Personal opinion takes precedence over duty
Original post made by Tim Hunt on Jul 4, 2013
Pardon me, but this 4th of July missive will be substantive instead of celebratory.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued several significant rulings in the final two weeks of its term, but the overturning of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 (marriage is between a man and a woman) in California, deservedly received lots of media coverage here.
What's remarkable to me is how few reports and commentaries on Prop. 8 get to the heart of the issue. The court did not rule on the validity of the proposition that was placed on the ballot through the initiative process by citizens. Instead, it ruled on what amounted to a technicalitydid the proponents of Prop. 8 have "legal standing" to pursue the defense. The court decided they did not and thus the ruling by the first federal judge that was upheld by the 9th Circuit held.
The entity that had standing was the state of California. Its citizens approved the proposition in the same election that President Obama was elected in 2008an overwhelming turnout by Democrats and young people. The proposition that marriage was defined as between one man and one woman won with about 52 percent of the vote.
The "out" for the Supreme Court came when Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris decided not to defend the will of the people of California.
To my mind, both of them violated their oath of office to defend the state constitution and instead let their personal views over-ride their responsibility as elected officials.
It was shameful and it is too bad that they were allowed to ignore their duty because of their political preference. Of course, President Obama made the same decision about the federal law that Bill Clinton signed 17 years ago when he was in the officeObama declined to have the feds defend the law of the land because he disagreed with it.
Do you want a further example of what's wrong with government?
Check out the statement by Kathleen Sebelius, federal secretary of health and human services, when she and the Obama administration ran roughshod over the Catholic Church and its related charities (universities, hospitals, St. Vincent DePaul Society). Obamacare mandates coverage of birth control and the morning-after pill regardless of the moral beliefs of the employers.
Her statement said, "The health care law guarantees millions of women access to recommended preventative services at no cost."
Really. Somebody is going to paydoctors and drug companies are not giving away their services and products.
It is an attitude that is prevalent in the current administration that the government can mandate programs and nobody has to pay the cost.
on Jul 4, 2013 at 10:15 am
Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.
Tim, Denying any group of people all the rights conveyed to other groups of people is wrong (my opinion, of course) no matter how many California voters attempted to do it. We've seen these changes before with the end of slavery and giving the right to vote to all.
on Jul 4, 2013 at 10:33 am
Casanova_Frankenstein is a registered user.
Praise Jesus! At last someone has the gumption to speak up for the oppressed Christian minority! Tim, you are a credit to heterosexual white Christian males everywhere!
Please, tell us more about what women should be allowed to do with their bodies, and, for the heathens out there, please explain to them why homosexuality is a grievous sin in the sight of the Lord and should be abolished in this Christian nation! By now, hasn't it been irrefutably proven that homosexuality will lead to bestiality and child abuse? Just ask Judge Scalia! And has it not also been proven that a fetus is a full-fledged American citizen with an empirically detectable soul? It's basic science and Constitutional awareness, people!
After all, did Jesus hang out with women and homosexuals? Heck no! He, like all the other disciples as well as his holy Mother, remained pure from the polluting influence of sexual temptation, in accordance with the scriptures. What's more, didn't Jesus tell us not to render unto Caesar our taxes? Didn't he tell us to place Mammon over God? Didn't he tell us how easy it would be for those who valued earthly riches to get into heaven? In other words, Taxed Enough Already! ESPECIALLY when those taxes go to non-white, non-straight, non-Christian, non-males.
on Jul 5, 2013 at 10:53 am
jimf01 is a registered user.
I agree that "Denying any group of people all the rights conveyed" to everyone is wrong. Absolutely wrong under the premise of equal protection. In the case of HHS and Sebelius, the Constitution guarantees all the right to free exercise of religion. When a law like Obamacare is passed, no 'rights' are conveyed. So no one, in this case is denied their rights.
Similarly with marriage laws, man cannot convey rights, so the ugly realization now is that government getting in to the (lucrative) business of regulating marriage should not have ever happened. It has given rise to various groups clamoring for the same 'rights' that government purportedly bestows on a man and a woman seeking to get married.
But the plain truth is that government does not bestow that right. They only regulate the process. Now a man and a woman can marry, and in some places a man and a man, or a woman and a woman can also. So the question is out there. What will we do when other groups come looking for the same right? What about a man who wants to marry two women? What about men who want to marry young boys? What about a man or a woman who wants to marry an animal? Shouldn't these groups have 'rights' as well?