"Sex Change" Surgery: What Bruce Jenner, Diane Sawyer, and You Should Know

by  Walt Heyer
within Culture

April 27th, 2015

The dark and troubling history of the contemporary transgender movement, with its enthusiastic approval of gender-reassignment surgery, has left a trail of misery in its wake.

Bruce Jenner and Diane Sawyer could benefit from a history lesson. I know, because I suffered through “sex change” surgery and lived as a woman for eight years. The surgery fixed nothing—it only masked and exacerbated deeper psychological problems.

The beginnings of the transgender movement have gotten lost today in the push for transgender rights, acceptance, and tolerance. If more people were aware of the dark and troubled history of sex-reassignment surgery, perhaps we wouldn’t be so quick to push people toward it.

The setting for the first transgender surgeries (mostly male-to-female) was in university-based clinics, starting in the 1950s and progressing through the 1960s and the 1970s. When the researchers tallied the results and found no objective proof that it was successful—and, in fact, evidence that it was harmful—the universities stopped offering sex-reassignment surgery.

Since then, private surgeons have stepped in to take their place. Without any scrutiny or accountability for their results, their practices have grown, leaving shame, regret, and suicide in their wake.

The Founding Fathers of the Transgender Movement

The transgender movement began as the brainchild of three men who shared a common bond: all three were pedophilia activists.

The story starts with the infamous Dr. Alfred Kinsey, a biologist and sexologist whose legacy endures today. Kinsey believed that all sex acts were legitimate—including pedophilia, bestiality, sadomasochism, incest, adultery, prostitution, and group sex. He authorized despicable experiments on infants and toddlers to gather information to justify his view that children of any age enjoyed having sex. Kinsey advocated the normalization of pedophilia and lobbied against laws that would protect innocent children and punish sexual predators.

Transsexualism was added to Kinsey’s repertoire when he was presented with the case of an effeminate boy who wanted to become a girl. Kinsey consulted an acquaintance of his, an endocrinologist by the name of Dr. Harry Benjamin. Transvestites, men who dressed as women, were well-known. Kinsey and Benjamin saw this as an opportunity to change a transvestite physically, way beyond dress and make-up. Kinsey and Benjamin became professional collaborators in the first case of what Benjamin would later call “transsexualism.”

Benjamin asked several psychiatric doctors to evaluate the boy for possible surgical procedures to feminize his appearance. They couldn’t come to a consensus on the appropriateness of feminizing surgery. That didn’t stop Benjamin. On his own, he began offering female hormone therapy to the boy. The boy went to Germany for partial surgery, and Benjamin lost all contact with him, making any long-term follow-up impossible.

The Tragic Story of the Reimer Twins

The third co-founder of today’s transgender movement was psychologist Dr. John Money, a dedicated disciple of Kinsey and a member of a transsexual research team headed by Benjamin.

Money’s first transgender case came in 1967 when he was asked by a Canadian couple, the Reimers, to repair a botched circumcision on their two-year-old son, David. Without any medical justification, Money launched into an experiment to make a name for himself and advance his theories about gender, no matter what the consequences to the child. Money told the distraught parents that the best way to assure David’s happiness was to surgically change his genitalia from male to female and raise him as a girl. As many parents do, the Reimers followed their doctor’s orders, and David was replaced with Brenda. Money assured the parents that Brenda would adapt to being a girl and that she would never know the difference. He told them that they should keep it a secret, so they did—at least for a while.

Activist doctors like Dr. Money always look brilliant at first, especially if they control the information that the media report. Money played a skilled game of “catch me if you can,” reporting the success of the boy’s gender change to the medical and scientific community and building his reputation as a leading expert in the emerging field of gender change. It would be decades before the truth was revealed. In reality, David Reimer’s “adaptation” to being a girl was completely different from the glowing reports concocted by Money for journal articles. By age twelve, David was severely depressed and refused to return to see Money. In desperation, his parents broke their secrecy, and told him the truth of the gender reassignment. At age fourteen, David chose to undo the gender change and live as a boy.

In 2000, at the age of thirty-five, David and his twin brother finally exposed the sexual abuse Dr. Money had inflicted on them in the privacy of his office. The boys told how Dr. Money took naked photos of them when they were just seven years old. But pictures were not enough for Money. The pedophilic doctor also forced the boys to engage in incestuous sexual activities with each other.

