Russell and Duenes

Archive for the ‘Legal Matters’ Category

Evil Men and Women Do Not Understand Justice

leave a comment »

“Evil men and women do not understand justice. (Prov. 28:5). [T]he LORD hates . . . a heart that devises wicked plans. (Prov. 6:16, 18). [T]he name of the wicked will rot. (Prov. 10:7) [T]he expectation of the wicked ends in wrath. (Prov. 11:23) [T]he counsels of the wicked are deceitful. The words of the wicked lie in wait for blood. (Prov. 12:5-6). [T]he mercy of the wicked is cruel. (Prov. 12:10). The way of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD. (Prov. 15:9). The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the Lord. (Prov. 15:26). The soul of the wicked desires evil. (Prov. 21:10). Whoever says to the wicked, ‘You are in the right,’ will be cursed by peoples, abhorred by nations. (Prov. 24:24). When the wicked rule, the people groan.” (Prov. 29:2).

The first of the above Scriptures came to my mind earlier today, and as I read it, I could not help but think of Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy. These are the current justices who, in their wickedness, have given legal sanction and approval to the killing of unborn human beings, human beings who bear God’s image in full. To these “justices” names could be added many more past justices who have acted in like evil.

The above-named justices have now added to their wickedness the giving of legal cover to abortion clinics to operate without proper health standards, all in the guise of preventing an “undue burden” on a woman’s “right” to have an abortion. As Kevin Williamson aptly stated in National Review Online: “There is a great deal of dishonesty in the abortion debate, which is necessary: Otherwise, we’d be obliged to think about the horror of what we perpetrate and what we endure, and that would be very difficult.” However, Williamson is not quite right when he goes on to say: “A culture that treats pregnancy as a horrible disease and classifies its children as liabilities rather than assets is a culture that is, strangely enough, childish.”

The proper adjective is “wicked,” not “childish.” Supreme Court justices who apply rules and standards to abortion opinions which they would never dream of applying to other issues, solely in order to keep the killing regime going, are evil and wicked. Further, Supreme Court justices who refuse to overturn a lower court decision which would effectively compel pharmacists to sell abortion-inducing drugs are wicked. As Justice Samuel Alito put it, the Washington regulations which these justices allowed to be upheld create a “plain dilemma: Violate your sincerely held religious beliefs or get out of the pharmacy business.”

I believe such wickedness needs to be pointed out in our times.





Written by Michael Duenes

June 29, 2016 at 9:12 pm

It Won’t Even Be Worth Kindling for a Fire

leave a comment »

Later this year when the U.S. Supreme Court decides, in a 5 to 4 decision, that gay marriage is the law of the land, the only thing worth reading in the opinion will be the dissent (even better if it’s written by Justice Scalia, as it often is in these types of cases). The majority opinion will not even be worth kindling for a fire because it will simply be repeating the same old lies about marriage, children and parenthood that we’ve been hearing for years. Nothing new will be said, and certainly no true legal analysis will be provided. It will simply be another tired piece of political and social advocacy and judicial self-assertion and lawlessness, tarring those who agree with the truth about the nature and purpose of marriage as irrational bigots and simpletons akin to racists of the Jim Crow era. But now such lies will be enshrined as the supreme law of the nation. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.”

My oldest son came out for breakfast the other morning with a homemade white prize ribbon cut from paper taped to his shirt. He announced that he had just won a prize for “best dressed.” I asked him who gave him the ribbon. He replied, “I did.” Classic! The kid does like to win.

“Listen to Me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, you who have been borne by Me from birth and have been carried from the womb.” (Isaiah 46:3). The Lord has carried His people even “from the womb.” He has borne us up throughout our lives. When we think back on our lives, this is an incredible truth. The Lord has carried me from my birth, which means He carried me through all those toddler years when my life was so vulnerable, through all the asthma attacks as a child, through the folly of my high school years when I thought it was a good idea to drink and drive, through the heartbreaking relationships, through the anxiety and depression, through the challenging circumstances of jobs and school, through a scary landing during my piloting days, through loneliness and through victory, in all the good and bad, the sicknesses and the health, the joys and sorrows, God has been carrying me, and will continue to do so. For Isaiah concludes: “Even to your old age, I will be the same. And even to your graying years, I will bear you. I have done it, and I will carry. I will bear and I will deliver.” (46:4). Thank you, Father. 


Written by Michael Duenes

February 11, 2015 at 4:31 am

“Any Further Attempt to Prevent Historical and Legal Change is Fruitless”

leave a comment »

A13914.jpgSo says Howard Simon, the executive director of the ACLU of Florida, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision not to hear any of the gay “marriage” cases. In other words, get on the side of the gay “marriage” juggernaut, or be steamrolled. Resistance to the cultural ascendancy of the redefinition and twisting of marriage is futile. If you so much as attempt to prevent the imposition of the gay “marriage” agenda, you’ll be damned to the wrong side of history. The statist, secular gods have spoken!

