What Fresh Hell Is This?

May 23, 2014

A Doubly Rare Event

It's a rare event when the editorial boards at the Tribune-Review and the Post-Gazette write about the same thing on the same day.

It's even rarer when they actually agree.

Well, they did yesterday.

Since I give them (and rightly so) a hard time on their stubborn science-denial, I'll let the Trib's editorial board go first. They point out that like slavery, enshrined discrimination, the denial of due process, the ban on marriage equality is "egregious" and that:
...its blatant unconstitutionality becomes so apparent that it trumps the bigotry and prejudice that we rationalize as acceptable mores and folkways.
And:
On Tuesday in Harrisburg, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican, ruled the commonwealth's laws banning same-sex marriage violate both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment and permanently enjoined their enforcement. “(T)hat same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional,” wrote Judge Jones. “Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection.”

Astutely, the Corbett administration will not appeal.

Yes, there comes a time. And that time has come in Pennsylvania and the nation.
And here's what the editorial board of the Post-Gazette had to say:
Americans who were told that gay marriage would subvert traditional marriage have seen for themselves that this isn’t true. They have seen the unfairness of fellow citizens living ordinary lives refused the fundamental right to marry because they happen to be gay. In language both eloquent and practical, Judge Jones concisely sums up why Pennsylvania’s law violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.
And:
Some will resent that it was a judge, not the Legislature, who caused this momentous change. But fundamental rights are not for a majority to veto.
I am guessing they'd both agree with how the P-G tied up it's editorial, namely that "history is now on the side of those whose definition of freedom is inclusive of all Americans."

No comments: