Why They're Wrong, Pt. 4

Our "liberal" media is at work again. This column in Hernando Today, is about as wrong as possible. Not surprising coming from such a conservative paper. Here are some key points:

Judges should interpret laws, not make them.

That's not what the Constitution or our history says.

But that's what happened in California recently when the state's Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay and lesbian marriage.

Not true. The ruling just enforced already-existing constitutional law. Such law doesn't say anything about straight people.

The justices rejected both a 30-year-old "defense of marriage" law plus a 2000 referendum in which more than 60 percent of California voters reaffirmed that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only kind of "marriage" their state should accept.

It matters little how old a unconstitutional law is or how many people support it, it's still unconstitutional. People's rights aren't up to majority rule.

Massachusetts courts had approved gay and lesbian marriage a year earlier. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, is a Massachusetts senator (then and now) who probably spent too much campaign time explaining away his state's action.

Complete nonsense. Gay marriage had nothing to do with Kerry's loss. The war, 9/11, terrorism and the Swift Boat Veterans killed Kerry.

According to veteran political observers (including me!), the Massachusetts action most likely prompted a larger-than-anticipated turnout of conservative Florida voters to protest same-sex marriage.

But there's no evidence there was a larger-than-anticipated turnout of conservative voters.

Obviously, the appointed California judges are out of touch with the will of a large majority of the electorate.

They aren't supposed to be in touch with the will of the people, they're supposed to be in touch with the meaning of the law.

But I object to having their marriage issues shoved down my throat whenever I turn on the TV.

This is hateful nonsense. Nobody has a right to avoid seeing something on television. If you don't like what's on TV, change the channel. Beyond that, gay marriage is rare on television.

One in particular: Ellen DeGeneres lost viewers and sponsors on her previous TV show when she "came out." You'd think she had learned. No way; her response to the California justices was to announce her "marriage" to her long-time girlfriend on the show.

None of this is true. Ellen is more popular than ever and the show where she came out was one of the highest-watched television shows ever. Her show was canceled because ABC didn't support her.

Who cares? That decision should have been hers and her partner's to share, without bothering the viewers.

Apparently here viewers -- all of whom know she's gay -- care quite a lot. I haven't heard of even one voter complaint about the announcement.

There's a reasonable way to skirt judicial end runs around gay and lesbian marriage, be it in a referendum or in a constitutional amendment.

Trying to enshrine hate in the law is never reasonable.

In connection with an inevitable next round of simplifications of our tax codes, treat everyone, even conventionally-marrieds, as individuals — with the same benefits to all, regardless of partnership status. Maybe that's too ideal.

This sentence doesn't seem to make much sense. Maybe he's saying that everyone should get the same benefits, regardless of who they love. That I agree with, let's call it gay marriage.