The consequences of Money’s abuse were tragic for both boys. In 2003, only three years after going public about their tortured past, David’s twin brother, Brian, died from a self-inflicted overdose. A short while later, David also committed suicide. Money had finally been exposed as a fraud, but that didn’t help the grieving parents whose twin boys were now dead.

The exposure of Money’s fraudulent research results and tendencies came too late for people suffering from gender issues, too. Using surgery had become well-established by then, and no one cared that one of its founders was discredited.

Results from Johns Hopkins: Surgery Gives No Relief

Dr. Money became the co-founder of one of the first university-based gender clinics in the United States at Johns Hopkins University, where gender reassignment surgery was performed. After the clinic had been in operation for several years, Dr. Paul McHugh, the director of psychiatry and behavioral science at Hopkins, wanted more than Money’s assurances of success immediately following surgery. McHugh wanted more evidence. Long-term, were patients any better off after surgery?

McHugh assigned the task of evaluating outcomes to Dr. Jon Meyer, the chairman of the Hopkins gender clinic. Meyer selected fifty subjects from those treated at the Hopkins clinic, both those who had undergone gender reassignment surgery and those who had not had surgery. The results of this study completely refuted Money’s claims about the positive outcomes of sex-change surgery. The objective report showed no medical necessity for surgery.

On August 10, 1979, Dr. Meyer announced his results: “To say this type of surgery cures psychiatric disturbance is incorrect. We now have objective evidence that there is no real difference in the transsexual’s adjustments to life in terms of job, educational attainment, marital adjustment and social stability.”  He later told The New York Times: “My personal feeling is that the surgery is not a proper treatment for a psychiatric disorder, and it’s clear to me these patients have severe psychological problems that don’t go away following surgery.”

Less than six months later, the Johns Hopkins gender clinic closed. Other university-affiliated gender clinics across the country followed suit, completely ceasing to perform gender reassignment surgery. No success was reported anywhere.

Results from Benjamin’s Colleague: Too Many Suicides

It was not just the Hopkins clinic reporting lack of outcomes from surgery. Around the same time, serious questions about the effectiveness of gender change came from Dr. Harry Benjamin’s partner, endocrinologist Charles Ihlenfeld.

Ihlenfeld worked with Benjamin for six years and administered sex hormones to 500 transsexuals. Ihlenfeld shocked Benjamin by publicly announcing that 80 percent of the people who want to change their gender shouldn’t do it. Ihlenfeld said: “There is too much unhappiness among people who have had the surgery…Too many end in suicide.” Ihlenfeld stopped administering hormones to patients experiencing gender dysphoria and switched specialties from endocrinology to psychiatry so he could offer such patients the kind of help he thought they really needed.

In the wake of the Hopkins study, the closure of the flagship Hopkins clinic, and the warning sounded by Ihlenfeld, advocates of sex change surgery needed a new strategy. Benjamin and Money looked to their friend, Paul Walker, PhD, a homosexual and transgender activist they knew shared their passion to provide hormones and surgery. A committee was formed to draft standards of care for transgenders that furthered their agenda, with Paul Walker at the helm. The committee included a psychiatrist, a pedophilia activist, two plastic surgeons, and a urologist, all of whom would financially benefit from keeping gender reassignment surgery available for anyone who wanted it. The “Harry Benjamin International Standards of Care” were published in 1979 and gave fresh life to gender surgery.

My Experience with Dr. Walker

I myself suffered greatly to come to terms with my gender. In 1981, I sought out Dr. Walker to ask him, the man who wrote the standards of care, for help. Walker said I was suffering from gender dysphoria. A mere two years after both the Hopkins study and the public statements of Ihlenfeld drew attention to the increased suicide risk associated with gender change, Walker, even though he was completely aware of both reports, signed my approval letter for hormones and surgery.

Under his guidance, I underwent gender reassignment surgery and lived for eight years as Laura Jensen, female. Eventually, I gathered the courage to admit that the surgery had fixed nothing—it only masked and exacerbated deeper psychological problems.The deception and lack of transparency I experienced in the 1980s still surround gender change surgery today. For the sake of others who struggle with gender dysphoria, I cannot remain silent.

