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?
Libertarian ... ???
I worked long and hard starting in the 1970's to undo the "marriage tax". Tell me sincerely such a tax will not again be possible under the proposed marriage amendment. Also tell me how my position against the "marriage tax" fits you libertarian label.
The same-sex proponents repeatedly cite "same benefits" when hashing over the issue, and they specifically mean government benefits more than any other.
You argue ideology against what is a rationally based institution... The same argument could be used against any number of socially agreed upon mandates e.g. public funding of public education or foster care of children.
Government is simply carrying out the wishes of society. In reality you argue against society and for anarchy and as such will remain frustrated as long as you are an unwilling member of a society you disagree with...
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.
How true...
You are quite correct in this observation -[they] are seeking a handout, their piece of the pie...
(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)
----- 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? ------
So the destruction of marriage IS the basis of my argument and you agree with it?
No fault divorce is yet another means for destroying the value of marriage. It tells people they don't have to stick through difficult times, just take the kids and half the money and go.
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.