(Hypo)Critical Condition
(Ed. Note: Due to an utter lack of worthwhile material in the Post Standard today, this comment is regarding a story found on CNN.)
TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday unanimously struck down a state law that punished underage sex more severely if it involved homosexual acts...
The court said "moral disapproval" of such conduct is not enough to justify the different treatment.
In a case closely watched by national groups on all sides of the gay rights debate, the high court said the law "suggests animus toward teenagers who engage in homosexual sex."
Gay rights groups praised the ruling, while conservatives bitterly complained that the court intruded on the Legislature's authority to make the laws...
...A lower court had ruled that the state could justify the harsher punishment as a way of protecting children's traditional development, fighting disease or strengthening traditional values. But the Supreme Court said the law was too broad to meet those goals.
"The statute inflicts immediate, continuing and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justification that may be claimed for it," Justice Marla Luckert wrote for the court. "Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest."...
...Mathew Staver, attorney for the conservative Orlando, Florida-based Liberty Counsel, said the different treatment was justified by the state's interest in protecting children and families. He also said the court does not have the right to rewrite the statute.
"That's a legislative function," he said. "This is clearly a sign of an activist court system."
Hate to harp on an issue twice in a row, but this story just caught my eye because it is such a good example of why you have to be completely devoid of critical thought to drink the kool aid that the current batch of social conservatives is handing out. Here is a case of a State Supreme Court obviously making the right choice from a legal standpoint. There is no rational legal reason why homosexual acts should be dealt with in a harsher manner than regular old two-dumb-opposite-gender-kids-messin'-around sex. But the reaction from the right is completely typical and causes my eyes to roll so far back in my head that I can look into my sinuses.
I'm going to remind everyone of something that happened not that long ago. Remember when the shell of a woman named Terri Shiavo, whom doctors had diagnosed as being in a state of complete mental atrophy (a diagnosis later proven correct by an autopsy), was in the news every day because her husband, who was legally responsible for her, decided to stop treatment, including the forced feeding that kept the mindless body alive? Do you remember the outcry from the social conservatives, demanding that the courts step in and stop this perfectly legal, and in the end merciful, halt of care? They even demanded that Governor Jeb Bush become some form of State Level Dictator and swoop in to take command of a situation he had no direct jurisdiction over. These were not people interested in due process or legal justice. These were people who wanted the law to do exactly what they wanted, and if it didn't, the law could go fuck itself. Whether you agree with Terri Shiavo's husband's decision or not, you simply can not deny that the social conservatives sought every possible way, both within the law and above the law, to stop him.
Now, these same self-righteous shitbags have the nerve to say that the Kansas Supreme court, in declaring a law unconstitutional on the basis of equal treatment under the law, are an example of an activist judiciary. First of all, there is no way in hell that the Supreme Court in Kansas is a bunch of pot-smoking, Phish-concert-attending hippie radicals. Second, the job of the Kansas Supreme Court is to... insert drumroll... ensure the constituionality of laws passed by the Kansas Legislature. So, according to Matthew "Who Would Jesus Sue?" Staver, in doing the duty set for them by the Kansas constitution, the Kansas supreme court justices are being irresponsible. Now, this piece of rat shit got through law school somewhere, so I have a really hard time believing that he doesn't understand the function of the State Supreme Court. More likely, I think, is that Mr. Staver is a lying asshole who will say anything he thinks will stir up the masses of under-educated Americans who don't understand the function of the State Supreme Court.
How can people keep falling for this hypocritical bullshit? I understand that a lot of them have invested their identities in this nonsense, and pulling away would cause them to have to reconsider a lot of shitty things they've said and supported. But eventually, you have to have some pride, and a dose of self respect, and realize that these people are just preying upon your Christian upbringing and lack of sophistication. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of having to vote Democrat just to not have one of these wastes of carbon in office. When I need someone in the government to tell me who to screw, I'll let them know. Until then, I'd appreciate it if these so-called conservatives started balancing the budget and showing some fiscal responsibility and stopped flapping their priveledged pink gums about every topic that's none of their damned business.
TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday unanimously struck down a state law that punished underage sex more severely if it involved homosexual acts...
The court said "moral disapproval" of such conduct is not enough to justify the different treatment.
In a case closely watched by national groups on all sides of the gay rights debate, the high court said the law "suggests animus toward teenagers who engage in homosexual sex."
Gay rights groups praised the ruling, while conservatives bitterly complained that the court intruded on the Legislature's authority to make the laws...
...A lower court had ruled that the state could justify the harsher punishment as a way of protecting children's traditional development, fighting disease or strengthening traditional values. But the Supreme Court said the law was too broad to meet those goals.
"The statute inflicts immediate, continuing and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justification that may be claimed for it," Justice Marla Luckert wrote for the court. "Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest."...
...Mathew Staver, attorney for the conservative Orlando, Florida-based Liberty Counsel, said the different treatment was justified by the state's interest in protecting children and families. He also said the court does not have the right to rewrite the statute.
"That's a legislative function," he said. "This is clearly a sign of an activist court system."
Hate to harp on an issue twice in a row, but this story just caught my eye because it is such a good example of why you have to be completely devoid of critical thought to drink the kool aid that the current batch of social conservatives is handing out. Here is a case of a State Supreme Court obviously making the right choice from a legal standpoint. There is no rational legal reason why homosexual acts should be dealt with in a harsher manner than regular old two-dumb-opposite-gender-kids-messin'-around sex. But the reaction from the right is completely typical and causes my eyes to roll so far back in my head that I can look into my sinuses.
I'm going to remind everyone of something that happened not that long ago. Remember when the shell of a woman named Terri Shiavo, whom doctors had diagnosed as being in a state of complete mental atrophy (a diagnosis later proven correct by an autopsy), was in the news every day because her husband, who was legally responsible for her, decided to stop treatment, including the forced feeding that kept the mindless body alive? Do you remember the outcry from the social conservatives, demanding that the courts step in and stop this perfectly legal, and in the end merciful, halt of care? They even demanded that Governor Jeb Bush become some form of State Level Dictator and swoop in to take command of a situation he had no direct jurisdiction over. These were not people interested in due process or legal justice. These were people who wanted the law to do exactly what they wanted, and if it didn't, the law could go fuck itself. Whether you agree with Terri Shiavo's husband's decision or not, you simply can not deny that the social conservatives sought every possible way, both within the law and above the law, to stop him.
Now, these same self-righteous shitbags have the nerve to say that the Kansas Supreme court, in declaring a law unconstitutional on the basis of equal treatment under the law, are an example of an activist judiciary. First of all, there is no way in hell that the Supreme Court in Kansas is a bunch of pot-smoking, Phish-concert-attending hippie radicals. Second, the job of the Kansas Supreme Court is to... insert drumroll... ensure the constituionality of laws passed by the Kansas Legislature. So, according to Matthew "Who Would Jesus Sue?" Staver, in doing the duty set for them by the Kansas constitution, the Kansas supreme court justices are being irresponsible. Now, this piece of rat shit got through law school somewhere, so I have a really hard time believing that he doesn't understand the function of the State Supreme Court. More likely, I think, is that Mr. Staver is a lying asshole who will say anything he thinks will stir up the masses of under-educated Americans who don't understand the function of the State Supreme Court.
How can people keep falling for this hypocritical bullshit? I understand that a lot of them have invested their identities in this nonsense, and pulling away would cause them to have to reconsider a lot of shitty things they've said and supported. But eventually, you have to have some pride, and a dose of self respect, and realize that these people are just preying upon your Christian upbringing and lack of sophistication. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of having to vote Democrat just to not have one of these wastes of carbon in office. When I need someone in the government to tell me who to screw, I'll let them know. Until then, I'd appreciate it if these so-called conservatives started balancing the budget and showing some fiscal responsibility and stopped flapping their priveledged pink gums about every topic that's none of their damned business.
posted by Zafrod at 2:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home