"The executive director of the League of American Families, John Tomicki, opposing the petition of these couples, said before the proceedings, “We hope the court will resist the temptation to legislate from the bench.” That is a tired argument and was used to try to stop the Supreme Court from both declaring segregation illegal and supporting the rights of women to equal treatment. Legislating is an interesting code word. New Jersey’s Assistant Attorney General Patrick De Almeida took the same line in his closing statement, basing his entire case on the argument that this is an issue that should be decided not by the courts but by the legislature. Since when, I wonder, have basic human rights been granted by the vote of the legislature, rather than by the guarantee of the Constitution?"
Not only is he a bad pastor, he's an awful legal analyst as well. There is no 'code word' in denouncing 'legislating from the bench', it is a direct statement that judges ought not define a ruling based on judicial fiat, without a concrete basis in the text of the laws.
Without rule of law, we have judicial tyranny and from that NO RIGHTS AT ALL.
This man is an idiot.
I recommend using the headline add-on (Barf Alert!) in the future when you post such non-"newsworthy" articles...
:-)
The question of rights for homosexuals keeps surfacing in different guises.
Actually, the fallacy of "homosexual rights" keeps being put forward by leftists. Special rights above and beyond human rights because one feels predisposed to engage in an activity or chooses to engage in an activity?
An activity not Constitutionally guaranteed; an activity that society condemns; an activity that society has decided merits no reward or privilege?
--A couple quotes from the Reality Manifesto:
"Like religion, homosexuality is subjectively determined and declared -NOT objectively determined and confirmed via some objective scientific test. If one feels they are a homosexual and declares they are -who can disagree with them? Who can objectively identify a homosexual person? If those that declare homosexuality become a protected class or exceptional class of individuals warranting extra 'rights' above and beyond those already afforded all human beings THEN what is to prevent everyone from claiming the socially rewarded, prized, and critically acclaimed homosexual status?""Homosexual Rights"???"What of homosexual rights? Should rights be based upon sexual feelings (orientation) or even more on sexual activities that must be proved? It is a fact that feelings are subjective. Consequently, how can any rights be derived from something subjective? In fact, 'buying into' the subjective argument by default implies that rights are not God-given and or unalienable -rights instead are given to individuals arbitrarily by the State or created from thin air by the State and as such can be taken away arbitrarily by the State. The whole 'feelings' argument kicks our Founder's recognition of unalienable rights which is basis for our Independence, Union, and Constitution to the curb..."
ROTFLMAO