The imperial judiciary strikes again. "No rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," according to the judge. So reserving special protection for the optimal climate for having and raising children is "irrational"? Please. Certainly gays need certain legal protections, and always respectful treatment, but an activist judiciary forcing change on an unwilling public is hardly the way to effect even necessary reforms.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Contact & Other Information
Contributors
Key Links
Previous Posts
- Here's hoping that my alma mater, Princeton, won't...
- Shameless Self Promotion Moment
- Good luck to the left wing bloggers who scheduled ...
- Well, here's a newsflash. Reuters informs us that ...
- This piece on political symbols raises a good ques...
- Well, well. Finally, a man -- a Democrat! -- help...
- There is an ugly scandal brewing in Washington -- ...
- Eleanor Clift extols Hillary's mainstream wonderfu...
- Good Lord. P.J. O'Rourke does it again, commentin...
- I am very, very proud of my friend Paul. Hard to ...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home