Just days ago, a Missouri Circuit judge upheld a state law that places tough restrictions on sexually oriented businesses (SOB's). Attorney's for the SOB's challenging the law said it would provide an economic hardship in times when the economy is already in dire straits.
Judge Jon Beetem said “The law will undoubtedly change the business practices of the plaintiffs, and they will likely suffer some economic loss,” Beetem wrote. “But economic loss alone does not alter the analysis of the legal issues surrounding Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges.”
When asked about the economic impact more restrictions will have on Missouri's SOB's, Democratic Governor Jay Nixon said “I don’t think the future of my state will be built on that industry."
Analysts are saying the "Show-Me" state may now be known better for what won't be showing at certain business establishments. Family advocates say that's a modest step in the right direction.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Judge walks over voters, marriage
Advocates of traditional marriage were trampled earlier this month by a San Francisco judge who struck down California’s constitutional amendment which keeps marriage between one man and one woman. Judge Vaughn Walker apparently missed the memo about the seven million voters who support marriage between one man and one woman. Memos about the need for judicial restraint and the necessity for judges to recuse themselves in cases where there might be a conflict of interest apparently did not reach his desk either.
Over the last year, we’ve seen judges subvert the democratic process by substituting their personal preferences and policy choices for duly enacted laws. Most notably, in July, Federal District Judge Joe Tauro struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which garnered the votes of 427 Congressmen and was signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. Another federal court insisted that Ten Commandments displays are off limits in two Eastern Kentucky courthouses, perhaps a not-so-subtle indication that judges often confuse themselves with the Almighty Lawgiver Himself.
Judicial restraint is clearly in short supply these days, particularly on the federal bench, but now we’re finding that in this most recent case of judicial overreach, Judge Walker had a conflict of interest.
The biggest out-of-the-closet secret since the ruling is that Walker is in a relationship with another man—a detail which legal experts say should have led to his recusal. Walker failed to disclose his potentially disqualifying bias since it could benefit him and his partner should they choose to get married. Amazingly, Walker is now telling traditional marriage advocates that they cannot appeal the ruling because they lack standing. This is like a referee telling the ball team that since they are down at halftime, they cannot come back for the third quarter since they are losing. Such things happen when the referees are no longer objective and become allies with one of the teams.
Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota constitutional law professor told Fox News, "What Judge Walker's ruling means is you can sponsor a proposition, direct it, research it, work for it, raise $40 million for it, get it on a ballot, successfully campaign for it and then have no ability to defend it independently in court, and then a judge maybe let you be the sole defender in a full-blown trial and then says, 'by the way, you never can defend this.' It just seems very unlikely to me the higher courts will buy that." Carpenter, by the way, supports same-sex marriage.
Additionally, Judge Walker discredited the testimony of traditional marriage and family formation expert David Blankenhorn who was one of the two witnesses defending the marriage amendment (four other witnesses declined to testify because they feared for their safety). Blankenhorn’s testimony, according to Walker, “constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight.” Walker also took a swipe at the faith community when he said, "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."
Walker’s actions discredit the judiciary, which should be in the business of “calling balls and strikes” as Chief Justice John Roberts once said. When they get in the game and take sides, they become something other than a judge. The biggest losers in this sad story are the voters and the democratic process itself. Why vote if one judge can cancel the vote of seven million people? Why contribute to a cause if it’s likely to be defeated in court? Why care?
Walker’s actions were so egregious that the reliably liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put a hold on Walker’s ruling until December, thus preventing gay marriages from taking place this week. While Judge Walker once again opened the door to gay marriage in California, he cannot entirely overrule the verdict in the court of public opinion: marriage is between one man and one woman, and the democratic process is the most equitable way to decide such contentious issues.
Over the last year, we’ve seen judges subvert the democratic process by substituting their personal preferences and policy choices for duly enacted laws. Most notably, in July, Federal District Judge Joe Tauro struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which garnered the votes of 427 Congressmen and was signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. Another federal court insisted that Ten Commandments displays are off limits in two Eastern Kentucky courthouses, perhaps a not-so-subtle indication that judges often confuse themselves with the Almighty Lawgiver Himself.
Judicial restraint is clearly in short supply these days, particularly on the federal bench, but now we’re finding that in this most recent case of judicial overreach, Judge Walker had a conflict of interest.
The biggest out-of-the-closet secret since the ruling is that Walker is in a relationship with another man—a detail which legal experts say should have led to his recusal. Walker failed to disclose his potentially disqualifying bias since it could benefit him and his partner should they choose to get married. Amazingly, Walker is now telling traditional marriage advocates that they cannot appeal the ruling because they lack standing. This is like a referee telling the ball team that since they are down at halftime, they cannot come back for the third quarter since they are losing. Such things happen when the referees are no longer objective and become allies with one of the teams.
Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota constitutional law professor told Fox News, "What Judge Walker's ruling means is you can sponsor a proposition, direct it, research it, work for it, raise $40 million for it, get it on a ballot, successfully campaign for it and then have no ability to defend it independently in court, and then a judge maybe let you be the sole defender in a full-blown trial and then says, 'by the way, you never can defend this.' It just seems very unlikely to me the higher courts will buy that." Carpenter, by the way, supports same-sex marriage.
Additionally, Judge Walker discredited the testimony of traditional marriage and family formation expert David Blankenhorn who was one of the two witnesses defending the marriage amendment (four other witnesses declined to testify because they feared for their safety). Blankenhorn’s testimony, according to Walker, “constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight.” Walker also took a swipe at the faith community when he said, "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."
Walker’s actions discredit the judiciary, which should be in the business of “calling balls and strikes” as Chief Justice John Roberts once said. When they get in the game and take sides, they become something other than a judge. The biggest losers in this sad story are the voters and the democratic process itself. Why vote if one judge can cancel the vote of seven million people? Why contribute to a cause if it’s likely to be defeated in court? Why care?
Walker’s actions were so egregious that the reliably liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put a hold on Walker’s ruling until December, thus preventing gay marriages from taking place this week. While Judge Walker once again opened the door to gay marriage in California, he cannot entirely overrule the verdict in the court of public opinion: marriage is between one man and one woman, and the democratic process is the most equitable way to decide such contentious issues.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Strip club stabbing exposes Lexington's vulnerability
The Lexington Herald Leader reported earlier today that two men were hospitalized after being attacked outside a Lexington strip club at 3 AM today. Fayette County is one of only three counties in Kentucky without comprehensive restrictions on sexually oriented businesses which are required by law to close at an earlier time. Besides hours of operation requirements, there are other basic restrictions like a total nudity ban and distance rule that keeps strippers from patrons, that would stem the negative secondary effects of SOB's. Until these restrictions are in place, Lexington and Fayette County will remain exposed to seedy businesses that most would rather not have in their community.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Academic intolerance leads to expulsion of Christian counseling student
On July 27, a federal judge upheld the decision of an Eastern Michigan University (EMU) counseling program to kick out a graduate student who declined to counsel gay clients in an affirming way. Julea Ward, an A student in her studies, was expelled from the program when she asked her superior if another person could counsel a homosexual client. Instead of accommodating Ward, who believed that the situation would have put her at odds with her moral conviction that homosexuality is wrong, the university told her to undergo “remediation.” In other words: gay sensitivity training. The goal was to change Wards moral convictions. Does this mean that aspiring counselors who hold orthodox Christian views on human sexuality cannot become certified? The answer is yes, if you are enrolled at EMU. So much for tolerance and viewpoint diversity at that institution of higher education.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Institutional bigotry just peachy
If you are planning to study counseling at Augusta State University in Georgia and also believe that homosexuality is wrong then you will have to make a choice. Either you acquiesce your moral convictions or you find another school that is, shall we say, more tolerant and accepting of diverse viewpoints. Augusta State graduate student Jennifer Keeton is now facing expulsion for daring to express her view that homosexuality is morally wrong. When the perceived infraction was discovered by the tolerance police, um administration, they insisted that she enroll in a one year "remediation plan" which boiled down to gay sensitivity training that would teach her the correct way to think about homosexuality. Now isn't that just peachy? A lawsuit is now pending.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Pornography finding a new market
The Washington Times released a story yesterday about the increasing number of women using porn. This may have something to do with increased revenues. The porn industry took in $13 billion in 2006. But what are the effects on the women who are using it? To read more go to:
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Jack Conway's best ally
Since Jack Conway won the Democratic primary in May, it is becoming clear who is his biggest cheerleader and fan: the Associated Press. It has churned out stories about Paul's income, his medical certification and affiliation, and recent attendance at a D.C. fundraiser. The latest story focused on his new position in support of a border fence to control illegal immigration. He was previously against the idea. Never mind the fact that there are substantive issues like over the cliff and out of control federal spending, looming bankruptcy of Medicaid and 10 percent unemployment.
By making mountains out of Paul's molehills, the AP has become Conway's biggest ally. Rumor has it that they will do an expose' on Paul's problem with snoring and dandruff. Just kidding. I'm not sure if Paul snores or has dandruff, but the recent stories are thin veneer over the AP's apparent contempt for him. Where are all the negative stories about Conway? After all, didn't he go to Duke? Instead of straining at gnats and swallowing camels, why doesn't the AP question the candidates on issues that matter?
By making mountains out of Paul's molehills, the AP has become Conway's biggest ally. Rumor has it that they will do an expose' on Paul's problem with snoring and dandruff. Just kidding. I'm not sure if Paul snores or has dandruff, but the recent stories are thin veneer over the AP's apparent contempt for him. Where are all the negative stories about Conway? After all, didn't he go to Duke? Instead of straining at gnats and swallowing camels, why doesn't the AP question the candidates on issues that matter?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
