you cannot overlook the fact that the judges – by their own admission – decided to redefine an age-old institution based upon their perception of what liberty means. Keep in mind that the next new definition of a “right” coming from the Supreme Court may not be to your liking, even if you agreed with this particular ruling. Justice Alito stated in his dissent: “If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate.  Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims” (2015).  Indeed we should be worried; we may soon be ruled by the unhindered opinions of nine Justices, based loosely on their own interpretation of the Constitution.

The court has been inventing “rights” long before this decision and it shows no indication that it will stop anytime soon. Rather than acknowledging the right of our communities and local governments to make decisions for themselves based on their shared values and history, the court has rendered for every American a top-down, blanket approach to the issue. Those who disagree with the decision are going to have to learn to thread a needle, so to speak.  They will have to adhere to their truth regardless of how many lies are thrown their way. They will have to remain winsome amidst wave after wave of aspersions cast upon them. Most importantly, they must provide a positive example of traditional marriage, regardless of the climate. This isn’t the first assault on marriage and it won’t be the last in the secular West. The discussion is far from over.

All material was drawn from the Supreme Court’s Justices’ decision and opinions on the case of Obergefell et al., v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health et al. See link below for source and further reading:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

(Actual) Psychology and the Transgender/Transsexual Issue: What You Deserve to Know

By Essie Everdeen

No one seems to be discussing the contradictions between what psychology actually teaches about the relationship between our identities and bodies and the popular assertion (supposedly supported by the field of psychology) that some individuals may actually be a male or female trapped in the body of a member of the opposite sex.

In my undergraduate studies, I was taught a theory (widely accepted by cognitive psychologists) called monism – the idea that we are truly and nothing more than our physical bodies. Our thoughts and emotions are different variations of hormones and neurotransmitters being released, patterns of electrical signals going from axon to dendrite, different areas of our brains being activated etc…  Others in the field of psychology may disagree with the theory of monism, but they firmly believe in the inextricable link between individuals’ emotions and thoughts and their physical selves.  This assertion is based on the growing number of empirical studies which have strongly suggested that our thoughts and emotions are related to our physical selves in ways we have never before imagined.  For example, it is now commonly accepted that intelligence, personality, mental health, and even one’s sensitivity to environmental influences (i.e., the biological sensitivity to context theory, the differential susceptibility theory) are largely determined by an individual’s biological makeup.

Whether or not a psychologist believes a person is only his body or a person is his body plus a mind and/or soul, no psychologist will dispute the fact that we are our bodies.  This begs the question: if a person is his/her body, how can someone be a “girl in a boy’s body” or a “boy in a girl’s body.” The idea that someone may not truly be his/her biological sex flies in the face of modern psychological teaching that we are inextricably linked to our bodies.  Most people intuitively understand that this is the case (whether or not they admit it), but sometimes academics out-smart themselves in the interest of compassion (albeit false compassion) and political correctness.

Many mental health professionals encourage individuals who do not identify with their biological sex to identify themselves as transgender/transsexual and are outspoken about how it is discriminatory to refer to these individuals as an actual members of their biological sex.  However, the aim of therapy is to help clients accept their thoughts and desires, but also to accept reality.  For example, in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (the most empirically supported psychological therapy) clients are taught to actively challenge their beliefs that conflict with reality. In acceptance-and-commitment therapy (ACT), clients are taught to accept reality, including distressing thoughts and feelings, but also to commit to a course of action to cope with reality.  And the list of therapies and therapeutic techniques teaching clients to think and act realistically goes on.

So, why do we encourage individuals to believe that they are actually a member of the opposite sex? This is not a reality; this is unrealistic thinking. And, it is commonly accepted that unrealistic thinking patterns (i.e., unrealistic expectations, irrational beliefs) are linked to psychological dysfunction.

