Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Today oral arguments are being heard before the U.S. Supreme Court on the question of so-called "same sex marriage" and whether states have a choice to legalize it or uphold "traditional" marriage.
Unfortunately I cannot be there to defend the institution of marriage, ordained by God, but if I were this is how I would plead my case:
May it please the court. There is no such thing as same sex marriage. It is an oxymoron. Marriage is and always has been since the beginning of civilization, the union of a biological couple for the purpose of creating a human family and regenerating and nurturing the human species to adulthood. The only combination of persons capable of such a thing is one man and one woman because only a man and a woman are capable of sexual intercourse, a necessary component of human reproduction involving both male and female reproductive organs.
My opponents argue that biology is merely an incidental component to marriage, that a couple eligible for marriage should be any two adult human beings who "love" each other. My answer to that is love has never been a prerequisite to marriage and although it is desirable that a husband and wife love one another, love is, in many cases, a result of marriage and not necessarily a pre-existing condition. In some cultures, a person's first encounter with their spouse is on their wedding day. Also, there are many kinds of love, including Platonic love. Under that definition, best friends and siblings should be able to marry, but that would dramatically alter and defeat the purpose of marriage as we have always understood it. There is nothing preventing two people who love each other from living together and thus they are not being denied the right to share a life with the person they love.
My opponents argue that current marriage laws discriminate against homosexuals because they are denied access to tax breaks and other legal benefits of marriage. This is utterly false. Homosexual persons have always had access to lawful marriage, that is, marriage to a member of the opposite sex. Many homosexuals in fact have married members of the opposite sex, have produced offspring, and have had what many would view as a successful marriage. Therefore, it is not true that they have not had equal access to the institution of marriage.
Thus, they are arguing for the creation of a new institution that has never existed before, a civil union between two members of the same sex bearing all the rights and privileges of a marriage union. The burden of proof is on them to prove how the two could possibly be regarded as equal or of equal value to society. But if such a case can be made for extending certain legal rights and privileges to same sex domestic partners, such issues are clearly a matter for states to decide and to regulate. But to redefine marriage itself is not within the jurisdiction of any human power or authority because it comes to us through natural law, authored by the Creator. The most any state can do is to create a vehicle for domestic partnerships that can be regulated and taxed accordingly and through which members of a given partnership would have specific rights previously reserved for family members only. But no state has the right to call such a thing a marriage in defiance of common sense.
Thus, I am asking the Supreme Court to overrule any attempt by any state to redefine marriage and to declare once and for all that marriage is what it has always been in the eyes of the law, a union between one man and one woman. God save the Court and God save the United States of America.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
This week's cartoon, though a little late for Valentine's Day, is still appropriate for the month of February. The so called pro-choice (actually one choice) community keeps insisting that the unborn child is not a real person in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There isn't an expectant mother on earth, who eagerly awaits the birth of her child, who doesn't treat the child in her womb like a real person. She talks to it. She fondles it. She cradles it in her arms. She comments about its movements as if speaking about a real person. Because it is a real person and she instinctively knows that. The only people who do not view the unborn child as a person are those who wish to have an abortion or those who support abortion. In this simple cartoon, Vita proclaims that if she is not a real person then neither are those outside the womb, because they all share the same traits of personhood; a beating heart, a functioning brain, metabolism, human DNA, etc. It's when the born members of the human race begin adding other qualifications to personhood designed to keep the unborn members out or minimize their rights that we have a problem. Peace.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Recently the Supreme Court ruled that human genes could not be patented, opening the door to greater competition in the search for more cures for cancer and other deadly diseases. This ruling invalidates more than 22,000 patents issued on human genes. People doing life-saving research had to worry about being sued for infringing on these patents while patients whose lives were ticking time bombs anxiously awaited breakthroughs, regardless of whose brand name was stamped on it. What were these scientists thinking? Didn't God invent the human gene? If anyone has the right to call a lawyer, it should be the Almighty. But God, in His infinite mercy, instead gave us a thinking brain capable of unlocking the life-saving secrets of His universe, including the microscopic universe which serves as the foundation for human life. These secrets, so long as they are not used to destroy human life or violate God's Natural Law, belong to everybody. Granted laboratories have the right to financial gain from their discoveries, because profits from these discoveries enable them to continue their research. But to grant any lab a monopoly on genetic research would be like giving NASA a patent on the planet Mars. The court rightly ruled that the objects of discovery belong to everybody. This is great news for cancer patients and others who simply cannot wait indefinitely for the cures that desperately need discovering.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
About twenty years ago I wrote a column called The Armchair Commando in which I addressed numerous political topics, among them, issues concerning life and death. In one installment I warned my readers about the not-too-distant possibility of the institutional genocide of the elderly by government bureaucrats challenged by the health care needs of the aging baby boom generation. The recent developments of Obamacare and the possibility of government "death panels" to determine how best to allocate limited health care resources to an aging population have done absolutely nothing to alter my prognostications.
