Friday, May 14, 2010

More on Piazza and Act One

I recently gave my deconstruction of Judge Piazza's ruling on Initiated Act One. That was the voter-passed act which barred co-habiting persons from adopting children. The act was in response to a previous court decision which threw out a ban on homosexuals adopting children.

The Dem Zette had a recent article about it, spewing their usual absurdities. I won't link to that article, because the Dem Zette has sealed off internet content to non-payers. Suits me. Truth starved masses can continue to come to me and others like me for information that is better than what you are paying them for. That does not mean that I won't deconstruct their article, and some more judicial-speak as well.

When the ban on homosexual adoptions was thrown out, the leftist judge in that case decided that the ban was too narrow, and thus "unconstitutional". The leftist judge in this case, Piazza, decided that the new law banning cohabiting couples was "too broad" and thus unconstitutional.

Neat how that works huh? Something does not have to violate an actual provision of the text of the constitution in order to be "unconstitutional", as that has simply become a code-word to mean "something that leftist judges don't like". It's always going to be either too broad or too narrow unless it is structured in such a way that it denies absolute truth. The reigning court philosophy is Judicial Nihlism. No wonder they just make up rulings by their personal preferences one case at a time!

I have to give Judge Chris Piazza credit for one thing, and its a big one. I would be a small man if I only assayed blame when due but never credit where credit was due. There are men walking the earth today mistakenly convinced that I hate them because of the way I describe their actions. It's rubbish. I bear no man ill-will. If they would do that which is right, I would be among those who praise their deeds.

Judge Piazza ruled that the ban could stay in effect until the State Supreme court rules on the issue. He could have stopped the ban from taking effect. Children caught in the crossfire could get yanked around depending which way the Supreme Court rules. Keeping the ban in place while the appeal was in the works was the sensible move that showed concern for the children caught in the middle of this and possibly respect for the will of the voters.

The state does not want to touch this hot potato. They are suspending all pending adoptions to cohabiting persons until this is resolved. Hey, the state workers always wanted to protect the children, that's why they originally had the ban on homosexual adoptions until a judge tossed it.

The ACLU's Holly Dickson had less concern for those factors than for pushing the homosexual agenda. She protested keeping the ban in effect until this is sorted out by saying, "There is clearly a shortage of good homes in this state." Yes there is, but assuming that the homes of cohabiting individuals, say practicing homosexuals, are good homes is begging the precise question voters thought they were answering when they passed the ban into law.

There were a couple of quotes from the Dem-Gaz article I thought were pretty rich. I'll pan them on the jump......


Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Article quotes a complaint that the act "forces adults to choose between becoming a parent and having any meaningful type of intimate relationship outside of marriage."

Well duh. Life does force us to make choices. Those choices define us. To choose one thing is to choose to turn your back on another. In this case I might add that it is nature itself which denies homosexuals the opportunity to become a parent, at least of their own offspring.

9:45 PM, May 14, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Quoting from a previous case "the court found that police power cannot be used to enforce majority morality on people whose conduct does not harm others".

That rule only applies when the judges want it to apply. It apparently does not apply to seat belt laws, drug laws, and a host of other nanny state nonsense. It is only when a law upholds traditional morality that synthetic standards like this are dusted off and trotted out. It's never used to restrain the rest of the growth of the police state.

9:49 PM, May 14, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

The Jegley decision threw out the state's sodomy law. In it, the leftist judge invented a different "standard."

"The government has not reason to get involved in "private non-commercial acts of sexual intimacy between adults"

So adultery is not actionable anymore, even in a civil suit? What about if someone has HIV and they still go around infecting people? And if "commercial" acts can draw government intervention then where does one draw the line? Is a woman with a sugar daddy subject to regulation or not?

Again, the "standard" is not very standard. It's just invented for the one case and then pretty much ignored until it is again needed to advance the homosexual agenda. That's because the real goal is to expel judeo-Christian morality.

9:55 PM, May 14, 2010  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home