Although effective therapies help a client to accept reality, therapists encourage transgendered individuals to deny their physical reality, by denying that their bodies are true representations of themselves.  This is a dangerous precedent to set for therapeutic interventions.  Instead of helping clients to accept their thoughts and feelings (“I am sad because I want to be a woman”), but also to accept reality (“However, I have a man’s body, so I am a man”), therapists allow clients to build a pretend world for themselves and play along with them.

Many would argue that gender-reassignment surgery is a valid way to change a person’s reality.  But is it? Gender reassignment surgery cannot change the number of X chromosomes an individual has.  You may have changed an individual’s hormone levels and reconstructed his or her genitalia, but, if a scientist examined the individual’s DNA, the scientist would identify that DNA as coming from a person of the individual’s biological sex – not the individual’s self-identified gender. Thus, a basic knowledge of biology clearly does not support the idea that gender reassignment surgery truly changes an individual’s sex.

In addition, the famous case of David Reimer’s gender reassignment surgery supports the assertion that gender reassignment surgery cannot change a person’s sex.  When David was an infant, a botched circumcision cut off his penis.  Psychologists told the child’s parents that the best and easiest way to rectify the problem would be to perform surgery to construct female genitalia for David and raise him as a girl.  However, throughout childhood, David preferred rougher games than his female peers, often insisted on urinating standing up, and suffered severe psychological difficulties. Eventually, his parents told him the truth about his biological sex; David immediately requested surgery to reconstruct his male genitalia and began to live as a man. This famous case study has been used to illustrate how important it is to get a client’s informed consent before gender reassignment surgery is conducted, but it also shows that gender reassignment surgery cannot truly change an individual’s biological sex. David was still a man, although his reproductive system was changed as an infant.

Nevertheless, many argue for the use of gender reassignment surgery, citing research that a large majority of individuals are satisfied with and do not regret surgery. However, I think these individuals are a little too sure of themselves.  A scan of the available research also shows these things:

–        A relative paucity of research on treatment outcomes of gender reassignment surgery (Monstrey, Vercruysse, & De Cuypere, 2009);

–        A dependence on short, self-report measures of mental health/life satisfaction in studying treatment outcomes rather than comprehensive, interview measures of psychological functioning (Weyers et al., 2009; Wierckx et al., 2011);

–        Contradictory findings in a study utilizing a more comprehensive measure of psychological functioning in individuals before and after gender change surgery (Udeze, Abdelmawla, Khoosal, & Terry (2008);

–        A lack of studies with control groups (this is a BIG deal);

–        And a low response rate from individuals after surgery (which is surprising – if you were happy about a surgery you received – especially a controversial surgery – wouldn’t you want to speak up?) (Hess, Neto, Panic, Rübben, & Senf, 2014).

Not to mention that there is an alarming trend of giving children and adolescent clients the option of puberty-suppressing hormone therapy, feminizing/masculinizing hormone therapy, and gender reassignment surgery.  The use of puberty-suppressing hormones is justified because it allows children to further explore living as a member of their identified gender, while their anatomical structure is still relatively gender-neutral and makes a possible gender reassignment surgery easier to perform later.  The latter two interventions are justified because they are seen as treating adolescents’ gender dysphoria and decreasing psychological distress. Medical and mental health professionals are essentially regularly offering children with gender dysphoria – who are not able to fully comprehend all the physical and emotional risks these treatments entail – the option of extreme physical interventions that have yet to undergo rigorous testing (Coleman et al., 2012).  For some reason, the fact that these interventions are very new and the fact that the research concerning these interventions is still in the beginning stages does not seem to be regularly mentioned.

And I just have to point this out: whatever happened to all the talk on defying gender stereotypes, how men do not necessarily have to embrace culturally determined masculine characteristics and how women do not have to embrace culturally determined feminine characteristics?  Those in the field of psychology have often decried gender stereotyping.  Since this is the case, why in the case of transgendered individuals do we forget about the (supposedly) artificial differences between men and women? Why are the struggles facing transgendered individuals not conceptualized as feeling distressed by being expected to conform to culturally determined gender behaviors?  I thought that our reproductive systems do not have to affect our sexual choices, our gender identification choices, and our lifestyle choices, so why does a gender reassignment surgery change anything??

