the media tightrope

Daily dose of BS

In λ, LGBT on July 29, 2010 at 6:23 AM

Wow, I don’t think my character traits and personal quirks have ever been as accurately encapsulated as they are in this insightful triumph of journalism. Apparently, I was not socialized properly and suffered from severe acne and debilitating adolescent insecurity, and THAT’s why I’m friends with gay men. Thank you Stephenson Billings for helping me connect the dots.

Try not to vomit as you read it. lolollll

Oh and also I gotta say that I am sickened and embarrassed at the overtly homophobic nature of  many of the Facebook posts that pop up on my newsfeed. I know that certain members of my family suffer from the tragically narrow worldview imparted by those few antiquated lines in Leviticus, and I’m sorry for that, but honestly I’m betting that my young cousins do not want potential employers and college admissions officers to see words like “fag,” “homo,” and “cocksucker” littering their Facebook pages. It doesn’t matter how “private” you make your Facebook, background checks happen and you can never be too careful. Just my two cents, in case any of them read this.

  1. […] those fathers who fear the truth of my exposé, I suggest that you would be better off dealing with your problems at home rather […]

  2. Hey! As the unofficial representative of Christwire, and one of its most avid trollers, you’ve been quoted, for or against your will, in one of their articles! Apperantly, they’re getting sued!

  3. latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wildmon-gay-marriage-20100813,0,1854572.story

    latimes.com
    A biased ruling on gay marriage in California
    U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker should have recused himself, but he had a legal and political statement he wanted to make.
    By Tim Wildmon

    August 13, 2010

    Advertisement

    The people of California spoke clearly at the polls in 2008 when they passed an amendment to the state Constitution that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The public debate was held, the media wars were fought, both sides spent millions of dollars and the people voted for Proposition 8 by a margin of 52% to 48%.

    The people’s will carried the day, as it is supposed to — until U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker came along.

    Last week, Walker nullified the votes of 7,001,084 people. In his decision to invalidate the constitutional amendment, he wrote: “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant.”

    This judge believes that defining a person by sexual behavior is the same as defining a person by skin color. And given the fact that he is widely reported to be homosexual, it is obvious he believed this before the case was even brought to his courtroom. Walker should have recused himself, but he had a legal and political statement he wanted to make.

    Colin L. Powell once said of this comparison: “Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

    This case will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court sometime soon, and there will be a 4-4 split in opinion, leaving the decision once again to one man in a black robe — Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

    The Constitution envisioned a system in which the judiciary would serve to check the excesses of the legislative or executive branches. But today, federal judges have far exceeded their intended role, becoming little gods in our republic. They have lifetime appointments, and their only accountability is the potential for impeachment.

    But in the history of our country, only 15 judges have been impeached by the House of Representatives. Of those, four were acquitted, seven were convicted, three resigned and one is still pending. In other words, Congress almost never removes federal judges. For all practical purposes, the checks and balances of the federal government no longer exist. The judiciary trumps. Our country is basically now run by judges.

    Thomas Jefferson warned about this possibility in a Sept. 28, 1820, letter to William Jarvis: “You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so … and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

    The Founding Fathers understood the selfish and sinful nature of man and therefore divided the government up so that no one branch would be all powerful over the other branches or over the American people. What we have today is judicial tyranny and exactly what Jefferson feared. Unless Congress asserts its constitutional power of impeachment, judges will continue to impose their personal opinions on whatever controversy is before them, regardless of what the Constitution does or does not say.

    In his ruling, Walker wrote: “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”

    This is clearly a judge imposing his personal opinions. What Walker is saying is that you cannot hold a valid view about marriage if you base it on religion or morality. Those are illegitimate considerations in his worldview.

    Contrast Walker’s dismissal of our country’s rich Judeo-Christian heritage with George Washington’s affirmation in his famous farewell address: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

    If moral and religious values are no longer valid, what does the judge put in their place? I would suggest, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, that we continue to rely on, and revere, “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”

    Tim Wildmon is president of American Family Assn., a national organization promoting traditional values.

    • 1. Again, of the possible criticisms of this ruling, the least legitimate angle is Judge Walker’s alleged homosexuality. “This judge believes that defining a person by sexual behavior is the same as defining a person by skin color. And given the fact that he is widely reported to be homosexual, it is obvious he believed this before the case was even brought to his courtroom.” Well there’s a deductive fallacy if ever I saw one. I also find the underlying assumption that the “sexual behavior” of homosexuals is a behavioral characteristic, aka a choice, laughable. I don’t know many people who’d choose a lifestyle defined by homophobia, harassment, and limited rights, do you? If you’d refer back to some of Judge Walker’s previous rulings you’ll see that he’s hardly a gay rights poster boy. Oh, and by Tim Wildmon’s fallacious logic, shouldn’t Colin Powell’s assertion that skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic be discounted as biased because Colin Powell is black? It’s a ridiculous comparison either way you look at it.

      2. Has Tim Wildmon read the Constitution? Was he unaware that Article III grants judges lifetime appointments? His confusion aside, he fails to recognize that the system of checks and balances is exactly what allows Judge Walker to rule on the side of civil rights. The judiciary has the capacity to check excesses of the republic. Prop 8 was indeed put to a vote, but it’s a product of California’s legislature so it’s fair judicial game. And as I’ve stated over and over again, issues of minority civil rights should not, under any circumstances, be put to a vote. We do not live in a direct democracy; the popular will of the people is not omnipotent. (If it were, Brown v. Board of Education would have been nullified in many states. And Gore would have been president in 2000. ha) More fundamentally, first-world nations do not allow the majority to victimize and oppress the minority.

      3. “This is clearly a judge imposing his personal opinions. What Walker is saying is that you cannot hold a valid view about marriage if you base it on religion or morality. Those are illegitimate considerations in his worldview.” Logical fallacies galore! That’s not what he’s saying at all. I get the sense that this guy didn’t follow the trial very closely. It’s ironic how people immediately point fingers at Walker, rather than the defense team who did an atrocious job at making any sort of case. That’s who I’d be mad at if I didn’t support marriage equality. No self-respecting judge, gay or straight, could have ruled in favor of Prop 8 after such an abysmal defense.
      This guy lacks a thorough understanding of Constitutional law, of how to formulate an argument, or even of the ruling he discusses. This is why it’s important to approach editorials with a critical eye. It’s too easy to accept what an editoralist says in blind faith, especially when one happens to agree with the article’s general point. I like reading and dissecting these types of articles because its good practice for my rhetoric and argumentation classes, but if you’re posting them in an attempt to broaden my understanding you might be better off looking beyond all of the journalism of validation in favor of something a little bit more meaty and well-reasoned.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: