A Piece of Humble Pie
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court handed all the law professors engaged in homosexual activism a lesson in humility–and the law. In Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., CJ Roberts wrote the unanimous decision informing Eskridge et al. to take a hike and put your money where your mouth is.
It must be exasperating for liberal law professoriat to come to grips with reality–the reality of losing big time on a gay rights issue. In most lawschools, gays and lesbians tout their agenda brazenly and openly. At my alma mater, roughly 95% of the professors sent around a letter decrying the military’s policy of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and puffed out their chests exclaiming their dismay while chastizing the troops from their incubated office spaces. It was rather patronizing of them, but heck, law school is about promoting an agenda and not about teaching law.
Similiarly, the homosexual agenda isn’t about “equality.” Rather, it is the design of a tiny minority to overthrow the moral tradition of America by undermining through litigation and fearmongering the traditional family unit, particularly heterosexual marriage. You see, everyone who opposes gays and lesbian “rights” is a homophobe and the root of his or her opposition is seething hatred. Homosexual proponents believe that any logical argument contra same-sex marriage simply cannot exist and any argument proffered against gay adoption, gay marriage, etc., is vacuous and meritless–which, of course, is absolutely false.
Rumsfeld is great for America and for our military. I give it 8 thumbs up.
March 12th, 2006 at 4:55 am
amazingly, the idea of the court not expanding the “gays as a decriminated against minority” position is surprising!
… and encouraging.
Dry Bones
Israel’s Political Comic Strip Since 1973
March 20th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
How does Rumsfeld v. FAIR relate to gay marriage? Don’t get me wrong, I understand the Constitutional underpinnings of the Roberts decision, but I don’t understand how it relates at all to marriage (from either a logical or legal perspective). If you read the decision, you’ll see that the ruling has very little to do with laws concerning gay rights but rather centers on the Constitionality of the Solomon Amendment.
Also, you contend that FAIR’s ultimate goal is to “overthrow the moral tradition of…the family unit.” Do you really believe that the top law schools in the country got together for the explicit purpose of overthrowing morals? Can you not see a any moral virtue in their position?
March 20th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
TST,
FAIR v. Rumsfield was exclusively about gay rights. Specifically, the right of liberal law professors and universities to ostracize the military recruiters because of the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
The Solomon Amendment, according to the law schools (at least the 24 with the guts to be named publicly), is anti-gay. Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh’s statement upon learning about the decision illustrates that he believed FAIR was all about gay rights:
Yes, FAIR v. Rumsfeld is about morality. FAIR’s ultimate goal is not ridding itself of the military presence on campus, but forcing the government and Americans to accept the gay lifestyle. And, no I do not see any moral virtue in FAIR’s position.
March 27th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Oh, just for fun I thought I’d pass this along–you know, for the good ol’ days of our marriage rights debate.
Ten reasons why gay marriage is wrong. All are hilarious, so don’t worry. Via Steve Gilliard.
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/03/gay-marriage-sucks.html