Is Anybody There?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says Yahweh Sabaoth" Zach 4:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dio di Signore, nella Sua volontà è nostra pace!" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin 1759

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Who Is He Kidding??????????

This morning Chief Justice Dennis Jacobs of the 2nd Court of Appeals issued a ruling striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.  Wait until you read his reasoning.
Justice Jacobs deemed homosexuals a “politically powerless minority”. Is he serious????? Politically powerless????? What planet has he been living on?
Has he seen the number of gays on network TV? Has he seen how politically active the gay rights groups are? Has he seen how corporations are bending over backwards to cater to the gay community, even though it is less than 2% of the population? They are anything but politically powerless.
Whether you agree with the ruling or not, whether you approve of gay marriage or not, this reason is downright insulting to gays. IMHO it plays into all the old stereotypes of sissy mama's boys.
Jacobs added that “DOMA’s classification of same-sex spouses was not substantially related to an important government interest. Accordingly, we hold that Section 3 of DOMA violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional.”
Now we get into where he really goes off the track. The government does have an interest, a very important interest when it comes to protecting marriage as being between a man & a woman.
Shall we start with the children. "Sociologists have demonstrated over and over again that the optimal nurturing environment for young children is in a home where they are raised in a two-parent family headed by a man and a woman who are married to each other. All good public policy will facilitate this ideal and discourage the recognition of marriage counterfeits." (Why same-sex marriage is bad for children)
That alone should be reason enough. I know, what about those adult children who had 2 mommies or 2 daddies that say everything turned out OK. I would ask, are you the exception that proves the rule?
Next, every civilization that has ever existed has been built of the foundation of marriage being between a man & a woman. Yes, in some times & places polygamy was allowed. But even then it was between people of the opposite sex.
But more often than not, polygamy either died out or was not an acceptable form of marriage. The basic structure has been that it is between one man & one woman. & for life.
It has been that way for good reason. "Because the best and most effective way to avert crime, poverty, drug abuse and other social pathologies is to have strong, intact families. 'Being raised in a married family reduces a child's probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent,' writes the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector." (Why Gay ‘Marriage Equality' Is Bad for America and Hurts Children)
So, yes, the government does have a very important interest, preventing the total collapse of our society, thus failing to "insure domestic Tranquility, . . .  promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" as our Constitution makes it very clear is the duty of the government.
Additionally, this is judicial activism attempting to subvert the political debate in order to impose a particular point of view that is neither what the majority wants or what the Constitution intended.
Judge Chester Straub, the lone dissenter in the 2-1 ruling said " “Courts should not intervene where there is a robust political debate, because doing so poisons the political well, imposing a destructive anti-majoritarian constitutional ruling on a vigorous debate. Courts should not entertain claims like those advanced here, as we can intervene in this robust debate only to cut it short.”
He got it right, Jacobs didn't.
Sorry Justice Jacobs, but you get an F in Constitutional Law. Let's just pray that the majority of those on the Supreme Court aren't fooled by his logic.

Update: (20 October 2012, 2:53 pm) Justice Jacobs, if gays are the “politically powerless minority” you claim they are, explain this: Academics intending to investigate the social effects of same-sex unions may think twice after the ordeal of Professor Regnerus
Source: Breaking: Bush-41 appointee strikes down part of the Defense of Marriage Act


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home Headlines

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Get this widget!
Visit the Widget Gallery