Court rules on bogus ACLU case
The Tennessee Supreme Court issued it ruling yesterday on the case ACLU of Tennessee v. Darnell. For those of you who are unaware, this is the case I blogged about back in March where the ACLU was attempting to say that the General Assembly did not, when the proposed Amendment to the Tennessee Constitution defining marriage passed both Houses, strictly comply with public notice requirements as required by Tennessee law.I pointed out that this claim was rediculous on its face, largely because the text of the amendment was published in every major newspaper in the State and not a few minor ones as well, and was being talked about on local radio and television and, of course, on the internet.
The Court had a different reason for turning the case down, however: According to the unanimous ruling, the ACLU had no standing to bring the suit before the Court. Passage of the Amendment is virtually guaranteed.
(Hat Tip: Michael Silence)
posted by Deacon David Oatney @ 7:00 AM
8 Comments:
David,
If this passes what will the GOP use as an emotional wedge issue to GOTV in '08?
SteveMule
I don't think it is a question of "if" it will pass, but "by how much." Will it be an Alabama avalanche (89%), or just an Ohio-style landslide (63%)? I think it will pass with around 75% of the vote.
I love how some liberals and/or Dems call these things "wedge issues," so called because they "drive a wedge" between social conservatives and the Democratic Party. They do drive a wedge, alright, but that wedge is there because it shows a critical difference between ourselves and the Democrats.
I have read the Democratic Platform, at least large portions of it. I daresay that most Democrats and most Republicans have not. The national leadership of the Dems-the people who contribute the cash-have a radical social agenda. That agenda is not shared by most of Middle America.
If pointing that out makes something a "wedge issue," I guess I'm guilty.
However, many of the issues that some call "wedge" aren't that at all-they highlight fundamental differences in an age when so many uninformed voters swear that there is no difference between the parties.
David,
Come on! Really, now, you and I both know these issues only pop up during election time. They're no where to be seen or heard otherwise.
How many Gays had sex last night?
How many Gays are in committed relationships?
How many Gays are hit-n-run studs/studettes?
How many Gays live in TN?
How many Gays live in your town?
How do you know Gays a threat to your marriage?
How are Gays a threat to your marriage?
You don't know. No one knows. There is no Gay threat - it's all rank homophobia playing to the conservative base to get them to the polls to vote for this atrocity - and since they're there they might as well vote for Republican candidates. When are you and other conservatives going to get tired of being PLAYED by the Republican Establishment?
SteveMule
Steve;
"Homophobia" is a made-up word of the militant anti-family left. If translated properly, the two parts of the word are "phobia"-fear of and "homo"-same.
The word that is Not One literally means "fear of the same."
The very fact that you think an amendment designed to protect the traditional family is an "atrocity" (and it is certainly your right to believe that) highlights the reality that there is in fact a fundamental difference between the two sides.
David,
You didn't answer my question. All you did was run to the talking points and a strange dictionary. Gays are not a threat to traditional families. The threats faced by traditional families are the same that ones they have always faced since since families started.
This whole thing is just another example of the failure of conservatism to address the issues of today and so it just wraps itself in God & Flag and seeks to divert attention to a phoney issue.
SteveMule
It is a threat to families of today, Steve, when the Left is seeking to redefine what a "family" actually is. Yes, that is a threat!
David,
How is it a threat? Declarative statements aside, how does an expansion of the definition of "family" threaten what is already defined as a "family"?
If "A = Family" is changed to "A and/or B = Family" how is the original "A = Family" changed and/or threatened? It's not. Do you really think this issue would be going to the polls if it were not an election year and Republicans were not facing serious problems? Please. You're being PLAYED!
SteveMule
First of all, believe me, it doesn't only come up in election years-the discussion just tends to get media attention during that time.
It is a threat because I believe a family is composed of a mother, a father, and children. Marriage exists between one man and one woman-that's marriage, period. Now, if we change the definition in civil law as to what marriage is (even though in God's eyes it remains the same), it will lead to the decline of A. We've already seen evidence of that since the 60's, with our widespread acceptance of divorce, and acceptance of out-of-wedlock birth as "normal." Where does it end? To many on the Left it will not end until society is completely secularized and redefined.
As to why this is coming to the polls now-it would have come much sooner (it was passed last year) and in most States, amendments come to a vote the same year they are passed. However, Tennessee's Constitution requires that all amendments to the State Constitution be voted on in the year a Governor is chosen.
Post a Comment
<< Home