It is intellectually dishonest to ignore the facts that surgery never has been a medically necessary procedure for treating gender dysphoria and that taking cross-gender hormones can be harmful.  Modern transgender activists, the descendants of Kinsey, Benjamin, and John Money, keep alive the practice of medically unnecessary gender-change surgery by controlling the flow of published information and by squelching research and personal stories that tell of the regret, unhappiness, and suicide experienced by those who undergo such surgery. Negative outcomes are only acknowledged as a way to blame society for its transphobia.

Transgender clients who regret having taken this path are often full of shame and remorse. Those who regret their decision have few places to turn in a world of pro-transgender activism. For me, it took years to muster the courage to stand up and speak out about the regret.

I only wish Dr. Paul Walker had been required to tell me about both reports when I consulted him: the Hopkins study showing surgery did not alleviate severe psychological problems, and Ihlenfeld’s observation of the continuing transgender unhappiness and high incidence of suicide after hormones and surgery. This information might not have stopped me from making that disastrous decision—but at least I would have known the dangers and pain that lay ahead.

Walt Heyer is an author and public speaker with a passion to help others who regret gender change. Through his website, SexChangeRegret.com, and his blog, WaltHeyer.com, Heyer raises public awareness about the incidence of regret and the tragic consequences suffered as a result. Heyer’s story can be read in novel form in Kid Dakota and The Secret at Grandma’s House and in his autobiography, A Transgender’s Faith. Heyer’s other books include Paper Genders and Gender, Lies and Suicide.

Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme

by  Paul McHugh
within Bioethics, Culture, Science

June 10th, 2015

The idea that one’s sex is a feeling, not a fact, has permeated our culture and is leaving casualties in its wake. Gender dysphoria should be treated with psychotherapy, not surgery.

For forty years as the University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School—twenty-six of which were also spent as Psychiatrist in Chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital—I’ve been studying people who claim to be transgender. Over that time, I’ve watched the phenomenon change and expand in remarkable ways.

A rare issue of a few men—both homosexual and heterosexual men, including some who sought sex-change surgery because they were erotically aroused by the thought or image of themselves as women—has spread to include women as well as men. Even young boys and girls have begun to present themselves as of the opposite sex. Over the last ten or fifteen years, this phenomenon has increased in prevalence, seemingly exponentially. Now, almost everyone has heard of or met such a person.

Publicity, especially from early examples such as “Christine” Jorgenson, “Jan” Morris, and “Renee” Richards, has promoted the idea that one’s biological sex is a choice, leading to widespread cultural acceptance of the concept. And, that idea, quickly accepted in the 1980s, has since run through the American public like a revelation or “meme” affecting much of our thought about sex.

The champions of this meme, encouraged by their alliance with the broader LGBT movement, claim that whether you are a man or a woman, a boy or a girl, is more of a disposition or feeling about yourself than a fact of nature. And, much like any other feeling, it can change at any time, and for all sorts of reasons. Therefore, no one could predict who would swap this fact of their makeup, nor could one justifiably criticize such a decision.

At Johns Hopkins, after pioneering sex-change surgery, we demonstrated that the practice brought no important benefits. As a result, we stopped offering that form of treatment in the 1970s. Our efforts, though, had little influence on the emergence of this new idea about sex, or upon the expansion of the number of “transgendered” among young and old.

Olympic Athlete Turned "Pin-Up" Girl

This history may clarify some aspects of the latest high-profile transgender claimant. Bruce Jenner, the 1976 Olympic decathlon champion, is turning away from his titular identity as one of the “world’s greatest male athletes.” Jenner announced recently that he “identifies as a woman” and, with medical and surgical help, is busy reconstructing his physique.

I have not met or examined Jenner, but his behavior resembles that of some of the transgender males we have studied over the years. These men wanted to display themselves in sexy ways, wearing provocative female garb. More often than not, while claiming to be a woman in a man’s body, they declared themselves to be “lesbians” (attracted to other women). The photograph of the posed, corseted, breast-boosted Bruce Jenner (a man in his mid-sixties, but flaunting himself as if a “pin-up” girl in her twenties or thirties) on the cover ofVanity Fair suggests that he may fit the behavioral mold that Ray Blanchard has dubbed an expression of “autogynephilia”—from gynephilia (attracted to women) and auto (in the form of oneself).

