Rhode Island Supreme Court rules state does not have authority to grant divorce to same-sex couple

The Rhode Island State Supreme Court showed uncommon restraint by voting to limit same-sex marriage to Massachusetts. In a 3-2 ruling, the judges said "the state's family court lacks the authority to grant the divorce of a same-sex couple because Rhode Island lawmakers have not defined marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman."

CLICK HERE to read the Associated Press article.

It's OK to spank children.

That's what a new report from the American College of Pediatricians says. The modern liberal mindset is any form corporal punishment is a form of children abuse. This new report says otherwise.

Lifesite.net had this to say about the new report:

ACP carefully reviewed the available research on corporal punishment and concludes, in its position statement on the subject, that disciplinary spanking by parents can be effective when properly used. "It is clear that parents should not solely rely upon disciplinary spanking to accomplish control of their child's behavior," says the just-released position statement. "Evidence suggests that it can be a useful and necessary part of a successful disciplinary plan."

Den Trumbull, MD, FCP, principal author of the statement explained, "When a child defies a parent's instruction, spanking is one of a few options parents can consider to correct the misbehavior." Trumbull added: "Spanking is most appropriate with children 2 to 6 years old, and when milder types of correction have failed."

The story also noted that the Massachusetts legislature is considering legislation that would ban spanking. And UN folks are trying to get nations to ban the practice.

I thought one of the study's conclusions was quite strong in favor of allowing spanking. "An unconditional, legal ban against all physical punishment of children by their parents would be irresponsible and unfounded based on current data."

Though there will be quibbling with some of the reports conclusions, I found it very significant that a national medical group would affirm common sense regarding the appropriate use of spanking. Of course, the appropriate use of spanking was recognized a few millennia ago. Proverbs 13:24 says, "He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently."

Liberal former Star Tribune columnist Steve Berg calls evangelicals intolerant. But who's really intolerant?

Mitt Romney's speech on religion, faith and politics and in particular questions about his Mormon faith has been generally well received on the right and center right side of the political spectrum and even by some on the left. Chris Matthews said it was the best political speech of the year. Of course, many on the left didn't like it because Romney talked about the important role religion plays in our nation's public life and criticised secular efforts to marginalize religion. It's not surprising then that folks like Steve Berg, former liberal writer for the Star Tribune and now columnist of the www.MinnPost.com a liberal blog news page for former Star Tribune writers and others took a less favorable view of the speech. In fact, Berg saw it as an opportunity to take a swipe at evangelicals.

Berg's column was titled, "Mitt Romney's call for tolerance praised, but will it appeal to a traditionally intolerant group?" He then goes on to say, "He gave a speech in which he appealed to Christian evangelicals for tolerance of his Mormon beliefs when, in fact, a good portion of evangelicals define themselves by their intolerance of other religious views..." This is another example of the tired, worn out liberal usage of the word intolerance. Just because a person doesn't agree with the views of another person, whether religious or political, doesn't necessarily mean one's intolerant. I can tolerate the person and his views, but I just don't agree with them. What's wrong with that? Of course, secularists are intolerant of what they view as the intolerance of evangelicals. Of course this doesn't constitute intolerance on their part because they're right and evangelicals are wrong. This intolerance by secularists is accompanied by an air of being "open minded".

Then there's Berg's effort to recast a different understanding of our national religious heritage. Berg said, "The notion that God is responsible for granting America's political freedom is foreign to many Catholics, liberal Protestants and other believers, and is obviously troubling to secular Americans." Thus the belief that our rights come from God is somehow a foreign and thus "troubling" concept. Well, where does this "troubling" concept come from? None other than Thomas Jefferson. Yes all one has to do is look not to a cabal of evangelicals but to the founders of our nation and in particular Thomas Jefferson who penned our Declaration of Independence. It states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, ad the Pursuit of Happiness."

Secularists have attempted to recast our national understanding of itself for many years, suggesting that we really are a secular polity and religiously motivated sentiments should remain private. The founders would have viewed this idea as a foreign concept. As John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." And Adams also said, "It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. Religion and virtue are the only foundations...of republicanism and of all free governments."

If nothing else, Romney's speech has triggered a healthy discussion over the role of religion in America's public and political life.

Staying married should carry a carbon credit.

Study: Marriage is Good for the Planet

by Devon Williams, associate editor
God’s design for family helps the environment.

A new study out of Michigan State University shows that the growing divorce rate is hurting more than just the families and children — it's also bad for the Earth.

By examining data from 12 countries, Jiangua “Jack” Liu, senior author of the study, and his associate Eunice Yu, found that married households are more efficient with water, energy and land use. On the other hand, divorced couples require an extra 38 million rooms and spend 46 percent more per capita on electricity and 56 percent more on water than married couples.

Liu also found that if divorced households had combined to have the same average household size as married households, there could have been a million fewer households using energy and water.

“People have been talking about how to protect the environment and combat climate change, but divorce is an overlooked factor that needs to be considered,” Liu said in the online version of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study reports that, while the proportion of divorced households has rapidly increased around the globe, some countries have implemented plans to combat the problem and help the environment at the same time. Couples who want to get divorced in one Indonesian district must donate 25 tree seedlings, South Africa’s Independent Online reported.

Jenny Tyree, associate marriage analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said marriage may be the most cost-efficient environmental plan available.

“The results of this study support the benefits of marriage, not just for families, but for our environment,” she said. “It makes sense that more households — as a result of family breakdown — would use more resources. We're pleased to see that God's design for family is consistent with good environmental stewardship.”

What to expect from 2008 Minnesota Legislative Session? Haggling and Posturing

What should we be expecting from the 2008 Minnesota legislative session? A lot of haggling and posturing and not a lot of substance. Why? Because there isn't much money to go around. The state is projecting a $373 million budget deficit by the summer of 2009. That's about 1% of the state's general fund budget. It shouldn't be too hard to scale back a bit especially for a 1% reduction over a year and a half time period. Especially in light of the $1.95 billion deficit the state faced in November of 2001. Even with that huge deficit there were no tax increases.

DFLers in the legislature will demand tax increases to cover not only the deficit but provide for other spending projects. Ultimately, Governor Pawlenty holds all the cards, along with the Republican minority in the state House who will be needed to uphold any vetoes of tax increases. If they hold firm there will be no tax increases and therefore no big health care and education initiatives.

The lack of money will act as a bottleneck on all the health care, education and other social spending programs proposed for individual legislators. If there's no money then they won't have a lot to do.

DFL'ers want to close a "corporate tax loophole" for foreign corporations which would bring in about $244 million. Pawlenty said he's supports doing that if the new revenues are used for tax cuts which means there is no net increase in state taxes.

As a result, the 2008 legislative session will see a lot of haggling and posturing but not a lot else. That's not a bad thing if your chief concern is the possibility of state shrinking the family budget by raising taxes.