Last week, the Connecticut legislature passed and the Connecticut governor signed a law granting gays and lesbians the opportunity to enter into a civil union. Liberal Yale professor Ian Ayres is excited beyond belief that this is the first time civil unions have been legislatively enacted (not thrust upon an unwilling populace by the judiciary). Hmmm . . . he seems to have omitted the fact that the law also specifically defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
More of Ayres stupidity:
“It is now impossible to argue that it just “activist judges” who force equality on an unwilling majority”: So, because one legislative body in a predominately liberal state determines that civil unions are an okay “family” structure then Voila!–no more activist judges! Yeah, right. The thought is so conclusory it borders on mere absurdity. Also, Ayres admits that judges who have forced gay marriage/civil unions on a state polity are “forcing” the gay nuptials/unions on the “unwilling.” Geez, that sure sounds a lot like a judicial oligarchy, not a democratic republic.
“[T]he hidden ambition of the proposed federal constitutional ammendment [sic] is really to preempt the democratic embrace of marriage equality that so many people see now as inevitable.”: Many people see as inevitable, huh? Are you talking about the 68% of Americans who oppose gay marriage?
The gays and their liberal advocacy parrots can continue to squawk about each little step a liberal governmental body takes toward “marriage equality”–whether it be the Massachusetts Judiciary or the Connecticut Legislature and Executive. Let ‘em have their squalid “victories.” Perhaps, they have forgotten that more Americans oppose gay marriage than favor it and that the Red State legislatures outnumber the Blue State legislatures.
This entry was posted
on Monday, April 25th, 2005 at 8:56 pm and is filed under Same-Sex Marriage et al..
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.