An excellent front-page story at today's USA Today, "Gay marriage? These voices say 'No' and explain why."
And an interesting, if flawed, piece from Michael McConnell, at the Wall Street Journal, "The Constitution and Same-Sex Marriage."
McConnell argues that when courts attempt a final resolution to contemporary hot-button issues currently working through the political process, especially at the state level, they violate the concept of political legitimacy. He then goes on to argue that the Supreme Court should rule that the group of private citizens defending Proposition 8 (in place of the State of California, which refused to advocate in defense of California's voters) doesn't have standing to sue, thus upholding the decision of the Federal District Court striking down the measure back in 2010. Get that? It wouldn't be right for the Supreme Court to resolve a hot-button political issue, but it would be perfectly fine to let stand the mob-rule decision handed down by the corrupt Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, a homosexual, now retired, who clearly had a conflict of interest in the case. Biased much, Professor McConnell?
Althouse has more, "'If the court dismisses the Proposition 8 case on standing grounds and strikes DOMA down on federalism grounds...'" (via Memeorandum).
Friday, March 22, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment