A response to this week's letter from Kelly Scoles

Thanks again Kelly for your letters; they are rescuing me from a life of boredom.

You say our Constitution defends our freedom of speech, except for limits such as "deliberately inciting violence". Since President Trump's inauguration Democrat Party members and their minions have been doing exactly that - deliberately (and successfully) inciting violence. As "ethical people" they are, as you say "failing to consider their duties as humans and Americans".

Next, let's explore my alleged "most egregious" statement, i.e. the "sub species" comment. The word species is used to differentiate one organism from another in a fairly loose way. It's useful here in attempting to understand the alphabet soup string of identifying letters adopted by certain groups to define their sexual proclivities, setting them apart from the "norm". This string of classifications would not have been understood 50 years ago. For example, if a man decides to "marry" another man. This phenomenon may be sufficiently unique to justify recognition as a new species, at least according to Linnaeus - if they are able to reproduce as such. All this talk of being "fully human" is I think deliberately ridiculous. But so are men pretending to be women.

Recognition of these individuals as special groups with alleged special Constitutional rights to demand the abandonment of the traditional religious rights of others is troubling. They have acted to force others to recognize their alleged super-Constitutional status. They say "You will bake a cake for us!" In that case the answer was "No!". Judicial decisions like this in no way disparage or limit their own traditional Constitutional rights. But traditional religious rights in this case overrode attempted special treatment. These cases will continue to be challenged in various courts well into the future unless a definitive Supreme Court decision is rendered.

Certainly, Judeo-Christian rights remain unchanged forever, which mandates love. Many believers in these ancient Judeo-Christian doctrines deny the existential legitimacy of these new social groups and warn of dangerous consequences. However, these challenges have no legal effect.

I disagree that Christians are "obliged to respect heavenly creation in all its forms." Within creation there is both good and evil, determined by conformance with Biblical dictates. Our Constitution embodies the fundamental Judeo-Christian precepts. Agree with them or not, they constitute the American legal "norm". God gave us free will before the Constitution gave us free speech, so it's not my business to judge anyone's decisions here as long as they don't conflict with our Constitution.

Most men who abide by traditional Judeo-Christian principals recognize a duty on their part to protect and defend women, who were never intended to be equal to men in physical strength. Even Ronda Rousey and Marine Capt. Katie Petronio (a favorite hero of mine) would agree. This fact doesn't require further explanation, and "We can take care of ourselves" in too many cases is untrue. Ultimately, none of us can take care of ourselves. There are just too many bad men in this world who prey on women, and there are an insufficient number of good men to take them out. This is a perpetual challenge.
This new gender conflict is intense. The "imprimatur and nihil obstat" are beyond my pay grade, but my last assertion can be attested to in that Bible we've been talking about. On a personal level, every father should know he has an absolute duty to protect his wife and children, even to the point of sacrificing his life (a not-uncommon occurrence).

I have no intention of "dehumanizing others." On the other hand people who believe as I do about the "natural", fundamental Judeo-Christian differences between men and women, reject products of the gender wars like so-called "same sex marriage", despite the fact that liberal judicial authority has given it reality in the law. I wouldn't pretend to "dehumanize" anyone even if I had the power to do so.

The bullying I referred to concerns the demanding of rights without legal precedent, the ones alleged to be hidden beneath those fictitious "penumbras" where the creative liberal imagination lurks. Imagination has no bounds - our Constitution exists to establish bounds. The Christian baker is bullied into working against his will for the sexual hedonist unbeliever. Uncorrected, this is the stuff of potential violence.

On the other hand, what individual states choose to do in creating their own legal culture is one thing (under their own constitutions); what the federal judiciary does in construing our federal Constitution is strictly limited by the plain language of that law. As the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia said: "Whatever "the law" is, judges should follow it, and they should follow it at the expense of their own private views." American law during the past 50-plus years has been completely distorted by "progressive" judges and justices, which translates to Democrat Party policy and the material erosion of our Christian culture.

About the pearls --- Molon labe!