Finally, when counselors and psychologists are trained, they are taught that avoiding or overlooking a client’s problems to avoid confrontation or to get the client’s approval actually hurts the client.  It is a therapist’s responsibility to help the client accept the realities of his or her life – no matter how tragic or uncomfortable they are.  Many times we are like bad therapists – more interested in the approbation of others than speaking the truth.  We are afraid of being “the bad guy” so we play along – although it is not in the best interest of others who are confused or have been misled. Similarly, identifying a transsexual (or transgendered) individual as someone other than his biological sex hurts the individual because he is being told that he is someone that he is not; he is being accepted as someone he is not.  So, I will leave readers with this question: Whom are we really helping when we identify transsexual individuals as someone other than their biological sex: transsexual individuals – or ourselves?

Further Reading:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change#.VXCEU91AaRE.twitter

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14905/

http://themattwalshblog.com/2015/06/02/calling-bruce-jenner-a-woman-is-an-insult-to-women/

References for Psych Nerds (These articles serve as an excellent starting point, but I challenge you to do a search of the research on PsycINFO, paying special attention to the measures used!)

Coleman, E., Bockting, W., Botzer, M., Cohen­-Kettenis, P., DeCuypere, G., Feldman, J.,
& … Zucker, K. (2012).  Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender­nonconforming people, version 7. International Journal Of Transgenderism, 13(4), 165­232. doi:10.1080/15532739.2011.700873

Hess, J., Neto, R. R., Panic, L., Rübben, H., & Senf, W. (2014). Satisfaction with male­-to­-female gender reassignment surgery: Results of a retrospective analysis. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 111(47), 795­-801.

Monstrey, S., Vercruysse, H., & De Cuypere, G. (2009). Is gender reassignment surgery evidence based? Recommendation for the seventh version of the WPATH Standards of Care. International Journal Of Transgenderism, 11(3), 206­214. doi:10.1080/15532730903383799 795­801.

Udeze, B., Abdelmawla, N., Khoosal, D., & Terry, T. (2008). Psychological functions in male­-to­-female transsexual people before and after surgery. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 23(2), 141-­145. doi:10.1080/14681990701882077

Weyers, S., Elaut, E., De Sutter, P., Gerris, J., T’Sjoen, G., Heylens, G., & … Verstraelen, H. (2009). Long­-term assessment of the physical, mental, and sexual health among transsexual women.Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6(3), 752­760. doi:10.1111/j.1743­6109.2008.01082.x

Wierckx, K., Van Caenegem, E., Elaut, E., Dedecker, D., Van de Peer, F., Toye, K., & … T’Sjoen, G.(2011). Quality of life and sexual health after sex reassignment surgery in transsexual men. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8(12), 3379­3388. doi:10.1111/j.1743­6109.2011.02348.x

Is SC the next religious freedom showdown?

By Petronius

A recent story run by The State, it would seem that the misunderstanding of RFRAs is now coming to the Palmetto State.

Here’s how the story goes:

State Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, took to the state Senate floor Wednesday to introduce a bill to amend state law to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“These are our family, our friends, our colleagues, our constituents – these are South Carolinians,” Hutto said.

S.C. laws now ban discrimination based on sex, age, race and religion, and cover accommodations, employment, and housing including rental units.

So it would seem that Hutto, who lost his Senate bid against Lindsey Graham by a devastating margin, is trying to ride the wave of anti-religious freedom pundits set on imposing their own orthodoxy down the throats of anyone who holds a contrasting view.

This, of course, is also facing opposition:

Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, also said he had not heard of any S.C. businesses turning down customers based on sexual orientation. The state’s Religious Freedom Act, he added, is designed to be a shield for folks – “not an offensive weapon.”

