The Redhunter

The Washington Post is at it again. Today's lead editorial is - surprise! - against the Federal Marriage Amendment that would ban gay "marriage". Why? Let's hear it straignt from the Post:

Congress has failed to pass a budget resolution or any appropriations bills and remains deadlocked on such important public policy issues as corporate taxation and class-action reform.

Ok, so then if Congress did pass a budget resolution and passed the legislation on corporate taxation and class-action reform, the Post would then be in favor of the amendment?

Of course not. The Post would still be against the amendment. So what difference does it make whether this other legislation is passed or not?

The reason the Senate is moving forward is politics of a particularly crass and ugly sort: Gay marriage has become a national electoral issue. And Republicans believe it is one that can help President Bush, who has come out in favor of the amendment, and make life difficult for Sen. John F. Kerry (D)

The Post, of course, cannot conceive of the concept that Senate Republicans might actually be acting on principle.

Then of course they trot out the old "states rights" argument:

Federal law already ensures that no state can be forced to recognize gay marriages performed in another, and the federal government withholds such recognition too.

And when the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the federal law and mandates gay marriage nationwide, what will the Post say then? They will tut-tut and bemoan the courts decision, but will then solemnly intone that we must obey it's rulings. And, of course, once liberal orthodoxy is enshrined by a court ruling, it must never, never, be challenged again.

We are then informed that

The point of a constitutional amendment is to override the judgments of those states that might choose to permit same-sex marriage.

As if the "states" would actually be making the decisions. As I pointed out yesterday, the state supreme courts will second-guess anything their legislatures do. And the U.S. Supreme Court will second-guess them. The notion that the "states", by which I mean the people, will decide anything is disingenuous. And as Senator John Cornyn argued yesterday, this argument "borders on the fraudulent."

Then the real kicker:

We support gay marriage, though we have criticized the Massachusetts high court's decision. And if voters object strongly to what their court has done, the decision will not survive.

In favor of gay "marriage"? What a surprise.

And if the voters do object, what then? The Post offers no specific remedy. How about impeachment, or restricting the jurisdiction of the court? If voters try either of these you can be sure to see shrill articles in the liberal media telling is that the independence of the judiciary is being undermined.

Let's hope that Senators do not listen to the Post. |