| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Dana" |
| Date: |
19 May 2004 07:35:39 PM |
| Object: |
Homosexual marriage and judicial tyranny join hands |
http://www.newaus.com.au/040103addisongaymarriage.html
Homosexual marriage and judicial tyranny join hands
Addison Ross
BrookesNews.Com
The New York Times Robin Toner attacked President Bush for proposing a
constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage. According
to Toner Bush is merely playing to his electoral base ? as if that was some
kind of political crime ? for which he will pay a heavy price with "centrist
voters who so often decide presidential elections?." He added, "?is the
country at such an ideologically polarized point that the middle simply
matters less?"
Is this guy for real? Doesn't he know that the great majority of Americans
are opposed to homosexual marriage, or any other arrangement that mocks it?
Of course he does. He is just too arrogant and self-righteous to care.
Moreover, didn't it strike him that the Dems continually play to their
"electoral base"?
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post followed the same basic line as Toner.
In fact, he went even further and sneeringly wrote that "?the compassionate
conservative of 2000 has shown he is willing, if necessary, to rekindle the
culture wars in 2004." Milbank is evidently one of those reporters who think
"compassionate conservative" is an oxymoron. A bit like leftwing reporter, I
suppose.
Blinded by their leftist ideology these Bush-hating journalists decided long
ago to abandon honesty and fair play in favour of their own political
agenda. This is why Milbank could make the absurd allegation that President
Bush has rekindled the "culture wars."
The culture war is a very real phenomenon and, as Milbank well knows, a
leftwing one at that. It's the left that has been relentlessly waging this
war against America, and it's an outrageous lie for the likes of Milbank to
suggest otherwise, particularly when leftist judges finally revealed their
contempt for the American people by acting like a bunch of black-robed
commissars.
This situation is the creation of judicial activists posing as defenders of
the constitution and the rule of law. A trial judge started the ball rolling
in Hawaii. He was then followed by a leftwing superior court judge in Alaska
who in turn was outdone by four unelected justices of the Massachusetts
Supreme Court who decided among themselves to overthrow the state's
constitution and literally dictate to the people's representatives.
The oldest constitution in America and the world's oldest institution were
cast aside by four arrogant leftwing activists. As if on cue, San
Francisco's Mayor Newsom decided to challenge California's constitution by
issuing marriage certificates in defiance of the law, even though
Californians voted for marriage as a state between man and woman.
As expected, judges refused to enforce the law against Newsom. No guessing
which party they vote for.
What we have here is a pattern of open subversion and outright lawbreaking
that so-called reporters like Milbank and Toner refuse to condemn. What this
amounts to is a declaration by Democrats that the rule of law is coming to
an end. The only laws they will recognise are those that are in accord with
their ideology and personal interests.
Make no bones about it, this is now the situation. Now that they cannot rule
from the White House and the other two houses hardcore Democrats have
decided to rule from the bench in the most brazen manner imaginable.
(There is nothing new in this appalling behaviour. When a Republican
dominated White House, Senate and Congress passed the fourteenth and
fifteenth amendments that were intended to protect the rights of blacks, the
Democrats openly defied them for decades with their obscene Jim Crow laws).
Clearly this is a rule of law question, of which the attack on marriage is
just one part. These people have decided that Americans are too reactionary
for their opinions to count for anything, therefore they, the commissars in
black and their media allies, will have to decide for them. The phrase for
this is judicial tyranny.
The likes of Milbank and Toner reveal their own ideological prejudices when
they impugn the motives of President Bush while allowing Kerry to get away
with disgraceful accusations and double-talk. Kerry now says he supports a
Massachusetts constitutional ban on gay marriage. This is after he condemned
such a ban as "gay bashing". He also argued that Clinton's Defense of
Marriage Act was unconstitutional.
But the same senator Kerry strongly supported the highly controversial Equal
Rights Amendment Act that would have made America's marriage laws
unconstitutional. Imagine how divisive that amendment would have been if
sanity had not prevailed.
Time and time again the Dems and their media sock-puppets accuse the
Republicans of divisiveness. And time and time again we find that it is the
Dems who are the source political divisiveness in our society. It is they
who insist on politicising everything, including marriage.
Margaret Cho is typical of the hardcore dems' contempt for reasoned and
honest debate. According to her Bush is "darkening our Constitution with an
amendment that forbids our rights instead of protecting them." Translation:
defending marriage is an attack on civil rights. This was taken from her
site and is pretty tame stuff compared with her vile accusation that
President Bush is guilty of killing people for oil.
One might ask why Milbank, Toner and the rest of the Dems' media stooges
don't find Cho's silly arguments and hateful comments divisive.
Kerry, Schumer, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc., now argue
that homosexual marriage is a states' rights issue. But this argument
confirms what I just said about them choosing and picking their own laws to
obey and amendments to support.
(Dixiecrats used the states' rights argument to defend segregation. But
segregation was not a states' rights issue because it clearly violated the
fourteenth and fifteenth amendments)
Only last year the Supreme Court struck down Texas' anti-sodomy law,
notwithstanding that it did not violate the country's constitution, which
now appears to be dead, or if not dead very close to it.
Kerry says he is opposed to homosexual marriage but the media largely refuse
to call him on it while training their political guns on Bush ? the real
enemy. If Kerry was honest he would either defend the states against
judicial interference or he would back an amendment. He refuses to do
either.
When we look at what is really happening we see that Bush had little choice.
Bullying Democratic judges forced the issue when they flouted their own
states' constitutions and wilfully exceeded their authority.
If Americans allow a thuggish leftwing judiciary to attack their
institutions and dictate to their representatives then they better enjoy
their freedom while they've got any left because liberty's hourglass will be
running down.
Editor: Reporting has been just as bad in the Australian media. For example,
Robert Lusetich is the Los Angeles correspondent for Rupert Murdoch's
Australian. Lusetich followed the Toner-Milbank by saying that bush is
"Seeking to revive his conservative base" (Bush pushes to ban gay marriages
26 Feb.)
That Bush may actually be motivated by deeply held convictions concerning
the constitution, the rule of law and the nature of marriage probably never
occurred to the lefty Lusetich.
The leftwing Marian Wilkinson, Washington correspondent for the equally
leftwing Sydney Morning Herald (aka the Saddam Times), was even worse.
According to this insightful journalist "George Bush has unleashed a new,
divisive debate in America's 'culture wars' (Bush supports push for gay
marriage ban 26 Feb.)
--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Homosexual marriage and Dana's Fetishes join hands |
19 May 2004 09:03:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 May 2004 00:35:39 GMT, "Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote:
The New York Times Robin Toner attacked President Bush for proposing a
constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.
Marriage is contract law
Has nothing to do with religion
What has this got to do with DANA
Keep a straight "moral" face and tell us
Make us laugh at you more.
========================================================================================================
From: ()Subject: golden/brown showers
View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.personals.fetish, alt.sex.fetish.watersportsDate: 1997/03/30
swm/34 houston tx. looking for females to use me as an oral slave.
no physical penetration,just use my tongue and mouth for your
satisfaction. will perform toilet service for both golden and brown
showers. will worship feet and *****. trampling and smothering ok
also. cyber or in person. ladies tell me your fantasy,on watersports.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
