Ruth Speaks Out

This blog is maintained by the Ruth Institute. It provides a place for our Circle of Experts to express themselves. This is where the scholars, experts, students and followers of the Ruth Institute engage in constructive dialogue about the issues surrounding the Sexual Revolution. We discuss public policy, social practices, legal doctrines and much more.

University Political Correctness: Inevitable or Just Irritating?

George Leef reviews a book on the always irritating problem of political correctness. Personally, I am very grateful to: 1. My husband for getting me out of academics and supporting me while I raised our kids and 2. the Ruth Institute supporters who allow me to do out-of-the-box thinking, to search for other intellectuals who do the same, and to bring our counter-cultural pro-marriage message to college students.  We literally could not do this on an ordinary university campus.  The campus pressures to conform both socially and intellectually, are simply enormous.

Are Blacks Abandoning Obama?

Inquiring Lefty minds want to know.  Speaking as a dyed-in-the-wool, unapologetic right wing-nut who hangs around with others of same description of all colors: I can tell you there are plenty of blacks with traditional religious and family values who are disgusted with Obama. Let me lis the things I've heard them say they don't like: cutting off abstinence education funds, appointing a lesbian as a commissioner to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, allowing his people to shove same sex marriage down the throats of the District of Columbia, and promoting abortion in the health care bill. Yes, many blacks don't like abortion. They feel targeted by the population controllers.

Anonymous Sperm Donors and Family Secrets

is the subject of this article in BioNews.  I completely disagree with this author, on every point except that we shouldn't abuse childless women. Other than that, well, look for yourself to see if you think this person is coherent.
Faith groups (and I am a member of one) have a poor, at times appalling, record of abusing childless women. Made to suffer for and keep secret the fertility problems of their menfolk, it is a human rights issue and it is right in our midst. Colluding with secrecy is not the answer. ...There is no returning to a mythical golden age in which donors donated and patients were inseminated and everyone was told to carry on as if nothing had happened. Obviously if donor insemination is viewed as adultery, then it is unlikely to be worth the emotional cost of undergoing the procedure. Alternatively, we owe it to childless women, under social pressure from their communities to keep gamete donation a secret, to engage in discussions about how to destigmatise infertility and DI.
I completely disagree with this. We should not "destigamatize DI." We should not allow donor insemination. Period. Not to married women. Not to unmarried women. Not anonymously. Not with full disclosure. Of course, we should not allow the abuse of infertile women. (I wonder what she is actually calling 'abuse' here.) But the truth is that no one has a "right" to have a child. Infertility is not a human rights issue. Deliberately separating children from their biological origins IS a human rights issue. I went through the infertility experience. Don't try to guilt-trip me about this. I know the pain. It is awful. But that doesn't change the other realities involved here. Bringing a third party into a marriage through gamete donation really is a harm to the marriage. Deliberatly bringing a child into the world in complete separation from one of his or her parents really is an injustice to the child. All the talk in this article is tap dancing around the main subject: we are pretending to have an individual, personal "right" to have a child, when no such right exists. Having a child is intrinsically a social act, since it involves the other parent, and the child him or herself.  DI, and indeed, the Artificial Reproductive Technology industry, is turning the social act of procreation into an individual act of re-production. Children should be begotten, not made.

What is the leading cause of death among African Americans?

In light of the previous post, you may be interested to know what is the leading cause of death among African Americans. Take the Ruth Institute quiz on that subject here.  You may be surprised...

Babies= Carbon

Frank Furendi's excellent article attacks the climate controllers who are really population controllers who are really enemies of the human race.  This cute photo of little black babies was used, not to celebrate new life, but to deliver a non-too-subtle message. "Babies are a problem," says the text. But the photo screams in a stage whisper, "especially black babies."

The odious Optimum Population Trust (OPT) is a zombie-like Malthusian organisation devoted to the cause of human depletion. Looking at the article by John Vidal in the Guardian, which contained that photo of 12 black babies and reported on the OPT’s new initiative inviting people in the West to offset their CO2 emissions by sponsoring ‘family planning’ in the developing world, I am not sure what I found most shocking: the message conveyed through the photograph, or the absence of any anger over the OPT and its supporters’ casual devaluation of human life.

