The MSM loves to do things like focusing on a bright, attractive student who is a high achiever, and note that since the student was brought here illegally by his parents when he was only two years old, he isn't eligible for certain things like in-state rates at taxpayer-subsidized universities and certain loans or grants, and wouldn't it be horrible for this person, who is likely to find a cure for cancer, to be deported? This is supposed to garner support for shamnesty and free higher education for illegal aliens, and it ignores all of the dependency, crime, and infrastructure wear & tear that comes along with some illegal aliens, and that most illegal aliens won't be doing stellar work at top universities.

The rare cases that make for captivating news stories are not typical. That is what I think about when papers like the Los Angeles Times feature a same-sex couple that has been together for 40 years, facing mortality, and want to know why they can't get a marriage license in California without a bride. They did have their chance in 2008, but I guess 37 years just wasn't enough time to decide if they were right for each other or not.

The Los Angeles Times printed a couple of letters in response to their anti-DOMA editorial. I wanted to look at the one over at The Opine Editorials.

If it hasn't been done yet, someone needs to write a textbook that documents the obvious media bias in favor of neutering marriage. Even some liberal marriage neutering supporters in the media think the media has abandoned standards in this case. I provide the latest example of this bias over at The Opine Editorials.

Read the latest about California Proposition 8 and see media bias exposed over at The Opine Editorials.

The Los Angeles Times ran a couple of letters critical of the Crystal Cathedral leadership for telling its ministers that the church will be teaching the Biblical principles that sex is for marriage and marriage unites the sexes.

Jennifer Willford of La Habra:

If the purpose of the Crystal Cathedral leadership is to ensure members' adherence to literal biblical principals by having choir members sign a covenant declaring that God approves only of sex within heterosexual marriage, it has missed the mark.

The purpose was for the ministers employed by Crystal Cathedral to recognize that the church teaches sex is for marriage, and to discourage gossip, among other things. It does not make demands on anyone's sexual behavior, nor ask them to confess or swear to anything.

All women should certify that they have not used anesthesia during childbirth, so as to follow the biblical command that women bring forth their children in suffering.

Please demonstrate how that is an enduring, binding command that applies to women in twenty-first century America, rather than a description.

All men should affirm they are not married to a previously divorced woman, so as not to commit adultery.

There are Biblical grounds for divorce, and if remarriage to the same person is not an option, then marrying someone else is.

And women should "keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak."

Context, context, context.

This at least would require the dismissal of Senior Pastor Sheila Schuller Coleman and her sister Gretchen, who are apparently responsible for this hateful fiasco in what was once a church that preached compassion and love.

What exactly is hateful? I'm still waiting for the quote.

In taking the Bible as a whole, we see that regardless of time or place or person, sex is for marriage and marriage unites a bride and a groom.

Benjamin Rhodes of Nashville wrote:

Kudos to the Rev. Robert H. Schuller for not requiring the Crystal Cathedral's renowned architect, Philip Johnson, to sign an anti-gay "covenant." Johnson was gay.

Ah, yes. "We are your family and neighbors."

Previously: Hit and Run Bible Mockers

You may have heard about a man who was exposed as a bigamist due to his Facebook pictures. He now faces polygamy charges and a four-year jail sentence.

My questions are: 1) why is his second marriage a crime and 2) why is it not a valid marriage?

Read what I wrote about this over at The Opine Editorials.

The Los Angeles Times editorial board, unsurprisingly, has announced support for the anti-DOMA Respect for Marriage Act. They have also discovered that there are three branches of government. Read about it at The Opine Editorials.

My analysis is posted over at The Opine Editorials.

Robert H. Schuller, founder of the Crystal Cathedral, said Wednesday that he strongly disapproves of an anti-gay covenant his own church administrators asked choir members to sign, stating that it goes against the principles of tolerance, acceptance and positive thinking on which he built his 50-year-old ministry.

This is exactly why Schuller is criticized in the Christian community. Churches are supposed to have acceptance for people, not for sin. And the document is not anit-gay. Go read it for yourself. No matter how positive someone is, it is folly to deny that sin exists and it is to be resisted and we are to repent, turning our backs on sin.

"I have a reputation worldwide of being tolerant of all people and their views," he said. "I'm too well-educated to criticize a certain religion or group of people for what they believe in. It's called freedom."

Well of course we have freedom of religion. However, that does not mean a church should not have standards and should never draw a line. A church is a hospital for the soul. If someone comes into a hospital having a heart attack, should the doctors do nothing about it? As far as being well-educated – if you've read the Bible, you know that Christians are repeatedly called to make distinctions between truth and error.

Schuller said he supports the view of homosexuality as detailed by the covenant.

"That doesn't mean that we are going to start a crusade against homosexuals," he said. "But if my church members required covenants, they would no longer live up to the principles of being positive that marks the history of the ministry of Robert H. Schuller."

What about the ministry of Jesus Christ? What is the problem with the document? It doesn’t say that committing sin means expulsion. It is stating what the church teachers.

