My comments in bold.
-----------------------------
The reliably Left Bozeman Chronicle editorial board once again wades in over its head. This time it affirms gay marriage in a way that would leave the Founders scratching their heads.-----------------------------
Regarding social values in America, nothing in memory has changed more rapidly than attitudes toward gay rights. A mere 15 years ago, the idea that a majority of Americans would favor legalization of same-sex marriage seemed unthinkable as polling showed clear and strong opposition to the idea. (Indeed, the propaganda assault and guilt-shaming has been relentless. Dissent is shouted down with invective and hysterical name calling. Average people are afraid of having their lives ruined by the simple fact of their principled dissent. No wonder the tide of opinion has shifted. It's either change your opinion or have your life be destroyed.)
And yet today, a large majority favor this freedom, (Polls do not validate law or constitutionality.)
and the U.S. Supreme Court validated it last month, ruling 5-to-4 that gay and lesbian marriage is legal in all 50 states. (Actually, the court overturned democratically-passed laws, and ruled that there is no longer any such thing as marriage. In actual fact, the logic of the court argues in favor of any sort of arrangement to be called marriage.)
When things change that fast, it can be hard to accept for those comfortable in the past. In some cases, that’s been evidenced by virulent rhetoric voiced in opposition to the ruling. But it’s time to let cooler heads prevail. (There you have it. "Change" is a problem for certain unenlightened folks. They are backwards, they are clinging to their outdated mores. And their principled opposition, their meek dissent, or even their desire to be left alone, is "virulent."
But those who want gay marriage are the "cooler heads." This is typical leftist rhetoric, which abandons critiquing ideas in favor of ad hominem.)
Legitimate gay marriage is now the law of the land, like it or not. In our constitutional government, the U.S. Supreme Court gets the final word, and it has spoken. (Um, no. There is no such provision in the Constitution. This is an ignorant statement.
I wonder. Would the Chronicle have been writing such words back when Dred Scott decided blacks were property? Or Korematsu v. United States, which interred Japanese Americans during WWII? "It has spoken," right?
Has the Chronicle ever asserted similar words regarding Citizens United? Did the Chronicle ever tell us to shut up and accept this decision? No, I didn't think so. Because the Court is not the final word. It is not something that we all should get on board with. The Court can be overturned. Justices can be impeached. Justices retire. Precedent is not inviolate.
Indeed, the Chronicle editorial board doesn't even believe what it wrote. They base their assertions on outcome. If they like the outcome, it's settled law, it's written in stone. If they disagree, then it's outrageous, it must be overturned, it's on the wrong side of history.)
It’s now time for all of us, government officials and private citizens alike, to act accordingly and accept this new reality. (Can you imagine? Everybody must shut up now. The debate is ended. The simple act of continuing dissent is unpatriotic!)
The ruling was an extension of rights to a class of citizens the court rightfully determined to be unjustly denied. (Actually, no. There is no right to marry. Marriage is a privilege granted by law. A future court might reverse its decision, and the privilege could disappear.
True rights, however, do not depend on laws or court decisions. Rights are either "secured" by government or violated. Government cannot grant rights.)
We have a history in this country when it comes to rights denied. At every milestone in the battle to extend civil rights to blacks, for example, the right to vote and attend desegregated schools, critical words were heard that are similar to what we hear spoken today about gay marriage. (Similar indeed. The gay rights lobby hijacked civil rights rhetoric in its quest to legitimize its goals. That similarity was intentional in order to manipulate people.)
Those words were as wrong and hurtful then as they are today.
In as few as 20 years, the nation will look back and wonder what we could have been thinking in the years leading up to the recent high court ruling. Why would we deny this basic right to individuals based on sexual orientation? (No, I don't think so. Roe v. Wade was decided decades ago, and the opposition to it has never been more intense.)
It is imperative that we enter this new era without delay. Montana voters approved an amendment in 2004 that explicitly banned same-sex marriage. That provision, now judged unconstitutional, will remain until it is removed by statewide referendum. Civil rights activists are encouraged to pursue such a referendum — and voters are encouraged to support it. (Unstated here is that democracy has been subverted. The will of the people and the Constitution of the State of Montana has been overturned by only five people.
But yet the Left loves democracy...)
A law making homosexual acts illegal in Montana remained for 16 years after courts ruled it unconstitutional. Our state could do without another such embarrassing anachronism in our state’s laws.
With much of social change, there is a right and a wrong side of history. In this most recent instance, let us hope to know the difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment