Governor Perry - Managing the Media with Prudence and Savvy

Gov. Rick Perry ignited a firestorm after his comments in Aspen on July 22^nd about homosexual marriage. I found quite a bit of blowback from the Christian media. Here's an example:  Gov. Perry Takes States Rights Position on Gay Marriage
 A good summary of the secular press' slant on the whole affair after Perry's careless comments: Perry, Conservatives and Gay Marriage: An Evolving View?

Bottom line... lessons learned... again and again:

·    Nothing new here about the media - most are not friends of Christian conservatism and they are not objective.

·    Watch what you say, tread very carefully - every word will be scrutinized, second guessed, and distorted. Perry should know this.

One crucial thing I observed which critical Christian believers picked up on...

What did Perry say in Aspen that offended their Christian sensibilities?

"Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That's New York, and that's their business, and that's fine with me." He continued, "That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business."

"Well, it's not fine with God, Governor Perry," is a common thread I found resonating on Christian blogs, voicing readers' deep disappointment with Perry's statement.

Perry needs to send out a clear explanation addressing Christian conservatives' concerns about his remarks. Confusion can spiral out control and if he intends a White House run soon, his campaign, sadly, may be defined by four seemingly innocent words he enunciated in Aspen.

I'd like to remind Perry that in 1967 there were only a handful of states that legalized child killing - Colorado, Oregon, California, N. Carolina.  New York followed in 1970. What happened? Six years after Colorado, seven Supreme Court judges voted that a Texas statute restricting abortion to cases only when it was necessary to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. The rest is history.

What makes Gov. Perry think that New York legalizing homosexual marriage is irrelevant to Texas and the other states that have defended traditional marriage? That's how corruption works!  It spreads, metastasizes, and respects no boundaries!  He speaks volumes in his book, Fed Up, about activist legislators and judges.

If he meant what he wrote about the danger of activist judges and legislators, doesn't he realize his statement last Friday came across as defending the narrow majority of state legislators (33-29) who voted to obstruct the will of the people in the state of New York? If he is fine with New York upending longstanding traditional state marriage laws, then, he will soon find the fight crossing the border into his state by the same leviathan attacking marriage in all 50 states.

Has he forgotten what happened in Lawrence vs. Texas?

The Catholicity of Paul Ryan’s Budget

by Quin Hillyer, Senior Editor, American Spectator

The Kingdom of God is neither a program of social reform nor a political platform. When rendering to Caesar those things that are Caesar’s, we do a disservice to God if we reduce God to the level of a political agitator. Yet while highly specific, programmatic prescriptions for government are inherently suspect if based on claims of divine inspiration, it is certainly meet and right, in assessing policy choices, to apply broad principles derived from faith – in order to ensure they are indeed consonant with the most profound truths we will ever know. Catholics wrestling with American federal budgetary issues, therefore, would do well to inform themselves of some of the themes stressed by their most recently beatified servant, Pope John Paul II. Quite reasonably called by one scholar “the Pope of Subsidiarity,” PJPII distrusted overly centralized bureaucracies for excellent, faith-based reasons.

The Catechism of the church explains subsidiarity succinctly: 1883 Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

In Centesimus Annus, PJPII wrote that an uncontrolled Welfare State “leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”

Catholics worried about the erosion of the social safety net should therefore understand that there is a vast difference between reforming the safety net and destroying it. It is in that light that the current debate over the budget proposals of Wisconsin’s Republican U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan should be understood. Ryan, himself a practicing Roman Catholic, is decidedly not undermining the safety net, but trying to salvage it for future generations – another determinedly Catholic concern, that of the sacred trust we hold for posterity. Again, this was a favorite theme of John Paul II.

Talk to Ryan for even a small amount of time and you are immediately struck by the sincerity of his concern about the debt burdens the nation faces and about how it robs hope from generations yet unborn. Examine the details of his proposals and you’ll see stark examples of subsidiarity in practice. What American political liberals describe as an assault on Medicare and Medicaid is nothing other than subsidiarity applied to those programs in order to save them. He would “block-grant” Medicaid to the states – a “community of a lower order” than the federal government – and let the states operate the programs with particular attention to local needs.