“I would obviously oppose what Senator Hutto has offered up,” said state Sen. Lee Bright, adding he will make a procedural move to tie up the proposal. The Spartanburg Republican said Hutto’s proposal would give “a special class” to people “in the view of so many folks of faith, to do something that is … unacceptable behavior.”

A statement from the Palmetto Family Council regarding S. 639 reads:

S.639 reflects a total misunderstanding of RFRAs in general and South Carolina’s RFRA in particular. There was no cloud over our RFRA in 1999 and there shouldn’t be now. RFRA is about devout people of faith having their day in court when their rights are violated. Assuming S.639 is needed is assuming a state court will reward discrimination. That is insulting to our system of justice in South Carolina and her people.

Here’s the problem with this bill and others like it. It’ll go to all the effort to define what a ‘public accomodation’ is, but makes no effort to define the terms ‘discrimination’ or ‘sexual orientation’ or even make distinction between what counts as discrimination and what counts as a prudential business decision.

Heritage Foundation expert Ryan Anderson probably puts it best in an article regarding ENDA he wrote for “The Public Discourse:”

ENDA defines “sexual orientation” as “homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality” but offers no definition of those terms or what principle limits “orientation” to those three. Likewise, ENDA defines “gender identity” as “the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.”

These classifications are problematic. Paul McHugh, MD, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame,explain:

“Social science research continues to show that sexual orientation, unlike race, color, and ethnicity, is neither a clearly defined concept nor an immutable characteristic of human beings. Basing federal employment law on a vaguely defined concept such as sexual orientation, especially when our courts have a wise precedent of limiting suspect classes to groups that have a clearly-defined shared characteristic, would undoubtedly cause problems for many well-meaning employers.”

McHugh and Bradley caution against elevating sexual orientation and gender identity to the status of protected characteristics because of the lack of clear definition: “There is no scientific consensus on how to define sexual orientation, and the various definitions proposed by experts produce substantially different groups of people.”

Because there is no clear definition, the phrase is inherently elastic. McHugh and Bradley conclude:

“Despite the effort of ENDA’s legislative drafters to confine “sexual orientation” to homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality, the logic of self-defined “orientation” is not so easily cabined. . . . Even polyamory, “a preference for having multiple romantic relationships simultaneously,” has been defended as “a type of sexual orientation for purposes of anti-discrimination law” in a 2011 law review article.”

There is no limiting principle for what will be classified as a sexual orientation or gender identity in the future. Indeed, Wesleyan College has extended the LGBT acronym and created a “safe space” for LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Flexual, Asexual, Genderfuck, Polyamorous, Bondage/Disciple, Dominance/Submission, Sadism/Masochism. Will ENDA be used to protect these orientations and identities as well? If not, why not?

So there you have it. Laws like S. 639 and ENDA would serve less as a protection from discrimination, and more as a blank check to shove a finger in the face of people with deeply held religious beliefs and tell them how they are to violate their faith and conscience in favor of their vocation.

For those of you still confused about the distinction between serving a gay couple in a restaurant and providing it for a wedding reception, please educate yourself on the following teaching, which has been embraced by several branches of the Judeo-Christian tradition and has a philosophical legacy going back centuries:

Cooperation in evil (in the strict sense) can be broken down in several types on the basis of distinct criteria: positive and negative (omission); necessary; sufficient and insufficient; formal and material. The latter is the most important distinction. Cooperation in the sin of another precisely inasmuch as it is a sin is called formal cooperation, i.e., when the cooperator wishes the person to commit the sin or consents to its commission, whether or not he expresses this externally. Cooperation in the sin of another only inasmuch as it is a physical action, without desiring or consenting to the other’s sin, is called material cooperation.

