[Restorer]

You are perhaps intentionally misrepresenting my argument. I do not disagree that the law in questions appears to be flawed.

My disagreement is over the mechanism by which we should deal with these flaws. You seem to feel that the judge should ignore what the law says and substitute your opinions as to what the law should say for what it does. Or, that he should consult a "higher law" such as your interpretation of the Ten Commandments.

If you promote that in this case, on what grounds do you object when similar methods are used to promote others' agendas, such as gay marriage and special privileges for certain designated victim groups?

When laws are shown to be inappropriate, they should be changed through the legislative

[chimera]

I do not disagree that flawed laws should be changed. What I am saying is that we cannot accept unjust and immoral acts simply because they are permitted by (flawed) laws. We, as a people, must oppose unjust and immoral laws, if we are to retain any claim to being a civilized and compassionate people. Simply waiting around for the legislature to address unjust and inhumane laws, while in the meantime all sorts of cruel and heinous acts are committed in the name of those same laws, without opposition, would be to forfeit our moral souls.

I am a student of history and this state-sponsored killing of Terri Schindler shows me that we have not learned from history. Just because something is legal does not mean it is right. If we accept that, we are in danger of allowing our legalities to trump our humanity. The tribunal at Nuremberg recognized and affirmed this in their pronouncement of guilt on those German justices who likely knew of the wrongness of their laws, but nonetheless acquiesced in their enforcement, and thus opened the door to a wider holocaust, one of almost unimaginable proportions. That we are treading the same immoral ground today and few seem to care, or, worse, cheer it on, is profoundly disturbing to me.