Friday, 29 May 2009


Ken Berwitz

I love it when someone suggests exactly the same idea about marriage that I have been propounding for years.  And Doug Kmiec, whom I have never heard of until reading this article, is the guy in question.

Here, from, is Kmiec's suggestion - and, not surprisingly given the web site - a dissenting view as well:

Kmiec proposes end of legally recognized marriage

Washington D.C., May 28, 2009 / 04:41 am (CNA).- Doug Kmiec, a prominent Catholic who backed Barack Obamas presidential bid, has endorsed replacing marriage with a neutral civil license, a proposal law professor Robert P. George called a terrible idea that would make the government neglect a vital social institution.

Speaking to, Pepperdine University law professor Doug Kmiec said that although his solution to disputes over the definition of marriage might be awkward, it would untie the state from this problem by creating a new terminology that would apply to everyone, homosexual or not. Call it a civil license, he said.

The net effect of that, would be to turn over--quite appropriately, it seems to me, the concept of marriage to churches and a church understanding, he said.

Kmiec said that a motive for Californias Proposition 8, which restored the definition of marriage to being between a man and a woman, was religious believers genuine concern that the California ruling imposing homosexual marriage was not addressing religious freedom issues.

Saying he was among those believers who had such concern, Kmiec noted the possibility that churches which dont acknowledge same-sex marriage could be subject to penalty, lose public benefits, or be subject to lawsuits based on some theory of discrimination.

Kmiec argued civil licenses would address the question. He proposed the state withdraw from the marriage business and do licensing under a different name to satisfy government interests for purposes of taxation and property.

Under his proposal, the question of who can and cannot be married would be entirely determined in your voluntarily chosen faith community, he added, saying that the proposal would reaffirm the significance of marriage as a religious concept, which has a much fuller understanding than is found in civil marriage.

Responding to Kmiecs proposal, Princeton University professor Robert George said it was a terrible idea and a very, very bad one.

George told that marriage is not like baptisms and bar mitzvahs but has profound social and public significance.

Its a pre-political institution, he said. It exists even apart from religion, even apart from polities. Its the coming together of a husband and wife, creating the institution of family in which children are nurtured.

The family is the original and best Department of Health, Education and Welfare, he continued, saying that governments, economies and legal systems all rely on the family to produce basically honest, decent law abiding people of goodwill citizens who can take their rightful place in society.

Family is built on marriage, and government--the state--has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were a purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake, George told
I dont know where Professor Kmiec is getting his idea, but its a very, very bad one.

Years ago I came to the realization that marriage is none of government's business, except for its legal implications.  From a governmental perspective it should be nothing more than a contract.  Marriage is a religious and/or social issue that should be the province of religious and/or social entities.

If two people want to get married in the Catholic church, all fine and well.  They enter into a legal partnership and are married in,  thus recognized by, the church.  End of issue.

Same with Jews, or Protestants or Muslims or Buddhists or Elks or Kiwanis or whomever.  Marriage has a legal component, which would be satisfied by the contract.  It has a religious and/or social component that would be satisfied by religious and/or social institutions. 

If a man and a woman, or two gay men, or two gay women wanted to be married, they would commit to the same legal contract.  It would cover their rights as a partnership, who got what in case of death or other dissolution of the partnership, etc.  That would, and should, end governmental involvement. 

Then, if a religious or social institution was agreeable to marrying them, so be it.  If different religious or social institutions recognized, or did not recognize it as a marriage, fine.  Either way, the legal contract covers the parameters of their partnership.

H. L. Mencken once said "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong".  True enough.  But sometimes there is an answer that is clear, simple and right. 

This is one of the times.

Zeke Hmmmm. . . . . What about ending discrimination in marriage. Down with Binaryism. Why not Polygamy? Where in the Constitution are Multiple Marriages not allowed ??? Huh ? ... And, why can't I marry my Goldfish? (05/29/09)

Ken Berwitz Zeke - At the risk of appalling you, I would say "yes" to any one of those the sense that whichever religious and/or social organization (if any) agreed those unions were legitimate would "sanction" them. Even between you and your goldfish (if there such a thing as the Church of the Consenting Goldfish). The point is that, since it has nothing to do with the legal issues of marriage, anyone can say any kind of marriage is ok and anyone else is free to agree or disagree. The GOVERNMENT will not confer partnership between two different species and that is the only venue that would have any legal standing. What does not change in this scenario is that if a man and a woman want to marry in a Church, Synagogue, Mosque, they can do so and it will have the identical legal standing it has now. (05/29/09)


Ken Berwitz

From Pravda, without further comment:

American Capitalism Gone With A Whimper

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?