"We have never been for covenants or definitions," Robert Schuller said. "We don't test anyone who comes to our ministry. We don't require them to be Christian. We would not demand that they be born-again Christians."

Why not? Shouldn’t Christian ministers at least present themselves as Christians?

His daughter, Carol Schuller Milner, said her father's statements in no way lessen his support of Coleman's ministry or leadership.

"There are going to be times when he might have done something differently," she said. "As he is less and less involved in management, this is going to happen more. His personal views may not coincide with the management's view. But, the organization and his voice are no longer seamless. It can never go back to being that way."

The Church belongs to Christ.

Anne Waltz, who sang in Schuller's first ever choir in the drive-in theater, said she is glad Schuller spoke his mind on this issue.

"This is the man we came to hear and we all believe in," she said.

Don't believe in any man but Christ.

"My pastor (Dr. Schuller) always said that the church is not a museum for saints, but a hospital for sinners. I'm glad that he still believes that."

Hospitals help people get better.

The Los Angeles Times picked up the story, too. This is the article by Nicole Santa Cruz.

The headline?

Crystal Cathedral Sex Covenant Stirs Controversy

Misleading, much?

The Crystal Cathedral church in Garden Grove is involved in another controversy, this time over a covenant that choir members were asked to sign stating that God intends sex to be between married heterosexuals.

Although it says a man and woman, nowhere does it say anything about their sexual orientation. But you know, the Bible also makes it clear that marriage is between a man and a woman and that sex is for marriage. Should the Bible not be allowed in the Cathedral?

The church is supposed to call on people to repent of sin and lead holy lives. The people raising a stink need to either 1) work on their reading comprehension skills; 2) take "insensitivity" training so that they realize that not everything is all about celebrating them and their personal feelings, or 3) admit they are deliberately pulling a stunt to try to keep the church from maintaining a Biblical teaching and practice when it comes to sexuality and marriage.

News outlets, apparently bored with covering catastrophes and civil wars, have breathlessly covered a church's internal congregational issue. I'm not going to defend every teaching or practice of the Crystal Cathedral, but I did want to address this topic. Here's the story by Deepa Bharath in the Orange County Register.

Choir members at the financially troubled Crystal Cathedral say they are upset by a covenant they have been asked to sign that places a strong emphasis on them being heterosexual and Christian.

They are free to leave. Churches have every right to set standards and requirements for those in its ministry, and the choir is part of the ministry.

The "Crystal Cathedral Worship Choir and Worship Team Covenant," recently handed out to members, states that members should commit to being Christians by following the Bible in every way.

This is commendable for a church that claims to be Christian- that claims the Bible as its authority. But here's the question… "should" or what?

Long-time church members say this is the first time they have seen the cathedral take a firm stand against homosexuality and are disturbed by it.

Yes, I would be too – what took so long?

The covenant states: "I understand that in an era where images of family relationship and personal sexuality are often confused, Crystal Cathedral Ministries believes that it is important to teach and model the biblical view. I understand that Crystal Cathedral Ministries teaches that sexual intimacy is intended by God to only be within the bonds of marriage, between one man and one woman."

Notice, no fuss is being made about how this also takes "a firm stand" against any form of adultery (which would include threesomes, swinging, swapping, etc.) or fornication in general. It also precludes support for polygamy.

Ann Moore Waltz, a long-time church member and the Cathedral's first soloist to stand and sing on top the snack shack in Robert H. Schuller community church at the Orange drive-in said, she does not agree with the statement in the covenant.

The church has a governing structure. It doesn't matter how long she's been there.

"If you are a Christian group and people come to you, you should be a good servant, love them and shine the light of Jesus on them – regardless of who they are."

How does this conflict with that?

The contract also states: "I will be committed to sharing my complaints and issues only with the people involved...I will not discuss any unresolved issues with anyone other than the person(s) involved along with the Minister of Worship."

Funny, the headlines don't refer to this anti-gossip clause. Most people engage in gossip than homosexual behavior.

John Charles, a spokesman for the cathedral, said this does not mean gays are banned from the choir.

"This contract is to educate choir members about what our church believes in," he said.

He's exactly right. Go read that wording again. It is about what the church teaches. It doesn't say that homosexual people are banned. But all that matters to some people is that someone's sexual activities be applauded, and when the church makes it clear it won't do that, they throw a fit. And the media covers it.

"I have already told them I won't sign it," said the choir member, who asked not to be identified. "We have had gays in the choir before. I'm not gay. But I don't believe in what they're saying."

You don't believe what – the Bible? There are other places for people who don't. Lots of them - other churches, other places of worship, clubs, universities, news rooms, so on and so forth.

The choir member says she doesn't agree with the statement that choir members should be "Christian" either.

Hello! It is supposed to be a Christian ministry.

Don Neuen, the cathedral's beloved, long-time choir director, left the church last year because he disagreed with Gretchen Schuller Penner's view that choir members should be "vetted" to make sure they are good Christians. Penner is a producer for the cathedral's "Hour of Power" program, broadcast to audiences worldwide.