The Emperor’s New Clothes

But the meme—that your sex is a feeling, not a biological fact, and can change at any time—marches on through our society. In a way, it’s reminiscent of the Hans Christian Andersen tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes. In that tale, the Emperor, believing that he wore an outfit of special beauty imperceptible to the rude or uncultured, paraded naked through his town to the huzzahs of courtiers and citizens anxious about their reputations. Many onlookers to the contemporary transgender parade, knowing that a disfavored opinion is worse than bad taste today, similarly fear to identify it as a misapprehension.

I am ever trying to be the boy among the bystanders who points to what’s real. I do so not only because truth matters, but also because overlooked amid the hoopla—enhanced now by Bruce Jenner’s celebrity and Annie Leibovitz’s photography—stand many victims. Think, for example, of the parents whom no one—not doctors, schools, nor even churches—will help to rescue their children from these strange notions of being transgendered and the problematic lives these notions herald. These youngsters now far outnumber the Bruce Jenner type of transgender. Although they may be encouraged by his public reception, these children generally come to their ideas about their sex not through erotic interests but through a variety of youthful psychosocial conflicts and concerns.

First, though, let us address the basic assumption of the contemporary parade: the idea that exchange of one’s sex is possible. It, like the storied Emperor, is starkly, nakedly false. Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they “identify.” In that lies their problematic future.

When “the tumult and shouting dies,” it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb. The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.

How to Treat Gender Dysphoria

So how should we make sense of this matter today? As with any mental phenomenon, what’s crucial is noting its fundamental characteristic and then identifying the many ways in which that characteristic can manifest itself.

The central issue with all transgender subjects is one of assumption—the assumption that one’s sexual nature is misaligned with one’s biological sex. This problematic assumption comes about in several different ways, and these distinctions in its generation determine how to manage and treat it.

Based on the photographic evidence one might guess Bruce Jenner falls into the group of men who come to their disordered assumption through being sexually aroused by the image of themselves as women. He could have been treated for this misaligned arousal with psychotherapy and medication. Instead, he found his way to surgeons who worked him over as he wished. Others have already commented on his stereotypic caricature of women as decorative “babes” (“I look forward to wearing nail polish until it chips off,” he said to Diane Sawyer)—a view that understandably infuriates feminists—and his odd sense that only feelings, not facts, matter here.

For his sake, however, I do hope that he receives regular, attentive follow-up care, as his psychological serenity in the future is doubtful. Future men with similar feelings and intentions should be treated for those feelings rather than being encouraged to undergo bodily changes. Group therapies are now available for them.

Most young boys and girls who come seeking sex-reassignment are utterly different from Jenner. They have no erotic interest driving their quest. Rather, they come with psychosocial issues—conflicts over the prospects, expectations, and roles that they sense are attached to their given sex—and presume that sex-reassignment will ease or resolve them.

The grim fact is that most of these youngsters do not find therapists willing to assess and guide them in ways that permit them to work out their conflicts and correct their assumptions. Rather, they and their families find only “gender counselors” who encourage them in their sexual misassumptions.

Those with Gender Dysphoria Need Evidence-Based Care

There are several reasons for this absence of coherence in our mental health system. Important among them is the fact that both the state and federal governments are actively seeking to block any treatments that can be construed as challenging the assumptions and choices of transgendered youngsters. “As part of our dedication to protecting America’s youth, this administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors,” said Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to President Obama.

In two states, a doctor who would look into the psychological history of a transgendered boy or girl in search of a resolvable conflict could lose his or her license to practice medicine. By contrast, such a physician would not be penalized if he or she started such a patient on hormones that would block puberty and might stunt growth.

What is needed now is public clamor for coherent science—biological and therapeutic science—examining the real effects of these efforts to “support” transgendering. Although much is made of a rare “intersex” individual, no evidence supports the claim that people such as Bruce Jenner have a biological source for their transgender assumptions. Plenty of evidence demonstrates that with him and most others, transgendering is a psychological rather than a biological matter.

In fact, gender dysphoria—the official psychiatric term for feeling oneself to be of the opposite sex—belongs in the family of similarly disordered assumptions about the body, such as anorexia nervosa and body dysmorphic disorder. Its treatment should not be directed at the body as with surgery and hormones any more than one treats obesity-fearing anorexic patients with liposuction. The treatment should strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial conflicts provoking it. With youngsters, this is best done in family therapy.