But then I wondered how God sees things, and how God’s people should therefore see things. Mr. Simon’s statement is that of a man who “scoffs and speaks with malice; [who] loftily . . . threatens oppression, [who] sets [his] mouth against the heavens, and his tongue struts through the earth.” (Psalm 73:8-9). He is of those who arrogantly speak: “Who is the Lord that I should listen to His voice?” (Exodus 5:2). “They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption” (2 Peter 2:19).

Whatever Mr. Howard and those of like mind may have to say about the supposed inevitability of gay “marriage,” their words are a fleeting vapor, with no more truth or power than the morning mist that hangs over one’s front lawn. Even if gay “marriage” becomes legal in all 50 states, their words will pass away, but Jesus’ words “will never pass away.” What God says about masculinity, femininity, sex and marriage is what will endure – legal or not – for it is good, true and beautiful. God “who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds in derision” such presumptions against His Word and ways. God alone “changes times and seasons,” and decides what is “inevitable” and what isn’t. Even the wicked King Nebuchadnezzar had to acknowledge that God’s “dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing; and he does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What doest thou?'” We Christians should have the utmost confidence in God’s continued rule and reign, and it is His promises which we should bank on in light of yesterday’s folly by the Supreme Court.

As for the future, I agree with Russell Moore: “The sexual revolution didn’t start at Woodstock. It is always with us. We ought to have the confidence of people who have heard a word from God and the compassion of a people who are on a mission with God. The Supreme Court can do many things, but the Supreme Court cannot get Jesus back into his cemetery plot.” Our commanding orders remain the same: “We are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:20-21).


Written by Michael Duenes

October 7, 2014 at 9:20 pm

We’re Morally Better Than Our Forebears

leave a comment »

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that the death penalty must be applied according to the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” I offered in class that it is a rather arrogant presumption that we in the 21st century have evolved in our standards of decency so as to be morally mature beyond that of our forebears.

One piece of evidence proffered in favor of our moral advancement over the ancients is that we no longer cut off people’s hands as a punishment for stealing. So I ask myself: Do I want to live in a society that cuts off people’s hands? I’m not sure. But I wonder if the offeror of the evidence has ever asked himself what it means to live in society that legally allows children to be ripped apart limb-from-limb in their mother’s wombs, funded in no small part by our government, to the tune of 1.2 million dead each year.

It was further offered that women can now vote, with the implication that we simply must have superior standards of decency over those of the Founding generation. I love the reality of women voting as much as the next guy. But I wonder if our less advanced ancestors celebrated and honored their women by referring to them as “bitches and hos” in their popular music, by “hooking up” with them on a massive scale in their social relations, and by consuming vast quantities of woman-degrading pornography, all the while treating the female body like a kind of machine to be mined for parts and to be shut down so that men can have sex without consequences.

When one considers the utterly unique horrors that 20th century man committed against his fellow man, it seems we ought to engage in a bit less conceit about the “progress” of our own “maturing society.” I am making no statement in favor of the death penalty, only a statement that I don’t know how much better off we are, if any, by applying it according to our current moral lights.


Written by Michael Duenes

April 10, 2014 at 6:00 pm

Can a Surrogacy Contract Stop a Surrogate Mother from Having an Abortion?

leave a comment »

In Raftopol v. Ramey, 299 Conn. 681 (2011), the Connecticut Supreme Court opined that “the legislature is the appropriate body to craft specific rules and procedures governing gestational [surrogacy] agreements.” If you recall, “gestational surrogacy” is where the birth mother (I refuse to call these surrogates “carriers” or “vessels” or any other such misogynistic name that essentially degrades and debases women to a form of “rent-a-wombs.” As I’ve said elsewhere, we live in a massively misogynistic culture which falsely parades itself as being pro-women. We are hateful of femininity.) is unrelated genetically to the child she carries. Unfortunately, the States are all over the place when it comes to surrogacy laws. Some states have surrogacy statutes, others have allowed judges to rule on what their surrogacy law will be, other states have no surrogacy law of any kind, and some states have outlawed surrogacy entirely. The federal government has no overarching law on surrogacy which would trump State law. Hence, the mess we’re in. Yet the Connecticut Supreme Court has at least done us the service of raising the issues that State legislatures ought to consider. These issues are important, and I provide them here, with brief comments in places, simply by way of introduction.

