Liberal Logic – Talking Points: I’m pro-choice

10400055_10153194399313598_5473502152612928775_n

See also Liberal Logic – Talking Points: It’s a Choice

Liberals love to claim the label of the ‘Pro-Choice Party.’

Using the word ‘choice’ to refer to abortion makes them feel nice, warm, and fuzzy. It erases the guilt of supporting organized mass murder for profit from their conscience, and instead replaces it with the happy feeling of doing something good by supporting a woman’s so-called ‘right to choose.’

The only problem with this is that liberals are only the ‘party of choice’ when that choice adheres to their preconceived agendas. Specifically, liberals only support ‘choice’ when it comes to a woman’s decision to abort (read kill) an unborn child. Continue reading →

The Supreme Court and Democracy

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.”

— Antonin Scalia in Obergefell v. Hodges

Daily Signal – What You Need to Know About Gay Marriage and the Supreme Court

By Mike Licht

by Ryan T. Anderson, Daily Signal, April 21, 2015


One week from today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about gay marriage. Here’s what you need to know.

  1. There simply is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires all 50 states to redefine marriage. Whatever people may think about marriage as a policy matter, everyone should be able to recognize the Constitution does not settle this question.

Unelected judges should not insert their own policy preferences about marriage and then say the Constitution requires them everywhere. Continue reading →