Posted on 07/10/2006 1:54:05 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
July 10, 2006
In the world of the liberal media, there is no distinction between the judicial and legislative branches. If a particular outcome is deemed desirable, a court should so rule - the law and constitution in question be damned.
A good illustration of the mindset is on display in today's editorial in the Los Angeles Times, Setback for Marriage Justice , condemning recent state court decisions in New York and Georgia that declined to find a right to gay marriage.
Naturally the LAT expresses the fond hope that California's high court will adopt "a more enlightened view" when it takes up the issue in an upcoming case. The Times expresses its "revulsion" for what it deems "anti-gay marriage hysteria."
But what is absent from the editorial is any serious attempt to demonstrate what, if anything, was flawed as a matter of law in the respective courts' rulings. For the MSM, laws and constitutions are impediments to 'justice,' defined as the particular liberal agenda item of the day.
The final and most telling clue that the Times sees courts as no different from legislatures came when the editorial pouted about "a high court seemingly disinclined to address marriage." Disinclined to address? Courts are there to decide the cases before them. Legislatures and executives "address" issues. But for the MSM, when it comes to advancing the liberal agenda, who cares about shredding the constitutional separation of powers?
LA Times/NewsBusters ping to Today show list.
The LA Times in a liberal death spiral into a well deserved demise. Who on earth buys this rag?
Democracy my tookus. Liberals just want to have their way, regardless of what it takes or who it harms to get it.
I'm not asking government do to anything. If a state legislature wants to permit gay marriage, that's its right. I just want courts to stop legislating.
I am afraid that I must respectfully disagree with you.
The aim of government is or should be the furtherance of the common good. Homosexual anything is an ABBERATION, repeat, ABBERATION and not in the interests of the common good. Because of this, the government should legislate against same-sex marriage, unions, etc.
Also, maybe I am just dense but how in the world whould it be even theoretically possible for the government to "get completely out of the marriage business"?
"It seems ironic to me that "conservatives" want government to stop hounding religion, but make a 180 and want government to pass an amendment affecting marriage."
Good point however the tyrant judges who 'legislate from the bench' often overthrow the will of the people and legislatures by overthrowing the ban against Gay marriage.
So thats why we NEED the Amendment since the judicial branch diverts the will of the voters on this issue.
Your attitude is what dooms Libertarians to irrelevancy. It is simply silly to suggest that government “get out of the marriage business.” Government has been in the “marriage business” ever since there have been governments. The reasons are numerous but they include the desire for the people to have “official” sanctions for their unions even if they are not religious, the desire for rules regarding inheritance, the desire for rules regarding governmental and private benefits provided to families, just to name a few.
Now it may seem to you that private contracts are a perfect substitute, but your fellow citizens don’t agree. And in a representative republic, the will of your fellow citizens will carry the day. Just as we could disband the military and hire their function out, sell the roads to private corporations and let them charge tolls, privatize schools (something I support), abolish all environmental laws, sell the national parks, turn tax collection over to private parties (done during Roman times) and abolish the Federal Reserve and go back to gold and silver coinage.
Bill Buckley once proposed selling the nation’s lighthouses and letting insurance companies be responsible for navigation aids.
But getting the government out of the marriage business is not Libertarian, it’s just silly. Since government is in the marriage business, the rules should be established by the people, not a court systems that seems to want to have the last say on every facet of our lives.
Nonsense. Marriage has had societal implications beyond the religious aspect for eons. Marriage is about providing the most advantageous environment in which to foster the next generation of humans. Marriage is the institution that gives males the societal guarantee that the offspring they raise are theirs. Marriage is what has allowed females to spend their pregnancy and early child rearing years in an environment where her total support isn't Dependant on herself.
It wasn't until the advent of America, however, that there was much of a distinction made between religion and government. In some places, they were the two branches, with secular and ecclesiastical courts. In others, the religious hierarchy was the government.
All a gov't needs is "civil unions" for all parties to ensure when death or divorce occurs there is a clearly established date of contract.
Gov't should be agnostic when conferring its legal protections on consenting adults.
What really concerns me about our courts is that they have moved almost completely away from ruling on the constitutionality or legality of an issue, and into the political realm.
There are three possible outcomes of an appeal.
1) The law/constitution upholds a decision.
2) The law/constitution reverses a decision.
3) The law/constitution does not address the merits of a decision and therefore the legislature needs to add/change the law.
Unfortunately, #3 is rarely if ever found any more. The courts, when lacking legal/constitutional basis, revert to their personal opinion on what the decision should be.
And the reason the very same is happening in the USA is also gay marriage? Oh wait...
How do you see "no fault" divorce as contributing?
Good point on Denmark.
In fact Europe is so libertarian on social issues that they will soon finish off their 1500 years of history. In roughly 30 years, there will be enough young Muslims to start civil wars and hold territory. In 50 years, the remaining (and old) white Europeans will either be defeated or have fled (or have fought back earlier in a way that makes World War 2 look like a kindergarten fight - but that's unlikely).
The reason for all of this is that European society has jettisoned its need to perpetuate itself, and now has virtually no kids being born to whites, and huge numbers being born to Muslims (not to mention immigration).
Their are many reasons. Guilt (over their glorious past) is a big one and may drive other things, such as: Legal gay marriage (which cannot produce children); huge incentives for women to work, rather than have kids, and probably lots of other reasons.
The reason that treason is specifically called out as a crime in our constitution is that it is a threat to the continuation of this country. One could arguably make the case that gay marriage is also threat, and the courts could outlaw it on that premise - but all we ask for is to let the elected representatives decide the issue. This is not hard to understand and anyone who thinks courts should be imposing new forms of marriage without specific legislation being written should be jailed (in my opinion).
That's because states have voted down "gay" marriage and liberal judges block the outcome. If liberals can't get deviant behaviour measures passed by state legislation or the ballot box, they just go to activist courts to block the will of the people.
Excellent! Though nobody expects anything serious or thoughtful from a toilet tissue like the LA Times, it is always good to expose its editors for the sick hypocrites they are. "Kick the scumbags while they're down", I always say. You kicked 'em right in the face!
These LA Times editors are your typical "living Constitution" liberals for whom bedrock Constitutional principles are little more than bumps in the road for activist judges packed into funny little clown cars. You know - - liberal judges for whom the Constitution is a "living document" to be used merely as a "guideline" when they ultimately rule based on their own cowardly perception of the chic political correctness of the day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.