PRESIDENT OF MIAMI U. NEEDS REFRESHER COURSE ON MARRIAGE

A statement issued by James Garland, president of Ohio’s Miami University, is typical of the thoroughly dishonest arguments against the 13 marriage amendments on state ballots this year.

Garland urged voters to reject the Ohio marriage amendment, which he calls, “vague.” He also repeated the mantra of gay activists – “Constitutional amendments should be used to expand the rights of citizens and not diminish them.”

The Miami U. president implied that if the amendment passes, it will be harder to recruit faculty, because Ohio will no longer be a “welcoming environment for all citizens.”

The proposed amendment states in part, “Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions.” What’s vague about that?  Words and phrases like “union,” “one man and one woman,” and “valid” can be grasped by the average high-school dropout. They should not be beyond the comprehension of the typical university president.

Homosexuals currently can’t marry in Ohio. The amendment would codify this, to prevent judicial activism here. It’s hard to imagine a potential faculty member saying: “No, I won’t take a job at Miami University, because Ohio won’t let homosexuals marry.” As of Nov. 3, neither will more than 40 other states.

President Garland needs a refresher course in logic – and the principles of democratic government. In a democracy, major changes are made by the people and their elected representatives, not by appointed officials wielding dictatorial powers.

 

A CATHOLIC PRELATE SPEAKS OUT ON CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION (SO-CALLED)

Charles J. Chaput, archbishop of Denver, is a courageous and discerning prelate.

 In an October 22^nd. New York Times’ column, the archbishop addresses the myth of church-state separation and the demand that people of faith leave their principles in the pews.

Chaput declared: “Catholics have an obligation to work for the common good and dignity of every person. We see abortion as a matter of civil rights and human dignity, not simply a matter of religious teaching. We are doubly unfaithful – both to our religious convictions and to our democratic responsibilities – if we fail to support the right-to-life of the unborn child.” (R.S., Precisely the same could be said of evangelicals.)

“The ‘choice’ in abortion always involves the choice to end the life of an unborn human being,” Chaput observed. “For anyone who sees this fact clearly, neutrality, silence or private disapproval are not options. . . . If religious believers do not advance their convictions about public morality in public debate, they are demonstrating not tolerance, but cowardice.”

The archbishop also addressed the deadliest myth of our age: “The founders sought to prevent the establishment of an official state church. . . . But the Constitution does not, nor was it ever intended to, prohibit people or communities of faith from playing an active role in public life. Exiling religion from the civic debate separates government from morality and citizens from their consciences.”

Archbishop Chaput’s words speak to the heart of all Christians. As we near the end of this crucial election, he has given us an invaluable lesson in politics, ethics and faith.

ANOTHER CHRISTIAN CLUB UNDER FIRE

It’s a growing trend in the academic world – campus Christian groups are being asked to trade their deeply held beliefs for university support.

The University of California’s Hastings College of Law refuses to recognize the Christian Legal Society because the group won’t comply with the school’s “non-discrimination” code.

For the Society to be in compliance, it would have to admit those who lead lives of sin (homosexuals) and non-Christians, as both members and officers. At so many institutions of higher learning, the choice for a Christian group is: Disavow fundamental Christian values, or lose funding, use of campus facilities, etc. That’s a choice no one should be forced to make.

The Christian Legal Society has filed a federal civil rights suit against the College and is being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org) The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that student groups have a right to determine their membership.

In an institution that should further intellectual inquiry and the free exchange of ideas, and respect dissent, members of CLS are being punished for their integrity.

REHNQUIST’S HEALTH SHOWS WHAT’S AT STAKE 

It was disclosed earlier this week that William Rehnquist, chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, is being treated for thyroid cancer.

While we pray for Justice Rehnquist’s speedy recovery, his condition should serve as a reminder of the crucial importance of this election. The Chief Justice (who’s served on the court for 32 years) turned 80 earlier this month. Several of his colleagues are in their seventies. At least one is also in ill health.

It’s likely that the next president will appoint as many as four justices – almost a majority of the court.

Given the power the courts have over our lives (the power to remake our society against the express wishes of the American people), the man we elect on Tuesday will have an historic opportunity to affect the nation – for good or ill.

How many voters realize that when they cast their ballots in just 5 days, they’ll also be voting, by proxy, on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and Americans’ right to publicly acknowledge God – because the man they elect to highest office in the land in turn will choose the justices who will rule on these matters. Probably very few – and that’s a sobering thought.