Of practical interest is the distinction between immediate or direct cooperation or mediate or indirect cooperation. Cooperation is immediate or direct if it concurs in the sinner’s action itself, e.g., a person who helps a thief load the stolen goods. Cooperation is mediate or indirect if it provides some means that are used by another to sin, even though there is no necessary relationship between the means and the sin, e.g., selling a weapon to a person who then uses it to commit murder. -EWTN (Material Cooperation in Evil)

So there we have it. A state that has already had same-sex marriage forced upon it despite democratic votes to the contrary and the constitutional rights granted by the 10th Amendment will now have to either acquiesce to the new orthodoxy and tell the faithful that they no longer have a say in how they exercise their faith in their day-to-day vocations, or face the same kind of blind, shrieking, misguided vitriol that has descended upon the state of Indiana like a horde of logically inconsistent and truly-intolerant locusts.

I will now leave you with a picture of the Diocletian Persecution for no related reason whatsoever.

Source: Wikipedia

Ryan Anderson becomes latest victim of liberal intolerance

By Petronius

At a recent appearance on MSNBC’s The Ed Show, The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T Anderson was brought on to discuss Indiana’s recent religious liberty law and its implications. Where Dr. Anderson probably thought he was going to be given a platform to offer a logical and thought-out counterpoint to what Indiana’s governor has called the “misrepresentation” and “mischaracterization” of the bill. What he got instead was a shout-down from Ed Schultz, demagoguery, and having his microphone cut-off before he could answer the question that was being asked of him.

You can watch the video here:

What you’ll notice is that Schultz only nominally asks Anderson for the answer. He knows what he’s going for; he knows what he wants to hear. He was expecting a confused mess of a man quoting scripture and saying things that would sound pro-discrimination to his audience. But instead, Ed got logic and subsequently barked and panicked.

In the video you can actually somewhat here Anderson give a logically consistent and sound explanation of corporate personhood and institutional conscience that would give even the loudest of the anti-Hobby Lobby squawkers pause for a moment of silent reflection. This explanation is cut short however, because Shultz simply doesn’t want to hear it.

When Anderson demands that Schultz “point to names” of who exactly in the conservative movement is arguing in favor of kicking LGBT people out of restaurants, the host can’t do it, mainly because they don’t exist. Rather what Schultz does is point to a question that any freshman ethics student could see is not analogous to what Anderson was asking, and can only bark louder and move on when called out upon it.

The kicker occurs when Anderson actually calls Schultz out on his own intolerance by slandering Governor Pence as a “bigot” and a “homophobe.” I assume at this point, Schultz’s ego was falling apart under the weight of his own logical inconsistencies, which might have actually killed him. Rather than address Anderson’s claims of slander and logical arguments that didn’t match up with his, Schultz then simply demands that Anderson’s microphone be cut off with no further room for discussion.

The liberal silencing of dissent is nothing new in our culture, but it seems that it’s only getting worse. It seems that as the arguments against religious liberty become only more fallacious and misrepresented, that the removal of articulate, logical disagreement is only going to get more and more egregious.

Democratic National Committee to take away “email privileges”

Source: Twitter

By Petronius

In the wake of the discovery of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to send official emails out of her suburban N.Y. home, the Democratic National Committee has issued an “abuse it and lose it,” email policy for senior officials.

“It just makes sense at this point,” said a senior member of the committee, who declined attribution, “after what’s happened at the IRS and now with former Secretary Clinton’s action, the use of electronic mail is just too much of a liability for the party.”

In the wake of the discovery that former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was using a private email server in her home for reasons of “convenience,” many senior democrats are growing suspicious of the technology, which is apparently too much for various federal appointees to handle.

“I miss the sex scandals; those were the good old days. They were easier to deal with, had very few policy implications, but these are just on an entirely different level,” said the member.

At a recent press conference, Clinton said that her decision to send departmental emails through a private server in her home was a matter of “convenience” and that she regretted not keeping separate accounts.

“Perhaps it’s a training issue,” said an IT expert at the State Department, “to be fair, Secretary Clinton might not have been fully aware of the fact that it’s possible to have multiple emails sent to the same phone.

