More evidence that the requirement of celibacy in the priesthood is not the problem.

Yet another reason for maintaining the celibacy requirement in the priesthood.

From Fox News: Conservatives slam John Ashcroft for allowing Deputy AG Larry Thompson to speak at a gay pride event held at the Department of Justice.

"Just because he is fighting terrorist threats is no excuse to allow an officially sanctioned celebration by his department of immoral, unhealthy behavior that is illegal in nearly 20 states," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute. "I have to ask: Why is Mr. Ashcroft, a committed Christian, using his official capacity to celebrate sin?"
...

But gay employees at the Justice Department said conservative groups shouldn't have a problem with Thompson's speech since he didn't focus on lesbian and gay issues.

"He could have given that speech to a bunch of tourists," said DOJ Pride board member Mark Hegedus.

Like most pro-homosexual activists, Mr. Hegedus is missing the point. The objection is not with Thompson speaking to the group, it's with the whole event even taking place.

School bans "tag" game to preserve student self esteem: Only in the People's Republic of Santa Monica could something like this happen. Oh wait, it could also occur in that third world American city known as Berkeley.

The Supreme Court has ruled that executing mentally retarded murderers is unconstitutional -- cites change in public sentiment as main reason for decision.

Although I am against applying the death penalty to the mentally retarded, this ruling by the Court is absolutely ridiculous. Trends in public opinion should not be dictating judicial decisions. As with abortion, the Court should have allowed the individual state legislatures to decide for themselves whether convicted murderers who are mentally retarded should be executed.

The University of San Francisco's loss is Ave Maria College's gain. Father Fessio will be missed out here on the leftist coast.

I posed the following question on defining sexual deviancy to homosexual defenders on June 13. Here's one response I got (italicized) with my reply (bold):

I would define sexually devient conduct as predatory behavior, that stimulates you at the expense of another's mental, emotional, or spiritual loss of preceived well being.

This definition is problematic for a couple of reasons. In addition to automatically excluding blatant deviants who engage in acts like bestiality, also excluded are pedophiles who argue and believe that children can give informed and reasoned consent to sexual intercourse with adults. The basis for this argument and belief stems from the junk science research that "Heir Doktor" Alfred Kinsey put out fifty years ago. It is this same study that homosexuals use to argue that their "death-style" is perfectly natural and normal.

For a thorough eye-opening refutation of Kinsey, visit the site put up by Dr. Judith Reisman.

The decision by Nickelodeon to broadcast a program about children who are raised by homosexuals is most unfortunate. Rather than teaching kids to respect the humanity of a person despite his many faults, Nickelodeon is obviously trying to normalize and legitimate homosexuality by telling kids that "gay" couples who raise children are as much a "family" as married men and women with children.

Epiphany: There have been many occasions where I have thought about stealing from somebody. I don't know where these thoughts come from or why I have them. However, because I realize that stealing is intrinsically wrong, I refrain from doing it. But does the fact that I have the desire to steal make me a thief? No, because I have not stolen anything. Should my desire to steal alone afford me the legal status of a thief? Hardly. Should thieves, as a "class", be given the same civil protections that racial minorities like blacks and asians enjoy? That's just plain stupid. By way of analogy, then, why are individuals who tragically experience homosexual desires (but by God's grace do not act upon them) classified as "gay", and why should individuals who choose to practice homosexuality be given the same legal protections as racial minorities (who do not choose their ethnicity)? Hmmm...

Score another victory for those goofy JWs! The Supreme Court says cities cannot require door-to-door evangelizers and political canvassers to get permits.

"'It is offensive not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society, that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so,' the court said in an 8-1 decision."

Addendum to my UC San Diego experience (below): a couple of female students got undergraduate degrees in something called "critical gender studies". For all you young girls out there, you too can spend four years at a major university to learn how to hate men!

Well, I just returned from So.Cal where I attended a friend's wedding and a cousin's graduation ceremony at UC San Diego. Regarding the latter, if there was ever any doubt that the University of California system was being run by a bunch of leftists, the names of the indivdual colleges at UC San Diego should lay such doubt to rest. First there's the college named after Sierra Club founder John Muir, hero to many a tree hugging eco-fascist. Then there's the college named after Earl "let's base constitutional law on feelings and other psychobabble principles" Warren, former governor of California and Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Third is Thurgood Marshall college, named after the late Supreme Court Justice who, in the later part of his life, reportedly had his clerks write all his decisions while he fell asleep in front of the T.V. Finally, there's Eleanor Roosevelt college, which is named after the long dead First Lady that Hillary Clinton apparently has regular conversations with.

At least the weather in San Diego was nice...