Some of the very same people complaining about this latest move would be the first people to derisively shout from the rooftops if any of these people in the ministry were caught in a moral failing. Places like this church are darned if they do, darned if they don't.

Larry LaBonte, a church member for more than three decades, said choir members are not happy to sing Gospel and praise music, which Coleman announced would be the new way at their church as opposed to the classical style.

I believe that the songs should all be ones about God, what God has done, what God will do, and what God expects from us; I'm good with music of just about any type that falls into that category. But the church is not a democracy.

What's really going on here is an attempt to change church positions on sexuality. For all of the talk in the marriage neutering debate about "churches can still have their teachings", we can see with this that the truth is there are powerful groups who will do everything they can to prevent that very promise from being a reality.

There are churches organized specifically to accommodate and celebrate those who are unrepentantly engaging in homosexual behavior. They often have “metropolitan” in their name. Other churches also celebrate sex outside of holy matrimony. We have freedom of religion; go join one of those churches if you don’t like a church that teaches what the Bible teaches – that sex is for holy matrimony.

Who needs the Constitution and elections when we have celebrities to tell us how to do things? I've been waiting eagerly for this moment, because up until now, these people have been so reserved about their opinion on this matter. Read my analysis of coverage of a celebrity letter calling for the neutering of marriage by the President - it is over at The Opine Editorials.

I can't speak for all people who understand that marriage unites a bride and a groom, but I and many others like me, while not fans of a lot of the work of marriage neutering advocacy organizations, have no ill will for homosexual people. We don't want to hurt people, and will only condone doing so in self-defense or in defense of the innocent.

So our attention is grabbed when we hear that protecting or restoring the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing will "hurt gay people".

Read what I have to say about this over at The Opine Editorials.

Today's Los Angeles Times has some letters from readers that are ripe for consideration. Joseph Bonino of Glendale says of the federal budget:

I have the answer: The Democrats should agree to the Republicans' cuts on the condition that they also agree to cut an additional $60 billion from welfare for military contractors, foreign military bases that do nothing for our national security and yet another "more stealthy" strategic bomber that has no purpose in today's world.

Both parties' major constituencies would take the same hit. Fair is fair.

"Welfare for military contractors." Hmmm. I'm not in favor of corporate welfare. However, paying contractors for their work is… paying someone for doing something. Leftist welfare is paying people for not doing anything.

I won't argue about any given military base, as I don’t know enough about all of them. But we do need some military bases.

Are bombers obsolete? I guess they would be if we'd just go ahead and nuke all of the trouble areas. Go and read through history and you'll find that after World War I (not numbered as "I" back then), people had that mentality, too. Then WWII happened.

But the last paragraph pretends that there is always equivalence between the parties. This is not so. It is like saying, "Well, that GOP guy refunded his campaign contribution from the corporate exec convicting of crimes, so the Democrat opponent should refund the contribution he got from that trial lawyer." I do think Republicans sometimes support spending they shouldn't. But it isn't necessarily fair to ask each side to cut "their" causes. National defense is assigned to the federal government by the Constitution.

Arch Miller of Arcadia wrote:

I read with shock that 1,210 people own 2.3% of the world's wealth.

What's so shocking about that?

Only one thousand, two hundred and ten people own four and a half trillion dollars. I intentionally spelled out the numbers to let them sink in while reading.

Yes, about 3.75 billion dollars per person, or per family as the case may be.

True, many of these people are not Americans; however, this country has serious income inequality issues when the net wealth of a few billionaires can increase by $10 billion in one year while Republicans fight to keep taxes low for these ultra-rich people.

You're talking about two different things. One is about someone generating more wealth through voluntary interactions. The other is taking one person's money by force to give to other people. Please explain how any of the American billionaires misappropriated funds.

Wisconsin Republicans are crushing unions, which provided a middle-class lifestyle for millions of Americans.

They aren't crushing unions. They simply limited some collective bargaining powers of some public employee unions. These unions don't provide a middle-class lifestyle. Taxpayers have been providing that.

The rich get richer because the rich keep doing the things that made them rich. You can do these things, too.

And, finally, Kay Bandell of Norwalk praises Illinois for letting murderers escape justice via banning the death penalty:

California can and must do the same. Illinois' death penalty system was expensive and flawed.

I love it when the Left does everything they can to make the death penalty expensive, and then they complain about the expense. Name for any aspect of law enforcement or criminal justice in California that can’t be portrayed as "expensive and flawed". Shall we let all of the rapists out of prison?

How about we go old school, then, and allow family members of victims to execute the convicted murderer using their own means, after one appeal. Would that be better?

Why don't these people just come out and admit that they don't care if someone rapes, tortures, and murders a thousand children; they don't want these people executed, even if it happens through essentially putting them gently to sleep?

One of my Leftist friends was circulating a link to a Yahoo! News story that reported:

If some GOP lawmakers get their way, it could be a whole lot tougher for people across the country to cast a ballot in the upcoming 2012 presidential election.

Yeah, those evil Republicans wanting to actually enforce voting requirements, such as being a citizen, being registered to vote, and being, you know… alive. How dare they!