Housekeeping Update & Search Tip

This blog can be hard to search for. Its title has actually been “Presbyterian Blue,” but most searchers try “Presbyterian Blues,” and understandably so. Then I couldn’t get “Michael Mann” (director! meteorologist! rapper?) for a WordPress name so I settled for Mikelmann. So “Michael Mann” isn’t much of a help as a search term.

Bottom line: you’ll see that I’ve added the “s” to “Blue” so the site sorta has a new name.  A good search would be Presbyterian Blues Mikelmann.


Filed under Uncategorized

7 responses to “Housekeeping Update & Search Tip

  1. Lily

    Perfect! It googled like a dream. 😉

  2. Lily


    This is off-topic, but I stumbled across a blog you might find interesting. It’s the SCOTUS Blog. This is the post that I found refreshing and hopeful as a Christian. He seems to have a wonderful understanding of the infringements upon religious freedom. Or am I dreaming:


    Unfortunately, courts that have found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage have been blind to the range of religious-liberty issues. Like Judge Walker, the California Supreme Court in In re Marriage Cases (2008) found that same-sex civil marriage “will not impinge upon the religious freedom of” anyone, for two reasons: “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.” The first reason overlooks the reach of antidiscrimination and public-accommodations laws; the second indefensibly limits religious-freedom concerns to the church ceremony and the clergy person.

    It’s understandable that judges ruling on gay marriage would avoid opining on the whole range of possible conflicts with religious liberty. Courts by nature discuss only the precise issues before them. But the narrow judicial references also reflect that constitutional doctrine on the free exercise of religion has become quite weak. Both the U.S. Supreme Court, in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), and the California Supreme Court, under the state constitution, have held that courts should not order an accommodation from “laws of general applicability” that are formally neutral toward religion. Presumably, this includes laws prohibiting discrimination against same-sex couples.

    Therefore, once the California Supreme Court ordered same-sex marriage, voters could understandably lack any confidence that religious-liberty concerns would ultimately be addressed and given weight.

    • Lily, thanks for the link. I notice the article was written before the SCOTUS Hosanna-Taylor decision which was very good news for religious rights.
      I want to take some time to look at this, but offhand, if homosexuality is going to be treated like race, then there will certainly be some clashes.

    • Lily, I agree with the article that it would be easier to balance gay rights with religious conscience if it is left to state legislatures. If gay marriage is a right under the US Constitution, the flexibility of the states to deal with the situation is pretty minimal. The Iowa Supreme Court has found such a right in the Iowa Constitution, and that decision has increased talk of other branches simply receiving court decisions as “advice” then deciding on their own whether to follow that advice. That kind of talk has been visited numerous times by Iowa’s most powerful radio station as well as the Warrior-Evangelicals. Talk of trimming the jurisidiction of the courts is a sure way to get applause from the W-E’s. Oh yeah, three members of the Iowa Supreme Court who voted in favor of that decision have been voted off the bench. Of course, members of the SCOTUS can’t be voted off the bench, but they can’t be oblivious to the turmoil that such a decision would precipitate.

  3. Lily

    Many thanks, MM. I appreciate you looking at it and your encouragement that I might not be dreaming. I didn’t notice how old it was, thanks for pointing that out. I was too stunned by how hopeful it sounded. If it works for you, I would love to hear your thoughts after you read it over. I could get hooked on the legal blogs. Have you ever read The Volohk Conspiracy? The coverage of legal cases on his blog is interesting too.

    And… drum roll…

    Here’s more good news that came into my rss feed tonight: “Yesterday, a federal court struck down a Washington state law that requires pharmacies to dispense the morning after pill.” A victory for conscience rights! Hooray! It seemed like it took forever for this case to be settled (anywho it sure felt like it!)

    And after adding the Hosanna-Taylor to the list, things are looking brighter and brighter. Another Hooray! I’ve been pretty discombobulated by the HHS law, so I needed all this encouragement!

  4. Lily

    Many, many thanks for your thoughts on this. It is a mess. I appreciate knowing it would be better to resolve it on the state level. I have concerns that it will not go that way. The activists have made numerous inroads into federal law now that the DOJ has refused to defend DOMA. It sure seems like there is a concerted effort on the federal level to move gay marriage in the direction of the supreme court. I was hoping the article pointed towards a strong wall of defense of the constitution’s provision for religious freedom in the supreme court. It’s surreal to watch the order of creation undermined by a movement to give inalienable rights to perversion.

    On a similar note, the activists are seeking to make abortion a right that supersedes religious freedom. Again, there seems to be a concerted effort to use the federal government to move the progressive agenda forward. According to an op-ed by Jim Towey, former head of the faith-based-initiative department for the Bush administration, Obama went to work immediately to begin setting the stage we are facing because of the HHS mandate:

    “Obama telegraphed his intentions from the start. The new administration wasn’t in place a month before he re-launched the initiative and declared that a priority of his faith-based office would be to “look at how we support women and children, address teenage pregnancy, and reduce the need for abortion.””

    It’s hard not to wonder if Obama is on a mission to remake the constitution through the courts. He’s already revamped a number of governmental agencies to bypass congress and crippled and/or cowed the private sector on numerous levels. What appeared to have been chaos these last three years is starting to look like a well planned mission to change our constitution.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s