Pope Francis has been named Time Magazine’s Man of the year
How do you practice humility from the most exalted throne on earth? Rarely has a new player on the world stage captured so much attention so quickly—young and old, faithful and cynical—as has Pope Francis. In his nine months in office, he has placed himself at the very center of the central conversations of our time: about wealth and poverty, fairness and justice, transparency, modernity, globalization, the role of women, the nature of marriage, the temptations of power.
The bench said: “In the light of plain meaning and legislative history of the section, we hold that Section 377 IPC would apply irrespective of age and consent.” It added that the section does not discriminate any group with a particular sexual preference, a stand that was diametrically opposite to that by the Delhi HC.”It is relevant to mention here that Section 377 IPC does not criminalize a particular people or identity or orientation. It merely identifies certain acts, which if committed, would constitute an offence. Such prohibition regulates sexual conduct regardless of gender identity and orientation,” Justices Singhvi said.
“Parliament, which is undisputedly the representative body of the people of India, has not thought it proper to delete the provision.” Parliament has not amended the law either, it added.
Given the slow pace of lawmaking in India, an upcoming election and polls suggesting the conservative Bharatiya Janata Party could unseat the ruling Congress Party in national elections, it’s likely the ban introduced under British colonial rule will remain in place for the foreseeable future.
The High Court unanimously ruled that the ACT’s law could not operate concurrently with the federal Marriage Act, which was amended in 2004 to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
“The Marriage Act does not now provide for the formation or recognition of marriage between same sex couples. The Marriage Act provides that a marriage can be solemnised in Australia only between a man and a woman,” the court said in a statement issued alongside its ruling. “That Act is a comprehensive and exhaustive statement of the law of marriage.”
Now, what I find hilarious here is that it never occurs to anyone that there might be some kind of technological work-around short of repeated sodomy. You know, maybe there’s a device or a technique, something that is a little less unpleasant, inconvenient or forbidden than straight-up buggery? Nope. Gotta go with the sodomy. The Saturday Night Live skit writes itself.
Jihadi: What if we make the bomb smaller?
Sheikh: What? That’s crazy. Sodomy is the only way.
Jihadi: Couldn’t I use replica of a male, well, you know. In private like . . .
Sheikh: Shh! Let’s not even discuss it.
Jihadi: What if I’m willing to tolerate a lot of discomfort when it comes time for the martyrdom operation? I mean, it’s my choice. I am blowing myself up after all. What’s a little discomfort?
Sheikh: You’re not hearing me. This is the way it has to be. Don’t you want to murder infidels?
House Speaker John Boehner went off on outside conservative groups Wednesday morning for pushing against the new budget deal.
“They’re using our members and they’re using the American people for their own goals,” he said. “This is ridiculous.”
Really Mr. Speaker, you’re going to use your face time to attack conservatives?
ESPN has reversed course and will now allow a Catholic charity to air a television ad heralding the birth of Christ during a college basketball game this weekend, officials said.
The Cardinal Glennon Children’s Foundation in St. Louis produced a 30-second spot asking viewers to write holiday messages to sick children. The ad seeks to “help us reveal God’s healing presence this Christmas” and notes that the SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s Center “celebrate(s) the birth of Jesus and the season of giving.”
This type of thing always makes we laugh, there are a lot of people who really want to strike Christ out of Christmas in fact strike down Christmas itself, yet when they talk all I can hear is this passage from Dickens:
`You’ll want all day tomorrow, I suppose?” said Scrooge.
“If quite convenient, Sir.”
“It’s not convenient,” said Scrooge, “and it’s not fair. If I was to stop half-a-crown for it, you’d think yourself ill-used, I ‘ll be bound?”
The clerk smiled faintly.
“And yet,” said Scrooge, “you don’t think me ill-used, when I pay a day’s wages for no work.”
The clerk observed that it was only once a year.
“A poor excuse for picking a man’s pocket every twenty-fifth of December!” said Scrooge, buttoning his great-coat to the chin. “But I suppose you must have the whole day. Be here all the earlier next morning!”
The clerk promised that he would; and Scrooge walked out with a growl.
I’ve yet to see any of these people decide to open their business on the 25th and decline to take or pay the holiday time coming for working on December the 25th. But that’s no more surprising than big corporations funding the left