The larger issue is the meme itself. The idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter open to choice runs unquestioned through our culture and is reflected everywhere in the media, the theater, the classroom, and in many medical clinics. It has taken on cult-like features: its own special lingo, internet chat rooms providing slick answers to new recruits, and clubs for easy access to dresses and styles supporting the sex change. It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges.

But gird your loins if you would confront this matter. Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.

Paul McHugh, MD, is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is the author of The Mind Has Mountains: Reflections on Society and Psychiatry.

A description of the believer (Jude 1)

                                          Jude 1

Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James,To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:

Jude (aka, Judas) the half brother of our Lord Jesus who describes himself as a Slave of Christ (love that!) is writing to a group of believers who are under siege by false teachers. What I'd like to focus on is how Jude DESCRIBES the believers to whom he writes.

FIRST, he describes these believers as CALLED. The word "called" here is the word (Klay-toss) and means to summon, to invite, like to a party. In theology this is known as the "effectual" call. Properly defined, the effectual call is the, "Act of God the Father speaking through the proclamation of the gospel, in which He summons people to Himself in such a way that they respond in saving faith" (Grudem 693). Every person who is a Christian is so because AND ONLY because God invited you to be. No one gets to come to the Salvation party without an invitation. May I remind you again that the effectual call is not a call to service, rather a call to Salvation. Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him..."(John 6:44).

SECOND, he describes these believers as BELOVED. The word translated beloved is the word (Ah-gah- pah-oh). Generally speaking in Scripture, love is defined as a selfless commitment toward another. For example in John 3:16 the writer states that God LOVES the world... the writer does not mean that God has warm, romantic feelings for the world, BUT that He is selflessly committed to the world, so much so that He gave His Only son as a sacrifice for the world's sin. Now thats love. Every true believer is beloved of God. In other words, God is selflessly committed to every believer. Now lets dig alittle deeper. The word beloved here according to Greek grammar is what you call a perfect passive participle. This means that at some point in the Eternal past God made a commitment to you, AND that commitment will endure throughout all eternity. The passive element of the participle simply means that you had NOTHING, WHATSOEVER to do with God committing to you. God did not make an Eternal commitment to you because, "He saw the best in you". No!!!, His love for you is solely based on and within Himself (Eph 1:6, 9, 11, 14).

THIRD, he describes these believers as KEPT. The Greek word for kept is the word (Teh-reh-oh) and means, "to be guarded, to be secure, to retain in custody". Listen!!! God's people. In Christ YOU ARE secure. Jesus put it this way in John 6:39 "this is the will of the Father who sent Me, that all he has given Me I should lose nothing..." Again, Jesus states in John 10:28-30, " And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of my hand. My father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of my father's hand. I and my Father are one. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans chapter 8, that,"NOTHING can separate us from the love God which is in Christ our Lord". If you're living under the threat that you are in danger of losing your Salvation, May I assure you on the authority of Scripture that you have NOTHING to fear. He who began a good work in you WILL COMPLETE IT (Phil 1:6). Can I add this? The verb "kept" here is ALSO Passive and indicates that believers don't keep themselves. There's nothing that I can do or must do to secure my salvation. Good works don't secure me, good thoughts don't secure me, Tithing doesn't secure me, busyness in ministry doesn't secure me , religious ceremony doesn't secure me, Church membership doesn't secure me. IT'S ONLY Christ who secures us.

Listen, dont you ever forget this. You are loved by God and will be loved by God throughout All eternity. You are securely kept by God and will be throughout ALL eternity. You are a Child of God NOT because of ANYTHING in you or because of anything you've done but ONLY because He invited YOU to be one.

To the praise of the glory of His grace.

Todd

Who Does the Constitution Protect? by Dr. Frank Turek

Last week, one unelected judge, overturned the will of 1,317,178 North Carolinians when he declared North Carolina’s definition of marriage in violation of the United States constitution. Judge Max Cogburn, appointed by President Obama, said that the definition 61 percent of voters approved just two years ago violated the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment—the same rationale used by judges elsewhere to violate the expressed will of the people. This is beyond absurd.

