Letters in the Times...
May. 19th, 2004 01:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
http://nytimes.com/2004/05/19/opinion/L19GAYY.html
President Bush says he believes that "the sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges" (front page, May 18).
That viewpoint is especially interesting in light of his speech in Topeka, Kan., where he celebrated the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education.
Mr. Bush remarked, "Fifty years ago today, nine judges announced that they had looked at the Constitution and saw no justification for the segregation and humiliation of an entire race."
Nine activist judges, perhaps?
Yes, nine activist judges. Sometimes I wonder what people think the system of checks and balances is for. Do they honestly think there's no need for judicial review?
No longer can it be assumed that the law by which society is governed reflects deeply held notions of moral wrong and right.
Actually, the law protecting same-sex marriages confirms that it can reflect deeply held notions of right and wrong, chiefly those that involve freedom and equality.
Same-sex "marriage," like abortion, contraception and euthanasia, is contrary to the natural law and thus should be prohibited by the government, whose main duty is to protect the common good.
*jawdrop*
*rereads*
*jawdrop again*
Dear god. Dear fucking god (sorry, sorry). How on earth does he see that 1. any of this is contrary to natural law (well, okay, I see the point up until euthanasia which is fully within natural law) and 2. see that natural law is in the interests of the common good? That's the part I don't get.
It doesn't matter what they say, though. People will protest, and fight, and it won't matter. Those days have already started to recede, and in another generation the same people who protest today will mostly have forgotten why, and the sillies will be shadows in the corner, people nobody wants to admit they ever were.
Wow. I'm an optimist today! That's new.
President Bush says he believes that "the sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges" (front page, May 18).
That viewpoint is especially interesting in light of his speech in Topeka, Kan., where he celebrated the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education.
Mr. Bush remarked, "Fifty years ago today, nine judges announced that they had looked at the Constitution and saw no justification for the segregation and humiliation of an entire race."
Nine activist judges, perhaps?
Yes, nine activist judges. Sometimes I wonder what people think the system of checks and balances is for. Do they honestly think there's no need for judicial review?
No longer can it be assumed that the law by which society is governed reflects deeply held notions of moral wrong and right.
Actually, the law protecting same-sex marriages confirms that it can reflect deeply held notions of right and wrong, chiefly those that involve freedom and equality.
Same-sex "marriage," like abortion, contraception and euthanasia, is contrary to the natural law and thus should be prohibited by the government, whose main duty is to protect the common good.
*jawdrop*
*rereads*
*jawdrop again*
Dear god. Dear fucking god (sorry, sorry). How on earth does he see that 1. any of this is contrary to natural law (well, okay, I see the point up until euthanasia which is fully within natural law) and 2. see that natural law is in the interests of the common good? That's the part I don't get.
It doesn't matter what they say, though. People will protest, and fight, and it won't matter. Those days have already started to recede, and in another generation the same people who protest today will mostly have forgotten why, and the sillies will be shadows in the corner, people nobody wants to admit they ever were.
Wow. I'm an optimist today! That's new.