H/T Maria Dotterweich

Combat Heterosexism!

This is the charge of a new report issued in Quebec. This report will give you a taste of what the Gay Lobby and the Sex Radicals have in mind for us in America. Tolerance is not enough.  Their definition of heterosexism is: 

Affirmation of heterosexuality as a social norm or the highest form of sexual orientation; social practice that conceals the diversity of sexual orientations and identities in everyday representations, social relations and social institutions, in particular by taking for granted that all people are heterosexual.

They want a society where every individual is completely indifferent between having same sex attraction and opposite sex attraction, and where no institution recognizes any differences between same sex attraction and opposite sex attraction.


News flash: heterosexual behavior is normal for our species. In Quebec, it will soon be illegal to say so.






Dr J on the Radio: Issues Etc.

I'll be on Issues Etc from 2:15- 2:30 Pacific Time, which ic 4:15 Central time. I'll be talking with Todd Wilken on the rise of On-line Gay Marriage, and what it means for the same sex marriage issue, and for marriage more generally. Tune in!  If you miss it, we will have it on our podcast page in a couple of days.

Love and Life (cont): The Real (Catholic) Deal

More from the Catholic Bishops' letter on marriage, called Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
"Our pastoral letter presents those beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church--informed by human reason and enlightened by Divine Revelation-- that summarize and express God's plan for marriage. This divine plan, like the gift of marriage itself, is something we receive, not something we construct or change to fit our purposes.  (5-6)"
This paragraph expresses distinctly Catholic attitudes and sensibilities:
  1. Revelation and reason work together, not at cross-purposes.  If faith and reason seem to contradict one another, you've either misinterpreted the revelation, or reasoned incorrectly.
  2. There are truths that are given to us, that are beyond our power to alter. We have a responsibility to bear witness to those truths and to hand them down to the next generation.  We must conform ourselves to reality , rather than demand that reality conform itself to us.
The bishops continue:
Our pastoral letter is an invitation to discover, or perhaps rediscover, the blessing given when God first established marriage as a natural institution and when Christ restored and elevated it as a sacramental sign of salvation. (6)
This is the essence of the pastoral posture, and one which Jesus expressed to his disciples: "Come and see…." Read the whole letter here.

Good News for Irish Fathers

An Irish court ruled that the biological dad who donated sperm to a lesbian couple still has some rights.
the five judges of the Supreme Court today found that, while man was not entitled to guardianship of the three-year-old boy at this time, it would be in the child's best interest for his father to have access to him.
This case illustrates the coming conflict between lesbian couples and the father of their children. The Irish court surely did the right thing here, in affirming the child's right to have a relationship with his father.  But, as Iona Institute's Director David Quinn points out, cases like this illustrate the need for child-centered regulation of Artificial Reproductive Technology. This ruled overturned a lower court ruling that had relied on the European Convention on Human Rights.
Referring to the High Court ruling that the lesbian couple had family rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, Chief Justice John Murray added that European Court of Human Rights rulings were not directly applicable in Ireland and its influence is moral and political rather than real. Crucially, Ms Justice Susan Denham ruled there was no such institution as a 'de facto' family in Ireland and that the lesbian couple were not a family under the Constitution. She also found that there was benefit to a child, in general, to have the society of his father and was satisfied that the High Court also gave insufficient weight to this factor. She found that the High Court had given insufficient weight to the fact that the man is the biological father of the child and she said he had rights as a natural father.
This is a welcome ruling. H/T Tom O'Gorman.

Same Sex "Marriage" is NOT Inevitable

DOCso says Maggie Gallagher, of our sister organization, the National Organization for Marriage, over at NRO. Here is one of my favorite reasons:
4.  Progressives are often wrong about the future. Here's my personal litany: Progressives told me abortion would be a dead issue by today, because young people in 1975 were so pro-choice. They told me there would be no more homemakers at all by the year 2000, because of the attitudes and values of young women in 1975. Some even told me the Soviet Union was the wave of the future. I mean, really, fool me once shame on you. Fool me over and over again . . . I must be a Republican!
Read it all here.


Support the Ruth Institute