The court states: “In jurisdictions that have addressed the issues raised by the use of assisted reproductive technology, it appears that there are three general approaches to the determination of legal parentage. Those three approaches define parentage based on: (1) the intent of the parties; . . . 2) the genetic relatedness of the parties; . . . or (3) giving birth.” This third option is the one that presents problems for gestational surrogacy, for if the woman birthing the child and the woman who provided the egg are both considered “mothers,” well, you get the picture. Who’s maternal rights trump? This is why there is a strong push to get rid of this third option, and we get rid of it by defining the birth mother out of existence and downplaying the nature and purpose of pregnancy, both of which are bad for women and bad for us as a people.

The court continues: “Additional issues that some states have addressed, for example, include whether to recognize compensated gestational agreements. . .” This raises the issue of “baby-selling.” Are we buying and selling human life if we allow gestational mothers to be compensated? Numerous other countries have outlawed commercial surrogacy, only allowing people to engage in what might be called “altruistic” surrogacy.

” . . . whether to limit the availability to married couples, infertile intended parents . . .” Of course, this is where the whole homosexual issue comes up. If a State limits surrogacy to married couples only, many homosexuals will not be happy, to put it mildly. Unmarried heterosexual couples will be quite grumpy as well. This ultimately directs our attention to the children, and points up the adult-centric nature of surrogacy. In other words, how much should we concern ourselves with the parenting environments into which surrogate children will be born? Should we limit our concern to whether the people who want the children are law-abiding, responsible, healthy and clean, and rid ourselves of all questions related to having fathers and mothers? If the “science” is “settled” that it makes no difference to children whether they are raised by a father and mother, by two mothers, by two fathers, by any grouping of people who “love” them, then one can see where the surrogacy policy is headed. But of course, the science isn’t settled, and even if it were, it would be settled in favor of the fact that, all other things being equal, having a father and mother to raise you is best.

“. . . what protections to put in place to safeguard the gestational carrier’s right to make decisions regarding healthcare and termination of the pregnancy until the child has been delivered . . . ” This raises a whole host of practical questions: How well does the gestational mother have to take care of herself during the surrogate pregnancy? Does she have to eat healthy? Must she abstain from alcohol? What if she fails to do so? What if she changes her mind and wants to abort the baby or babies? Can a surrogacy contract contain a provision whereby the birth mother will abort the baby if the baby has certain birth defects? If you cannot force the birth mother to abort, what kinds of damages can you inflict on her for breach of contract?

“. . . whether to require that the spouse of the gestational carrier either consent or be made a party to the contract . . .” Obviously being a gestational mother does not just affect the mother. Husbands may be affected, as well as any children a gestational mother might already have.

“. . . whether to require that at least one intended parent contribute genetic material, and whether to require mental and physical health evaluations and home studies.” Let’s imagine a scenario. You’ve got a gay man, Jim, and his partner, Larry. They want to raise a child together, the child being the product of Sally’s egg and Thomas’ sperm. They would like Becky to carry and give birth to the child. How does one sort this out legally if Sally suddenly decides that she has rights to the child, it being her egg, and she sues for parentage rights? Alongside this, Thomas also sues because he wants to have parental rights as well, given that it’s his sperm. And does Child Protective Services need to do all sorts of tests to determine whether Jim, Larry, Sally, Thomas and Becky would be fit parents, should they all get some parentage rights in the child?

The court mentioned the Uniform Parentage Act, which discusses a whole bunch of other considerations: “specific procedural requirements for the hearing to validate the gestational agreement, including a residency requirement; joinder of the spouse of the gestational carrier, if she is married; a required finding by the court that the intended parents meet the standards of suitability applicable to adoptive parents and a finding of voluntariness as to all parties to the gestational agreement; . . .  procedures upon termination of the gestational agreement; . . . procedures upon the birth of the child, including the issuance of a court order declaring parentage and directing the responsible agency to issue a birth certificate naming the intended parents as parents to the child; . . . the effect of a subsequent marriage of the gestational carrier; . . . and the effect of a nonvalidated gestational agreement.”

One can see the legal, social and moral thicket into which surrogacy agreements lead us. Given the current ascendancy of radical individual autonomy, worship of sexual expression in any and all forms which the participants desire, and the fragmented and broken nature of our family lives, the issues and questions are going to be framed in a certain kind of way. The Church, of course, has the opportunity to consider these issues and development her own framework for addressing them, based on biblical premises and conclusions. As always, this provides us with opportunities to speak in terms of the redemptive work of Christ. I hope we will take such opportunities, for it is God’s image-bearers, after all, with whom surrogacy has to do.


Written by Michael Duenes

February 2, 2014 at 1:00 pm