For Medicare, Ryan would preserve almost every jot and tittle for Americans 55 and older, but for those under 55 he would devolve choice, and authority, back to the individual. He would do so via what decades of moderate Democrats and Republicans alike have supported, namely the idea of “premium support,” which is basically a straight government grant controlled by the individual which the individual can use to purchase insurance. Liberals denounce this as a “voucher” – although why “voucher” should still be a bad word is not exactly clear. Regardless of what it’s called, it is certainly no affront to those who, ten years or more from now, will become fully eligible for Medicare. It gives control to them, rather than to bureaucrats. It saves money. Indeed, it is modeled after Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program – which because of very similar, consumer-based, market-oriented provisions, has cost the government far less money than projected while costing consumers remarkably less in premiums than even the most optimistic number-crunchers expected. In short, the experience of Medicare Part D suggests that Ryan is hardly being outlandish to say that giving control back to consumers in a market-based system can save money without harming benefits – and thus preserve Medicare for future generations. Either way, it is fully consistent with Catholic principles of subsidiarity and generational responsibility.

The point is not to say whether or not it will work, or whether it is wise policy, and the point certainly is not to say that Catholic teaching requires supporting the Ryan plan. The point is that, by being fully in accord with Catholic principles writ large, the Ryan plan can be adjudged on its merits as a serious contribution to the debate, without Catholics somehow worrying that it in any way violates the Christian imperative to care for “the least of these.

Catholic teaching does not endorse any particular program for elderly health care. But it does give guidance as to whether or not a program is within a broad range of acceptable outcomes. Applying the precepts of Pope John Paul II especially, one can conclude that the Ryan plan passes that test with ease.

Quin Hillyer is a Senior Editor for The American Spectator

The Catholicity of Paul Ryan’s Budget was originally published by Catholic Advocate, 5/5/11

Governor Rick Perry is FED UP With Washington

While topics explored on this blog are not primarily political in nature, as Archbishop Raymond Burke expressed in his pastoral letter (2004), On Our Civic Responsibility for the Common Good, as American citizens, we Catholics have a grave civic responsibility to promote the common good by voting for worthy candidates who uphold the moral law in its integrity.

"As Catholics, informed by the perennial moral teaching of the Church, we bear an especially heavy burden of responsibility for the attacks on human life and the family in our society. If all Catholics in our nation, both Catholic voters and Catholic government leaders, had joined those Catholics and others who upheld and continue to uphold the moral law, the grave evils which plague our society would be lessened and eventually eliminated. We cannot remain silent. We have a most serious obligation to bring the moral law to bear upon our life in society, so that the good of all will be served.” (No. 47)

Governor Rick Perry of Texas has produced, with a little help from some friends' well-documented research, a substantive case against Washington's incompetency and overbearing intrusion into the lives of the American citizenry and what he sees as a serious assault on the tenth amendment, the federal government’s direct attack on the constitutional principles of enumeration of powers.

Fed Up! Our Fight To Save America from Washington is not another narcissistic puff piece we see so much of especially when national elections come around. It is brief (188 pages) but packs a lot of heavily documented facts about the ongoing battles in recent memory on sovereignty issues between Washington and the states. (The U.S. Attorney General's lawsuit against Arizona's enforcement of federal immigration laws is one that comes to mind.)

It’s worthwhile to recall in the chapter about states doing the work of the people how Texas magnanimously and spontaneously came to the aid of the suffering people of New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina without any federal guarantee of financial aid.

Governor Perry takes aim equally at the Democratic and Republican Party establishments and the gargantuan executive, congressional, and judicial branches of the federal government. He names names and gives ample examples.