With the federal government virtually taking over the health care industry, how long does anyone think it will take for Washington bureaucrats to start addressing the high cost of health care by rationing it to those it deems worthy of better health, namely young and middle-aged adults with enough productive years ahead to continue contributing to the tax base? Does a New York minute come to mind? This is the price we pay for turning more of the responsibility for ourselves over to the government. As for the so-called death panels, Secretary Sebilius made it abundantly clear, in that recent case involving the little girl who needed a new lung, that the federal government considers itself THE authority in deciding who is qualified to receive life-saving medical treatment. Thus, whatever group of bureaucratic appointees are selected to evaluate these cases and make a determination who lives and who dies is, in effect, a death panel. Uncle Sam was once a symbol of the benevolence of the U.S. government looking after the interests of the American people. But now that he's gone from "uncle" to "big brother," that relationship is looking more and more dubious.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Having recently attended the National Right to Life Conference in Dallas, Texas, I settled back into my usual routine at the studio and caught up on some email correspondence. To my surprise, fellow attendee Michael Ciccocioppo, sent me a message alerting me to the fact that my comic strip was being attacked by a pro-abortion blogger who had been "undercover" at the convention for the purpose of tearing it down in her column. The blog site was called RH (Reproductive Health) Reality Check and the columnist was Andrea Grimes, who called my display of Umbert books and other paraphernalia "unsettling." She then directed her barbs at the conference itself, making numerous unfair and untrue observations about the program and its attendees.
I responded on her blogsite and was immediately set upon by several of her "regulars," who seemed to be lying in wait for any pro-lifers who happened to venture into their blogosphere. Members of the National Right to Life Committee observed the situation in Washington and contacted me, asking permission to run the story on their national online newsletter. I agreed and edited it down to a digestible length. You may read the article at the following link: http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2013/07/umbert-strikes-back-cartoonist-gary-cangemi-responds-to-pro-abortion-blogger-ambush-of-nrlc-conference/#.UeM53o2-1Bl
The problem with attempting to enter into a dialogue with people on the internet is that the anonymity of blogging makes it easier to say things one wouldn't ordinarily say to someone in a face to face confrontation. We tend to be more civil to a live person in front of us and more uncivil to a faceless, nameless person on a blog. That's unfortunate as I genuinely wanted to engage these people who call themselves pro-choice and explain why I do what I do with the Umbert comic strip. One even asked me how Umbert could possibly talk to other unborn babies or operate a computer. I told her I would explain it when she could tell me how a cartoon beagle could engage in aerial combat with a WWI flying ace.
By the way, this IS a BLOG. Please feel free to post your own thoughts. Just keep them civil, OK?
Sunday, July 7, 2013
In ancient times, our forebears thought the Earth was the center of the universe and that the stars were light fixtures fastened onto a huge glass dome that rotated above our sky. Now that we know better, we get a greater sense of just how small and perhaps insignificant we seem with respect to the universe as a whole. It reminds me of the Dr. Suess tale, Horton Hears a Who, in which Horton discovers a tiny little civilization on a tiny speck of dust, but nobody believes him that it exists. This book has been embraced by folks in the pro-life movement because of its anthem...a person's a person no matter how small.
No matter how immense we discover this universe to be, it only serves to emphasize, in my view, how important the individual is, being a part of something so vast and being able to observe and contemplate it from our tiny little speck. And if we ever learn to respect life on this speck, we may actually survive to one day explore and expand our civilization to other specks throughout our galaxy and beyond. Elwood, the womb's resident little genius, is my idea of what a scientist should be...a person who stands in awe of God's creation as he seeks to better understand it.