“But, I know how it goes,” he added, “when you’re expected to head a federal department that oversees foreign policy, telling the difference between two smartphones is just way too much to ask.”

“We only have two options at this point,” the senior member of the Committee, “either stop all emails from potential high-level candidates or actually commit the people we appoint to efficient and transparent governing practices…the moratorium seems a lot easier.”

The new party policy will involve an intricate system of phone trees, fax machines, beepers, pagers and carrier pigeons and will prohibit most senior level officials, members of Congress and federal appointees.

“It’s going to be a mixed blessing,” a DNC communications specialist told the Scrivener, “On the one hand, we’re going back to the early 90’s with our communications practices, but I feel like many in the party are more than willing to back to the early 90’s in at least some form.”

To former Clinton administration advisors, the move makes complete sense.

An anonymous former aide to President Clinton recounted that, “after the whole bad thing happened in ’97, the President wasn’t allowed around a box of cigars unsupervised for about six months or so, so the same principle applies to the Secretary in this case.”

When asked how he thought this would affect Secretary Clinton’s chances at wining the Democratic nomination for President in 2016, he confided that, “honestly, this might hurt her at the polls and at the convention, but we’ve had invitations and t-shirts printed since President Obama was re-elected…so that may have been a little short-sighted…”

The day before the press conference, the White House admitted that Obama had traded emails with Clinton on her personal account, but press secretary Josh Earnest, “would not describe the number of emails as large.”

Smartest guy in the room finds fault with Netanyahu’s speech

Source: Imgur.com

By: Petronius and Xavier

WASHINGTON–“Israel is totally as much of a global threat as Iran,” said the smartest guy in a Washington, DC coffee shop on Thursday, “I mean, I don’t know who Netanyahu thinks he is.”

Due to his trendy and original stance on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, this guy was obviously the most intelligent person in the entire room.

“Dude, you’re way off about Israel,” he said to another guy from his Indigenous Tribal Economics Basket Weaving class, “Israel funds regional terrorist groups and issues existential threats against the nation of Iran all the time. Iran is likewise surrounded by hostile regimes from whom simultaneous invasions have originated in the past. Israel was the aggressor in the Yom Kippur war, right?

“Besides, it’s not like we have any moral obligations to support the nations we helped create in the wake of the last massive attempt to eradicate the nation of Israel from the globe,” he said, taking a slow, cautious sip of his fair trade, organic half-caffeinated soy latte.

“I mean, so what if the Ayatollah has openly advocated for the nuclear destruction of a once-close US ally? Stop being so closed-minded.”

As his basis of his position, the Smartest Guy in the Room responded, “I follow this really sick twitter account called ‘therichkidsoftehran’ and they pretty much keep me up-to-date on the whole issue.”

“Netanyahu needs to stop bitterly clinging to his guns and religion,” he answered when asked how else a primarily Jewish state would protect its citizens in such a hostile area.

“I’m not sure what he actually said in the speech, or how the Israeli government actually works, but there’s got to be a better way than just heckling the United States to ‘be strong and resolute.’”

When asked about Iran’s poor diplomatic track record by someone else at his table, the Smartest Guy in the Room enlightened his compatriots, “Okay, so Iran hasn’t responded adequately to peaceful diplomatic attempts for a couple of decades, it’s not like Isreal has come to successive peace agreements several times since 1949 or anything.”

When informed that Israel had, in fact, come to peace talks 15 times with Palestine alone since that time, he responded, “Dude, what? No way!”

The guy, who declined to be identified, is a 5th year student at a university in the District of Columbia who is “still trying to figure out the whole ‘declaring a major thing.’”

 

Welcome to the Scrivener!

This is the maiden post from the American Scrivener, your soon-to-be source for all things political, witty and satirical. We hope to produce analysis that is factual, comical and unapologetically scathing. Thank you for visiting and please be patient as we begin our new endeavor.

-Petronius