This reader especially appreciated Perry’s insights about the erosion of our nation’s founding moral principles delivered from the hands of nine unelected judges. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the future of America and how a conservative governor in one of the largest states in America is changing the game and challenging the ruling class. I leave you with some notable excerpts:

“Our Right to Faith in the Public Square”

“As is reasonably well known now, the Court turned 175 years of American history on its head when in 1962 it ended state-sponsored school prayer in New York and in 1963 ended the reading of the Lord’s Prayer and Bible verses in schools in Pennsylvania. By 1992, the court had extended these restrictions to moments of silence and to prayer at public graduation ceremonies…

“The court itself has created a complex and entirely incomprehensible morass of multipronged tests to determine what is permissible… and otherwise set out on a course to diminish or eliminate religious expression in the public square, ignoring the Founders’ reservation of such decisions to the states.” (pp. 102-103)

“Our Ability to Protect Innocent Life”

“But perhaps no issue and no Supreme Court decision has polarized America more and defined the notion of judicial activism more clearly than the matter of abortion…the Court decided in 1963 that the people of Connecticut were unconstitutionally outlawing the sale of contraceptives, because – it imagined – in the ‘penumbras’ of the Constitution there is a right to privacy that prohibits policy. Penumbras? What total and complete nonsense…

“That the issue is a difficult one and invokes strong emotion makes it no less outrageous that nine unelected judges took it upon themselves to declare when life begins and did so based on total fiction. And perhaps worst of all, the Court’s creation of a right to privacy in the Constitution has become a springboard for even more activism.” (pp. 107-108)

“Our Ability to Define Marriage”

“Leave it to the modern liberal to take an institution  that has served as the bedrock of civilization for thousands of years and find a way to make it controversial…. I believe that in the next five years, the United States Supreme Court will rule that it is unconstitutional to recognize marriage as only between one man and one woman.

“… [T]he Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down that state’s ban on homosexual marriage. There have been numerous such rulings since, including in early 2010 when a federal district judge in Massachusetts struck down significant parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act…

“Gay marriage will soon be the policy of the United States, irrespective of federalism, the Constitution, or the wishes of the American people. Not because it actually is protected in the Constitution, because judges will declare it so.” (pp. 109-110)

To learn Rick Perry’s prescriptions for taking back the reins of government, well, you’ll have to get a copy of the book to gain insights into his plans… or what may turn out to be the blueprint for the seasoned Texas governor’s election campaign for the Presidency.

Slouching Towards Homosexual Marriage

In Judge Robert Bork's 1996 book, Slouching towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, he summarized his book's thesis thus:

“Analysis demonstrates that we continue slouching towards Gomorrah. We are well along the road to the moral chaos that is the end of radical individualism and the tyranny that is the goal of radical egalitarianism. Modern liberalism has corrupted our culture across the board.”

The path to legalize homosexual marriage in America and the certain "moral chaos" that will follow in its wake is set before us. It is coming and it is accelerating like a tsunami. The assault by the network of homosexual change agents and ideologues on military, civil, corporate, and religious institutions that encompass our American polity has been relentless. Concerned possibly by the loss of a powerful ally in the White House after the 2012 elections, they will be more aggressive in pursuing their mission. 

In Texas Governor Rick Perry's 2010 book, Fed Up. Our Fight To Save America From Washington, he predicts that in five years, the "U.S. Supreme Court will rule that it is unconstitutional  to recognize marriage as only between one man and one woman." He's got a point.  Currently there are six states that have granted legal status to same sex marriages: Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and now, as of July 24th, New York. The District of Columbia permits same sex marriages as well. Thirty states have passed constitutional amendments banning same sex marriages and/or unions.

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, in Lawrence v. Texas in favor of effectively overturning the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick that upheld Georgia's sodomy law. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Catholic from Sacramento, wrote for the majority that homosexual sodomy was protected by the same "right to privacy" created in Griswald v.Connecticut which legalized contraception. Further, the majority said that "the moral opposition by a majority of voters is not sufficient reason for outlawing consensual sex between same-sex individuals." (Scalia Dissents, Regnery Press (2004), p. 281)

Well, if the majority view of voters is not sufficient reason for outlawing sodomy, then why should same sex marriage be outlawed by the states? Justice Kennedy is called the most powerful vote on the Supreme Court because he often breaks the 4 to 4 deadlock between the strict constitutionalists whom we see as the conservative wing (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito) and the other four who see the constitution as silly putty in their hands. Kennedy is a wild card and considering he has liberally expressed his thoughts forcefully in Lawrence, don't take a bet that he will defend traditional marriage when it comes up before the court. It may be sooner rather than later as Gov. Perry warns.

IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT OBAMA IS THROWN OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2012 AND A CONSERVATIVE WHO RESPECTS THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN MORAL PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE GUIDED OUR REPUBLIC FROM ITS INCEPTION IS ELECTED TO OFFICE WHO WILL NOMINATE AND FIGHT TO INSTALL JURISTS WHO WILL DEFEND LIFE AND TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!

It is highly probable that two SCOTUS justices will leave the court in the next five years - Ginsberg and Scalia. Ginsberg is ailing and Scalia has talked about retiring.

Deja Vu: Abortion and Homosexual Jurisprudence

Before 1973 when the 7-2 Supreme Court ruling found a legitimate right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, there was a patchwork of state laws that banned or restricted abortion. 1967 was the year when the American Medical Association (AMA) and the first states starting with Colorado moved to legitimize child killing, and that first crack in the dam then broke six years later in 1973 with the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the "twisted sisters" abortion cases.

It appears the same trend is happening with same sex marriage. SCOTUS expressly overturned Bowers in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case. Since then six states plus D.C. have legalized homosexual marriage. Obama's Justice Department has now openly attacked DOMA. The Attorney General's staff argues in summary in their July 1st, 2011 brief filed before the U.S. District Court in Northern California:

"Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. 7 ("DOMA"), unconstitutionally discriminates. It treats same-sex couples who are legally married under their states' laws differently than similarly situated opposite-sex couples, denying them the status, recognition, and insignificant federal benefits otherwise available to married persons."

The agenda is clear to anyone with eyes to see.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York with a heavy heart in the aftermath of the “marriage equality” bill passed into law in his state:

“Almost two weeks ago — hauntingly, on the Feast of the Birth of John the Baptist, whom King Herod would behead because the saint dared to defend the God-given truth about marriage — our state sadly attempted a re-definition of marriage…

“We continue to hold fast to the God-given definition of marriage, and acknowledge that no unfortunate legislative attempt can alter reality and morality.  Yes, we have a big catechetical challenge, in that we have to admit that quite a few people no longer hold to this timeless moral truth…

“We acknowledge that, as St. Augustine taught, if something is wrong, even if everybody else is doing it, it’s still wrong; and, if something is right, even if nobody else is doing it anymore, it’s still right.  Like St. Thomas More, we’re willing to take the heat and even lose our head from following a conscience properly formed by God’s revelation and the teaching of His Church, even if it is politically incorrect, and clashes with the King’s demands to re-define marriage.”

Bishop Thomas Tobin, Ordinary of Providence, Rhode Island, had sage advice to members of his flock to distance themselves from “gay” civil ceremonies:

 “The concept of civil unions is a social experiment that promotes an immoral lifestyle, is a mockery of the institution of marriage as designed by God, undermines the well-being of our families, and poses a threat to religious liberties… the Church continues to have respect and love for persons with same-sex attraction… extend our love and support to families of homosexual persons who sometimes struggle with this difficult emotional issue.”

“At the same time, the Church reminds its members that homosexual activity is contrary to the natural law and the will of God and, therefore, is objectively sinful. Persons with same-sex attraction are required to live the Christian virtues of chastity and modesty, as all persons are. The importance of these virtues is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures and in the constant tradition of the Church.

“Because civil unions promote an unacceptable lifestyle, undermine the faith of the Church on holy matrimony, and cause scandal and confusion, Catholics may not participate in civil unions. To do so is a very grave violation of the moral law and, thus, seriously sinful. A civil union can never be accepted as a legitimate alternative to matrimony.

“Can there be any doubt that Almighty God will, in His own time and way, pass judgment upon our state, its leaders and citizens, for abandoning His commands and embracing public immorality? I encourage Catholics to pray for God’s patience, mercy and forgiveness in these distressing times.”

So we soldier on….

We Catholics who adhere to and joyfully embrace the perennial teachings of Holy Mother Church know marriage is more than a legal contract, more than an artificial civil construct of the state. It is a sacred and holy sacrament.

“The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1601)

Let us continue to hold firm to the teachings of the Church especially on matters of sexual ethics and to  show not only a good example to our brethren but also to tirelessly proclaim and defend the truth.

