http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=608&u_sid=1217166
Published Thursday
September 30, 2004
Congress' grab for more power undermines the separation of powers.
Compromises on such values-tinged debates as gay marriage, abortion and the Pledge of Allegiance don't appear easily forthcoming in America's current highly partisan atmosphere.
What should be indisputable, however, is the value of the separation of powers that has guided the country through so many other contentious and trying times in the past 200-plus years.
The growing strife between judicial and legislative branches evinced itself last week in two headline-making cases.
In Florida, the state's Supreme Court struck down a law passed by the state's legislature last year. The measure tried to circumvent previous court rulings allowing Terri Schiavo's husband to remove the feeding tube of the severely brain- damaged woman.
In the U.S. House of Representatives, members passed a bill that would prohibit any federal court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, from removing any words from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Although the Supreme Court recently ruled against a petitioner who sought to remove "under God" from the pledge, the case was decided on a technicality unrelated to the pledge itself. Some people voice concern that future cases might succeed.
Although the courts, like any institution, are subject to legitimate criticism, safeguarding judicial author- ity should remain one of the abiding requirements of our nation's constitutional system. That system has served the nation well by allowing majority rule while protecting minority rights.
Often, as in the pledge bill passed by the House, the legislation gives every indication of being political pandering for votes. Voters should firmly reject such dangerous incursions on the judiciary.
The sheer number of such bills shows the danger of the movement. In the past two years, there have been national attempts to circumvent the courts from ruling on gay marriage, flag-burning and the pledge.
Truth Truck - offensive display?
http://www.grandrapids-mn.com/placed/index.php?sect_rank=5&story_id=183696
Herald-Review
Last Updated: Wednesday, September 29th, 2004 02:54:32 PM
Editor:
To many people passing through Grand Rapids Wednesday afternoon, encountering a truck with a billboard displaying two homosexual men kissing was offensive. When I saw the picture, I too felt a sting in my conscience that made me uncomfortable. But why? The reason I was offended was because this thing is wrong.
The billboard’s caption posed a question: "Want Gay Marriage? Vote Democratic Nov. 2." Even the caption seemed a bit offensive on the surface because we have a democratic process by which we elect our representatives.
Upon further investigation, I found out the truth being referred to was that the vast majority of legislators who voted against traditional marriage were from the DFL party. Just for the record, 100 percent of the current Minnesota DFL senators and 93 percent of DFL representatives voted against traditional marriage.
What kind of practice is our government condoning if it legalizes same sex marriage? Certainly not what science has found to be the most beneficial environment in which to raise children, the care and instruction of a father and mother?
Is it not in the best interest of society to promote that which has been proven to be most beneficial to the total health and well-being of our children and society as a whole? Is it a wise move to propagate a lifestyle on the basis of pleasure without regard to the impact that lifestyle has on the children and future generations of our society?
Posted by Randy Thomas on Thursday, September 30, 2004 | Permalink