![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() Just Above Sunset
July 25, 2004 - Stopping the Activist Judges from Destroying Life As We Know It
|
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
A bill was passed by the
US House of Representatives this week that singles out one specific class of citizens and denies them access to the federal
courts to defend their civil rights. WASHINGTON (BP)--The House of Representatives passed a bill July 22 that prevents federal courts
from legalizing same-sex "marriage" nationwide, giving traditionalists a significant victory just one week after the Senate
blocked a vote on a constitutional marriage amendment. Got it? Pass a law
that says the courts have no authority to review a particular law. Pretty clever! Bush is happy with it. … The major pro-family groups -- including the Family Research Council, the Southern Baptist
Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and Concerned Women for America -- supported the bill as a short-term solution until
a constitutional amendment can be passed. Of course. One suspects
this odd new law, should it move to the Senate, isn’t going to fly, no matter how hard Bush lobbies for it. … The bill's chief sponsor, Rep. John Hostettler, R.-Ind., pointed to Article III, Section
2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states in part: "[T]he Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and
fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Section 1 states that Congress "ordain[s]"
and "establish[es]" the lower courts. Really? I suppose,
bit it seems a stretch. This section of the constitution is beloved of wingnuts everywhere who dream of stripping the
Supreme Court of jurisdiction over a wide range of pet issues: abortion, Jim Crow, school prayer, you name it. Pass a law
that includes an Article 3, Section 2 exemption, and bingo! The Supreme Court can't declare it unconstitutional. At any given
time, there are usually at least half a dozen Article 3, Section 2 bills languishing in various committees. Obviously the right, conservative
flip side of "I have a dream…." Critics contend the bill is politically motivated and unconstitutional. Yep. It would probably
not be upheld. But Bush does want it. The bill that passed yesterday singles out gay citizens and denies them access to the federal
courts to defend their civil rights. The arguments are so transparent. Does the Defense of Marriage Act violate the constitution?
Then amend the constitution, the Republicans say. If you cannot amend the constitution, knee-cap the courts. And all this
is defended with the rhetoric of a man like James Sensenbrenner, who declared, "Marriage is under attack!" By whom, sir? All
gay people want is to join civil marriage, and be a part of their own families. To describe this deep human need, this
conservative impulse, as an "attack" on an institution revered by many homosexuals and their families is itself a piece
of callous demonization. And the precedent is chilling. If gays can be singled out and denied access to the courts, why not
other minorities? Blacks? Hispanics? If the Republicans can do this to exclude gays from access to the courts, why couldn't
Democrats one day do it to prevent conservative Christians? I loved this quote from a news story: Andy, Andy, Andy….
You supported Bush and his war and his tax-breaks for the rich and his screw-the-environment policies for so very long.
You’ve been used. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
This issue updated and published on...
Paris readers add nine hours....
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||