Question about Fair, Balanced, and Objective Reporting

Dear Friends,

This is the second letter sent to the Editor of the San Antonio Express-News today. The letter of June 25^th regarding the CORPUS CHRISTI play was ignored. We ask why the SA Express-News does not report news in an objective, fair, and balanced manner and why our views as religious believers are ignored. If you subscribe to the SA Express-News, please consider cancelling your subscription and let the editor know why. Email Richard Rivard at: rrivard@express-news.net

Phil Sevilla
________________________________________________________

July 12th, 2011 Mr. Richard Rivard
Editor
San Antonio Express-News

Dear Mr. Rivard,

Your newspaper has the awesome responsibility to objectively and impartially inform and educate the public. The term "public trust" has several dimensions. When it applies to your institution, it means: "Trust created for the promotion of public welfare and not for the benefit of one or more individuals." The subject of my letter to you is the CORPUS CHRISTI play, an undisguised and undisputed blasphemous and offensive play performed at the San Pedro Playhouse <SPP>.

Your company sponsors the Playhouse according to the SPP's website. Your officers and staff are aware based on an article on May 23rd in the SAEN, authored by Abe Levy, that the Playhouse "receives some money from the city's office of cultural affairs." Actually the SPP receives a lot of money from the city taxpayers. In 2007, over $800,000 was paid out to the SPP for maintenance and renovation. For 2012, SPP's Board has applied for a $136,000+ grant from the city, part of a continuing annual subsidy the city bestows on the Playhouse.

Why am I raising this issue? On June 25th, I sent a letter to the editor (Your Turn) to protest the obscenity and indecency portrayed throughout the production. I attended the play on June 24th. My letter was a rebuttal of the puff piece written by Deborah Martin, represented as a review of the play and published by your paper on the 24th of May.

Why was my letter to the editor disregarded? Doesn't the public who read your paper have the right to get fair and balanced opinions, especially about a subject that is extremely important to them, considering the obscenity and blasphemy grossly depicted in the Corpus Christi play directly attacks the religion of the Christian majority that comprise the city's residents, despite the rationalizations of the director to the contrary?

To your credit, the SAEN printed Abe Levy's article on May 23th reporting the religious leaders' press conference protesting and condemning the play. However a one-sided article on May 26th publicized the director's rationalizations for the play. There was no attempt to describe the outrage from the religious communities of San Antonio or give voice to their side. Then on June 17th, SAEN published another article taking the one-sided opinion of SPP's Artistic Director, Frank Lotson, who described the obscene and blasphemous Corpus Christi play as an effort to "educate" and "to help develop a deeper understanding". Following this article was Deborah Martin's one-sided superficial and distorted review on June 24th. Why should your readers believe your publication presents a fair, balanced, and objective reporting of the news?

There is another issue where I believe you owe your customers a reasonable and honest response. Your writer, Abe Levy, identified a possible problem with city funding for a series of performances held at a city-owned facility. According to the definition of section 43.21 of the Texas Penal Code on obscenity, the Corpus Christi play is in serious violation of the law. According to section 19.1 on "Indecency" of the city's contract with the SPP, the Corpus Christi performance is in clear violation of the restriction on indecency. I submit for your inspection, my eyewitness report of the play I saw on June 24th. The script of the Corpus Christi play by Terrence McNally is readily available in bookstores and it corroborates my observations. If there were any changes to the script and the local performance at SPP, they were superficial. My report is available at this site: CORPUS CHRISTI PLAY CRITIQUE*

Why haven't you put your city investigation desk on this subject to pursue this with City officials? It certainly is significant news and part of your mission and charter. Again I ask, why should the public trust you and your publication if you only serve the needs of a small part of your constituent interest groups? Are you not guilty of bias and one-sided advocacy and support for a certain lifestyle even when it is opposed to the values of the majority of your readers?

I ask you and your staff for two things to respond responsibly in the interest of the public trust:
Please print my letter dated June 25th (see attached) and carry out an investigation of the city's and Playhouse's violation of Texas law on obscenity and the breach of contract between the parties concerning indecent content in SPP productions.

Sincerely,
Philip Sevilla
Concerned Catholics of San Antonio

*https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0ByFvfq9Ya7gzMzBiMTAwYzAtZjMxNS00NDAwLWEyMTQtYTdiZjgxZWY5Y2M0