It’s absurd rationally because everyone already has equal marriage rights. Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. Same sex marriage and natural marriage are different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats them differently. One behavior perpetuates and stabilizes society, and the other doesn't.

These rulings are also absurd constitutionally. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was passed in 1868 to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn't even have the right to vote, yet no one ever thought a court could use the “equal protection” clause to change state voting laws. So why do courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are we to believe that “equal protection” does not guarantee a woman’s right to vote but does guarantee a woman’s right to marry another woman? What planet are these judges ruling from?

Why do you think the Federal and State governments went through the arduous constitutional amendment process to give blacks and women the right to vote? Courts knew they couldn’t act as legislatures to fix the problem. Congress and State legislatures had to vote to add the 15th and 19th Amendments in 1870 and 1920 respectively.

There was no rational case to preclude people from voting because of their race or sex. But there certainly is a rational case to preclude changing marriage. It’s the one institution best capable of creating and then raising children by encouraging their mothers and fathers to stay together. It’s the basis of a civilized society. We can’t build and maintain a civilization through homosexuality or by equating it to what moms and dads do. You may claim that’s bigotry, but it’s really just biology. (Sorry, I didn’t set up the facts of nature. I have noticed, however, that conservatives attempt to change their behavior to fit reality, while liberals attempt to change reality to fit their behavior.)

Anyone who wants to change laws should convince their fellow citizens to do so at the ballot box, not through unelected judges. Unfortunately, activist judges won’t honor the ballot box. 41,020,568 people across more than half the states have voted to recognize marriage for what nature’s design says it is—the union of one man and one women. Yet just 23 unelected judges have overturned those 41 million people across about 20 states! I don’t care where you stand on the marriage issue: when 23 people substitute their personal policy preferences to overrule those of 41 million Americans, we are no longer free or equal.

Of the approximately 30 states that now have same-sex marriage (it changes every day), only one state has done it through popular vote (Maine). The people of Maryland and Washington narrowly voted not to overrule the same-sex marriage provisions their legislatures had approved. Eight laws were changed by state legislatures without popular input. Activist judges overruled the people in the remaining states.

As unwise as I think changing the institution of marriage is, I can at least respect the process when it is done democratically. For all their talk about equality, the other side does not respect democracy unless the vote comes out their way.

What do you think would happen if some federal judge wrenched a passage of the Federal Constitution out of context and summarily struck down Maine’s law democratically decided law approving same-sex marriage? Do you think the people preaching “tolerance”—including their cheerleaders in the media—would tolerate such judicial abuse? The airwaves would be blasting howls of unfairness and calls for judicial impeachment. Yet when the same thing is done to strike down marriage laws based in biological reality—laws passed by millions of voters—liberals celebrate that those voters have been disenfranchised. Saying that one judge’s vote counts more than the votes of millions of Americans is an unequal way to advance “equality.”

“Oh, but the Constitution evolves,” some say. “We don’t have to look at what was intended in 1868.”

If that’s the case, then why have a constitution at all? If judges can make the law say anything they want, then how can we govern ourselves? We can’t. It also means that none of our rights are secure (including new-found “rights” to same-sex marriage). What’s to stop some rogue judge from taking away your freedom of speech or religion because the constitution has “evolved” in just the way his liberal mind desires?

Oops, that’s already happened, as many bakers, florists, photographers, and conscientious people in other businesses have discovered. If you don’t agree to celebrate same-sex marriages, you will be sued, fined, fired, and perhaps even jailed. All in the name of “tolerance, inclusion and diversity.”

And parents, don’t think you have the right to educate your children with certain moral values in public schools. Same-sex marriage ends your parental rights there as well.

What? You voted and your values won? Sorry, your votes don’t count. Some people get more “equal protection” than you do. A judge said so.

The truth is, nowhere does the Constitution say that the courts are the final word on what laws mean or what laws are valid. We have three co-equal branches of government. We also have a federal government that is constitutionally subordinate to state governments on most issues, including this issue of same-sex marriage (that’s one thing the Supreme Court got right in last year’s DOMA decision).

America needs a state governor who still believes in America—a governor willing to take a page from President Andrew Jackson who once rebuffed a Supreme Court decision against the state of Georgia by telling Chief Justice Marshall, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." He called the decision “stillborn.”

America needs an Andrew Jackson governor—a statesman who peacefully but firmly tells the court, “Your decision violates the Constitution and the rights of my citizens to govern themselves. It will not be enforced in this state. If you want to change our laws, then respect our people and our Constitution by convincing us to change our minds in the voting booth.”

While that may create a constitutional crisis, our Constitution is already in crisis! What can be lost that hasn’t ready been lost? We will not regain our right to self-government or maintain ordered liberty if we continue to cede all power to the judicial branch or to the federal government.

Are there any statesmen left in America?

Paper versus Plastic - Todd McCauley

Hey y'all, I don't know about you, but have you noticed the trend taking place in churches across the nation. The trend I'm speaking of are people bringing their iPads and smart phones to church in place of their Bibles.  I don't know where you stand on the issue, but I don't like the trend, NOT because I'm Anti-technology or Old fashioned (maybe just a little), but because I'm Pro Bible.  So! Paper or plastic?  Meaning what should a believer carry with him to the public gathering of believers, the paper Bible or an Electronic device in place of the paper Bible. Well I choose the paper Bible for some of the following reasons.  The reasons given are not original to me.


1.  Taking a paper Bible to the public gathering shows that the Bible is important to you.


2.  Taking a paper Bible to the public gathering can be a testimony to your neighbors as they see you carrying it Sunday mornings.  


3.  Taking a paper Bible to the public gathering provides an example to others in the church, including the children.  This example is related to point #1.  As ministers of the gospel one of chief ways to influence people is by way of example. If they don't see us carrying and using our Bibles, what are we communicating?


4.  Taking a paper Bible to the public gathering eliminates the temptation of distractions (email, youtube, games). 


5.  Taking a paper Bible to the public gathering encourages the teacher or preacher.  With you phone or IPad the preacher has no idea what you're looking at, Acts or Angry birds.


6.  Taking a paper Bible to the public gathering allows you if needed to be able to give your Bible away to someone in need.


7.  Taking a paper Bible to the public gathering allows you the opportunity to mark and make notes in your paper bible in ways that you could never do on your Android device.


8.  Taking a paper Bible to the public gathering communicates that the Bible is accessible to everyone not just those who can afford the technology.


9.  Taking a paper bible the public gathering identifies you as one of "them".


10.  Taking a paper bible to the public gathering connects us to a bloodstained history.   Read the following concerning William Tyndale, translator and martyr (1494-1536).  "Although the Bible was available in the vernacular in much of Europe, the only version of the Scripture tolerated in England was St. Jerome’s Latin translation, which dated back to the 4th century. It was thus a closed book even to most clergymen, but William Tyndale, a dedicated Christian and scholar, was determined to make God’s Word accessible to all men.However, as early as 1408 a council of clergymen had met at Oxford, England, and decided that the common people should not be allowed to have copies of the Bible in their own tongue for personal use. William Tyndale’s work in England was forbidden. Undeterred, Tyndale moved to Germany. Between 1525 and 1535, he translated and printed in English the New Testament and half of the Old Testament. He worked from the Greek and Hebrew original texts, an impressive feat since knowledge of those languages was found only in the highest academic circles. His pocket-sized Bible translations were smuggled into England. The Church attempted to stop these books, ruthlessly seeking them out to confiscate and destroy them. Ultimately, Tyndale was betrayed by a friend. He was arrested in Brussels, Belgium, and condemned as a heretic. In 1536, at the nearby town of Vilvorde, he was brought forth to the place of execution, tied to the stake, strangled by the hangman, and consumed by fire. As he died, he cried at the stake with fervent zeal and a loud voice, “Lord! Open the King of England’s eyes.” This miracle God did less than a year later. In August, 1537, King Henry VIII gave his authorization to the Bible generally known as Matthew’s Bible. He decreed that it should be freely sold and read within his realm.Thus Tyndale’s great desire to get the Bible in the hands of the common people was realized. The Reformation followed soon after" (Dr. Jim McGowan).
    
     After reading this brief history of Tyndale, I appreciate my paper Bible all the more. Our paper bibles remind us of the sacrifice made to place the word of God in our hands, in a language that we can understand. 
     
     Listen, I appreciate convenience, but convenience is NOT always appropriate. Whenever we stand before God's people to either read or preach from his word may we always be able to say, "please, turn IN your bibles, Not, "please turn ON your Bibles".