Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Religion News Service and others react to Idaho decision

Religion News Service is based at the University of Missouri School of Journalism. Reflecting on yesterday's decision in Idaho in their morning roundup:
Hey, a judge in Idaho struck down that state’s ban on gay marriage! Oh, I guess that sort of thing doesn’t really qualify as news any more.

On to more pressing matters …

Meanwhile, our friend Tony Perkins of Family Research Council must have realized that it is getting a bit tedious to call all of these judges “unelected black-robed tyrants legislating from the bench.” Last night's email was titled “Idaho Marriage Ruling Cannot Change Natural Lawrdquo; which is sort of like the the grownup version of “I know you are but what am I?” The hate group leader then went off into a Roe v. Wade tantrum:
Tony Perkins
The far reaching decision in Roe v. Wade was intended to resolve the issue of abortion, which 41 years later we know conclusively it did not. The definition of marriage, like the sanctity of human life, is seen in the natural or moral law. The decisions of courts can ignore it, they can even attempt to suppress it, but they will never eradicate it. If there is a fundamental right for anyone to 'marry', how will marriage be limited to two people? Once you open the hood and start tinkering with the components of marriage, there are no limits to what the judicial mechanics will do and how much it will cost.
Gee Tony. You left out the potential to marry one's dog or houseplant. After all that's just what people are advocating for.

Frank Turek is back (and redundant) with this head scratcher:
But same-sex marriage is not really a right but a preference. Some call it a right, but they are actually stealing the authority of rights from God and misapplying it to sexual behavior. They have invented a new moral right and are attempting to legislate acceptance of it on everyone else (actually, they are trying to have their new morality imposed by liberal judges).
National Organization for Marriage hasn't weighed in yet. At this point their PR firm has developed a boilerplate response. All they have to do is to [fill in the variables]. 
This is another example of an [unelected or Obama-appointed if applicable] judge twisting the constitution and the rule of law to impose [his or her] own views of marriage in defiance of the people of [state]. There is no right to same-sex 'marriage' in the United States constitution. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that states have the preeminent duty of defining marriage. The people of [state] did just that in voting overwhelmingly to affirm marriage as the union of one man and woman. That decision should be respected by federal judges and we hope that the U.S. Supreme Court ends up reversing this terrible decision.
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.