Editor:
It figures that left-wing liberals like Lisa Pampuch were jubilant over the recent California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay so called "marriage." So in accordance with her recent column's title (5/20), I'll be one of the first in line to offer my "onslaught." Pampuch's column beats the drums of standard age-old liberal arguments, i.e. mixing minority rights, civil rights, discrimination, etc. ad nausea, separation of church and state, blah, blah. In true form, Pampuch shows just how far left she will tilt philosophically with her comment "As I've said before, no government agency in this country has any business protecting the sanctity -- holiness -- of anything." Gosh Lisa, does that mean that the sanctity of life, as codified in the Penal Code for homicide needs to be tossed out, because after all, that's a moral judgment that has been written into law for thousands of years? And what about government's protection over children from sexual abuse? Are you saying that government has no "moral" responsibility to protect children from the monstrous predators who sexually and violently abuse and often kill children? How about rape Lisa? Shall we do away with all rape laws because, that's government protecting the sanctity of a woman's right of self-worth? Sorry Lisa, but in your typical myopic left-wing views, you support the killing of democracy, the will of the people by lawful vote with your verbal knife stabs. And that's what an "activist" judge does, subverts the people's will with judicial fiat. Consider comments from two of the justices who voted against the majority opinion: Justice Marvin R. Baxter, joined by Justice Ming W. Chin, called the ruling a “startling” act of “legal jujitsu” that “oversteps judicial power” by "judicial fiat." Baxter further stated that "...the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will." And that dear Lisa, is the problem: the legislative process has been trashed, dumped, junked--crash, bang, boom. That is not democracy. Maybe more like Nazism? But you say discrimination? Well dear, get over it. Life is full of discrimination, and not all of it is bad. As a democratic society we "discriminate" for example when we incarcerate criminals. The point is, the will of the people has been summarily trashed. And any citizen who is really concerned about the direction our country is headed, should be very concerned about this very bad judicial decision, be it from Republican or Democratic appointed judges.
It figures that left-wing liberals like Lisa Pampuch were jubilant over the recent California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay so called "marriage." So in accordance with her recent column's title (5/20), I'll be one of the first in line to offer my "onslaught." Pampuch's column beats the drums of standard age-old liberal arguments, i.e. mixing minority rights, civil rights, discrimination, etc. ad nausea, separation of church and state, blah, blah. In true form, Pampuch shows just how far left she will tilt philosophically with her comment "As I've said before, no government agency in this country has any business protecting the sanctity -- holiness -- of anything." Gosh Lisa, does that mean that the sanctity of life, as codified in the Penal Code for homicide needs to be tossed out, because after all, that's a moral judgment that has been written into law for thousands of years? And what about government's protection over children from sexual abuse? Are you saying that government has no "moral" responsibility to protect children from the monstrous predators who sexually and violently abuse and often kill children? How about rape Lisa? Shall we do away with all rape laws because, that's government protecting the sanctity of a woman's right of self-worth? Sorry Lisa, but in your typical myopic left-wing views, you support the killing of democracy, the will of the people by lawful vote with your verbal knife stabs. And that's what an "activist" judge does, subverts the people's will with judicial fiat. Consider comments from two of the justices who voted against the majority opinion: Justice Marvin R. Baxter, joined by Justice Ming W. Chin, called the ruling a “startling” act of “legal jujitsu” that “oversteps judicial power” by "judicial fiat." Baxter further stated that "...the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will." And that dear Lisa, is the problem: the legislative process has been trashed, dumped, junked--crash, bang, boom. That is not democracy. Maybe more like Nazism? But you say discrimination? Well dear, get over it. Life is full of discrimination, and not all of it is bad. As a democratic society we "discriminate" for example when we incarcerate criminals. The point is, the will of the people has been summarily trashed. And any citizen who is really concerned about the direction our country is headed, should be very concerned about this very bad judicial decision, be it from Republican or Democratic appointed judges.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment