Investigation Finds Forensic Flaws in Every FBI Case Reviewed »« WND Will Tell You the Exact Day of Jesus’ Return

An Incredibly Incoherent Letter to the Editor

Letters to the editor of a newspaper can be notoriously inane and incoherent, but this is one of the most ridiculous ones I’ve ever read. Every paragraph is just a combination of words that makes no sense whatsoever and leaves you tilting your head to the side like your dog does when he’s confused.

The harshness of logic and common sense is a powerful thing, and coupled with morality supersedes political correctness.

Oooookay.

Homosexuality, in all due respect, is a lifestyle because, since it is being taught in our schools in a way of indoctrination, and tolerance to its ways cements the common sense understanding that homosexuality is a lifestyle.

*headtilt* Hmmm?

When the courts told the states that their ban on homosexual marriage was unconstitutional, they then legislated a law without proper representation and approval, which made the judge’s ruling unconstitutional and unlawful.

It is not the judge’s prerogative to legislate or enact a law that is not legislated by the state or enacted through a referendum voted on by the people. A judge may only serve the letter of the laws enacted by the legislative branch of government, with executive approval, and this includes referendums.

No, I’m afraid that’s nonsense. When a law is challenged, the court must determine whether it is constitutional or not. And I have no idea what “serve the letter of the laws” might mean. I doubt he does either. This is like a game of madlibs at this point.

When a man or woman takes an oath on the Bible to become a judge, they are also promising God not to endorse a sin, in this case homosexuality. A man is made for a woman and woman for a man to be appropriately yoked to each to become one flesh, creating a family and an inheritance.

Once again, nonsense. First of all, there is no requirement that anyone swear any oath on a Bible or on any other book for that matter. And by this guy’s “reasoning” — and I use the term very loosely — the entire First Amendment would be gone. It is, after all, a sin to worship other gods according to the Bible and yet the very first clauses of the Bill of Rights guarantee the right to do so. Any judge who upholds that right is therefore “endorsing a sin.”

There is a separation of church and state, and the purpose of it is to protect the church and its people from the state and, in this case, federal judges and the government’s imposition of its will upon Judeo-Christian doctrines and beliefs.

Welcome to Christian theocracy. Sorry, the Constitution requires quite the opposite.

Comments

  1. Sastra says

    In the immortal words of law professor Jamie Raskin:

    “Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”

  2. says

    It is not the judge’s prerogative to legislate or enact a law that is not legislated by the state or enacted through a referendum voted on by the people.

    Striking down a law is not legislating, creating or enacting a law. It’s kinda the opposite.

    That’s what they’re supposed to do. If a law is unconstitutional, they’re supposed to take them down. By default, we’re free to live our lives, unless laws specify otherwise. That means the default for gay marriage is: allowed – unless a law is created to restrict it.

  3. cgm3 says

    When the courts told the states that their ban on homosexual marriage was unconstitutional, they then legislated a law without proper representation and approval, which made the judge’s ruling unconstitutional and unlawful.

    So, by this guy’s “reasoning”, should the legislature of Alabama happen to pass a bill restoring the institution of slavery as legal (just for an off-the-wall example), and the governor signs it into law, and “the courts” then declare it as unconstitutional, “the courts” will have legislated a law without the proper representation and approval, which will make their ruling unconstitutional and unlawful, and slavery will remain legal.

    All riiiiighty, then.

  4. caseloweraz says

    “Mention my name in Sheboygan,
    “It’s the greatest little town in the world…
    *
    *
    *
    “Mention my name, yes mention my name.
    “But don’t tell them where I am.”

  5. dugglebogey says

    How in hell do you get from “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” to “purpose of it is to protect the church and its people from the state”

    Yeah, it’s purpose is to protect the people FROM the church and it’s fucked up stupid and arbitrary rules about what you can eat, what you can wear and WHO YOU CAN LOVE.

  6. abb3w says

    Again — looks more phatic than semantic.

    When a law is challenged, the court must determine whether it is constitutional or not.

    More precisely — the function of the judiciary is to decide how to resolve controversies within law and equity; including more particularly controversies between conflicting laws; and more particularly still conflicts between legislative or referendum statutes and the Constitution; and thus allowing them to declare that a statue is null due to such conflict.

  7. Reginald Selkirk says

    to be appropriately yoked to each to become one flesh

    I’m not sure, but I think he’s talking about a human centipede.

  8. whheydt says

    I suspect that his “letter of the law” is some combination of demanding that courts ignore “legislative history”, outside comments about (such as happened in Dover and other creationist cases), and favoring Scalia’s claim of “original intent”.

    Sort of a correspondence to the principle in contract cases of restricting discussions to the “four corners” of the contract itself, at least where the contract is clear on a given point.

  9. Michael Heath says

    It annoys me to no end that the editors of the editorial page do not publish corrections below every single letter or article in its editorial pages.

    Journalists have an obligation to both inform their audience, and to not misinform their audience.

    I do want to see conservative Christian arguments in the editorial sections; we need to be informed about what this population is advocating. But that’s only the half of it, what should follow is a rebuttal to all the misinformation conveyed, for every bit of misinformation.

  10. Doubting Thomas says

    I believe the term is “word salad”. At least that’s how it was logged in patient notes in the psych ward.

  11. magistramarla says

    Hurray, numbers suddenly appeared next to the comments!
    This LTE looks like it could have come from my local paper. I read the comments there for amusement, but it’s a good thing that I don’t have high blood pressure.
    There is one guy there who comments every day and seems to truly feel that he is superior in intelligence to anyone else.
    The guy practically worships Charles Krauthammer, so that tells you a lot about his true intelligence. He reminds me of the cat cartoon character named Bucky who always thinks that he is right about everything, and won’t even admit that he is wrong after a scheme literally blows up in his face.
    There is also a very intelligent gay retired attorney who valiantly writes rebuttals to the wingnuts there. The poor man has a lot of fortitude, since they openly insult him and his partner.

  12. vereverum says

    @Michael Heath #13
    I used to think that too but have changed my mind. IMHO those who nod their head in agreement with the letter (usually because they have no clue as to what it means (which ought to ring an alarm but it doesn’t)) will just have their belief reinforced by a rebuttal by the liberal media. And those who see that it is nonsense will have a good chuckle and don’t need to see a rebuttal. Anyone between these two groups will do some research and join the second group.
    The editorial staff may be in the first group.
    “Journalists have an obligation…” is true for the news part, but this is the opinion page and, imho, should just be let ‘em have their say.

  13. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Jasper of Maine

    Striking down a law is not legislating, creating or enacting a law. It’s kinda the opposite.

    Uhh, no. It is creating law. In common law jurisdictions, like our own, court decisions are (semi-)binding precedent. There’s a term for it: case law. There are different kinds of law. Constitutional law. Legislative law. Case law. Executive decrees (law). You can be charged and convicted for breaking any of them.

  14. Sastra says

    magistramarla #15 wrote:

    This LTE looks like it could have come from my local paper.

    Ha! Ha! I looks like it could have come from mine, t — oh, damn. Caseloweraz’s song made me click on the link. It did come from mine.

    It wasn’t written by my first guess, though. The Sheboygan Press’ LTE is often a goldmine of theocratic rants. I used to answer them occasionally and set off a cascade of outraged rebuttals; then I got too old. Or, maybe, not old enough. Just sayin’.

Leave a Reply