Ken Berwitz

It's the Today Show again. 

The Today show and its unconditional love affair with Sonia Sotomayor:  a love affair which is causing it to make so unbelievably bizarre a case for her that it is scary that some viewers might be gullible enough to buy in.

Here is this morning's installment.  It comes in the form of an interview Matt Lauer conducts with Laura Ingraham.

First the setup:  Lauer reminds us that Judge Sotomayor said: 

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life". 

His reason for reminding us of this overtly racist, sexist statement?  So that he can immediately neutralize it. 


And how can he neutralize a statement like that?  By claiming a sitting Supreme Court justice, Samuel Alito, said the same kind of thing.  

Point of order:  Obviously there is something wrong here.  If Samuel Alito had said something parallel to what Ms. Sotomayor said, he would not be on the Supreme Court and would not be anywhere near it.  There is no way that a White male judge could pass the confirmation process if he ever said something this overtly racist and sexist. 

So what did Alito say?  He said:

"When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender.  And I do take that into account."

Are you waiting for more?  If so, you've got a long wait.  Because there isn't any more.

Are you saying to yourself  "Hey, wait a minute.  Alito said that his life experience makes him more sensitive to ethnic, religious and gender discrimination.  What does that have to do with Sotomayor saying she is SUPERIOR based on her race and gender??????

If so, good for you.  Because that's exactly the point.  The two statements are exactly opposite of each other.

But that doesn't deter Matt Lauer in the least. Here is his question to Laura Ingraham:

Does, though, this comment that Justice Alito made in Chuck Todds piece there, does that neutralize the argument some have made on that issue?


In the happy horsemanure world of Matt Lauer and Today, being sensitive to discrimination because you saw it hurting people in your family, is equivalent to being the person who does the discriminating by claiming superiority based on race and gender.

Incidentally, this is far from the only racist, sexist statement from Sonia Sotomayor.  Here's another one, which she made at Berkeley in 2001:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

There, folks, is Sonia Sotomayor telling you in so many words that her gender and national origin inform her decisions.  "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging". 

I notice that Mr. Lauer didn't mention this comment at all.  An accidental, inadvertent error, I'm sure.......

Bottom line:  In her own words, and through her membership in the racist, anti-USA group "La Raza", Sonia Sotomayor has made it clear that she has no business being anywhere near a seat on the Supreme Court.

No matter how far in the tank the Today show is for her. 


Ken Berwitz

Read this report from Fox News and see if you recognize the USA in it:

Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary have been told that they cannot invite friends to their San Diego, Calif. home for a Bible study unless they are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to San Diego County.

"On Good Friday we had an employee from San Diego County come to our house, and inform us that the Bible study that we were having was a religious assembly, and in violation of the code in the county." David Jones told FOX News.

"We told them this is not really a religious assembly this is just a Bible study with friends. We have a meal, we pray, that was all," Jones said.

A few days later, the couple received a written warning that cited "unlawful use of land," ordering them to either "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit," the couple's attorney Dean Broyles told San Diego news station 10News.

But the major use permit could cost the Jones' thousands of dollars just to have a few friends over.

For David and Mary Jones, it's about more than a question of money.

"The government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion," Broyles told FOX News. "I believe that our Founding Fathers would roll over in their grave if they saw that here in the year 2009, a pastor and his wife are being told that they cannot hold a simple Bible study in their own home."

"The implications are great because its not only us thats involved," Mary Jones said. "There are thousands and thousands of Bible studies that are held all across the country. What were interested in is setting a precedent here before it goes any further and that we have it settled for the future."

The couple is planning to dispute the county's order this week.

If San Diego County refuses to allow the pastor and his wife to continue gathering without acquiring a permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court.

Is that the United States of America?  The one you recognize?

Will San Diego (and wherever else atrocities like this are being perpetrated) threaten clubs too?  Theater and movie groups which dare to talk about the performances afterwards?  

Hey, I have an idea.  How about threatening POLITICAL CLUBS.  See how fast this insanity goes bye-bye if you do.

Ken Berwitz free - exactly. This is not the USA I (or you) know. When do we wake up? (05/29/09)

free` I am so glad you posted about this. I have been reading about this for about a week or so and I am outraged that something like this can be happening here in the USA. You would think the guy pushing this has never heard of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Whether you are a Christian or not this should outrage you. (05/29/09)

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!