Government impermissibly interferes in private lives by telling Americans whom they can marry. The high court must weigh in on the side of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — not to mention the right to be let alone — by making marriage an institution in which all can participate fully. [Emphasis added.]You just won't believe it.
It's Richard Mellon Scaife's editorial board at the Über-Conservative Tribune-Review.
Here's the editorial in full:
Americans who value individual liberty, limited government and the right to contract freely must hope that the U.S. Supreme Court, which has agreed to take up two gay-marriage cases, will rule that they can marry whomever they please.Hear Hear! To my friends on the braintrust, I offer my sincerest congratulations. You got this one absolutely right.
Presenting the better opportunity for — but no guarantee of — such a sweeping ruling is an appeal of lower courts‘ rulings that California‘s voter-approved Proposition 8 gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional. The other case, involving a widow whose $363,000 federal estate-tax bill would have been $0 had she married a man, not a woman, concerns the federal Defense of Marriage Act denying legally married gay couples benefits that straight spouses get.
Banning gay marriage — which polls suggest most Americans support and which is legal or soon will be in nine states — violates the Constitution‘s equal-protection and due-process clauses as egregiously as did slavery or interracial-marriage bans. So does penalizing gay spouses.
And with UCLA‘s Williams Institute saying just 4 percent of Americans, not Alfred Kinsey‘s 10 percent, are gay, claims about gay marriage — a minor societal factor overall — harming heterosexual marriage ring hollow.
Government impermissibly interferes in private lives by telling Americans whom they can marry. The high court must weigh in on the side of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — not to mention the right to be let alone — by making marriage an institution in which all can participate fully.
Now, when can we talk about that pesky climate change?
4 comments:
Maybe right. Maybe not..but .for sure, you agree...
"Enlightened Marxist Harry Belafonte was on with pal Al Sharpton this week. His advice for Obama was to imprison opposition like a “third world dictator.”.
Now this something demos can get behind can.
Ah, yes, another non sequitur from a commenting troll.
Meaningless, off-topic and designed to pick a fight.
No thanks - don't feed the trolls.
Moi?
Fm wiki:
In Internet slang, a troll ( /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted."
While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[4][5]
Government impermissibly interferes in private lives by telling Americans whom they can marry.
I agree
People should be able to marry who they love.
Even if they are already married or related.
Time to the overturn the polygamy laws.
Post a Comment