Established Law, Gay Marriage, and Liberal Hypocrisy

Gay marriage advocates, including elected Dem officials and liberal activist judges, operate under a glaring double standard.

Notice that they are drowning in hypocrisy.

From The New York Times:

New York's highest court today turned back an attempt by gay and lesbian couples to win equal treatment under New York State's marriage law, saying that the state constitution "does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex."

The court's ruling combined four different lawsuits by 44 gay and lesbian couples throughout the state, who argued that they had a constitutionally protected right to be married like heterosexual couples, and that to deny them that right violated the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the state constitution.

In a rare fracture, the six judges were split into a plurality of three, who signed the majority opinion; a concurring opinion by one judge; and a strong dissent by the other two.

The majority opinion agreed with lawyers for New York City and New York State that there was a rational basis — grounded in the stability of the family as a child-rearing institution — for limiting marriage to a union of one man and one woman.

But it left open the possibility that the state Legislature could decide to allow same-sex marriages.

"We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex," Judge Robert S. Smith wrote in the majority decision. "Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature."

Also today, Georgia's Supreme Court ruled on gay marriage.

From the Associated Press:

The state Supreme Court reinstated Georgia's constitutional ban on gay marriage Thursday, just hours after New York's highest court upheld that state's gay-marriage ban.

...Seventy-six percent of Georgia voters approved the ban when it was on the ballot in 2004.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case had argued that the ballot language was misleading. The ballot measure asked voters to decide on allowing both same-sex marriage and civil unions, which Russell determined were separate issues about which many people have different opinions.

State officials argued that Georgians knew what they were voting on when they overwhelmingly approved the ballot measure.

Today, gay marriage proponents were forced to swallow a dose of reality.

Gay marriage advocates correctly view the rulings as a defeat in their crusade to redefine marriage via judicial fiat.

The Times article points out the consequences of the defeat in court.

The court's decision was a crushing blow for advocates of gay and lesbian marriage, who have no further grounds for appeal, because they did not raise any federal issues in this litigation. It means that the question of same-sex marriage goes back to a divided legislature, where advocates acknowledge that winning support for gay and lesbian unions will be a long, uphill battle.

NO KIDDING.

In other words, same-sex marriage advocates can't count on a handful of people in black robes to grant them their wish. That amounts to "a crushing blow" for them because they know Americans are not in favor of redefining marriage. It's that simple.

My question:

Why do liberals expect the courts to aid in advancing certain aspects of their agenda, by ignoring precedent in some cases, while simultaneously using precedent to insist on upholding other decisions?

That sort of selective reliance on precedent is completely inconsistent and clearly politically motivated.


Think back to the confirmation hearings of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Roberts and Alito were bombarded with questions about whether they considered Roe v. Wade established law.

Remember all the bloviating from the Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee -- Ted Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold, and Herb Kohl -- about precedent?

They argued that Roe v. Wade is untouchable. It's established law, set in stone like the Ten Commandments.

Herb Kohl justified his vote against Alito based on the notion that Alito didn't clearly enough promise to stick to precedent and established law when it comes to upholding Roe. The others made similar assertions.

It's very hypocritical that activist judges, elected officials, and other assorted libs promote throwing precedent out the window when it comes to marriage but not abortion.

Listening to them, one gets the impression that the ESTABLISHED LAW on marriage as being a union between one man and one woman is not as "established" as the law regarding abortion.

That's quite revealing.

Political expediency trumps principle.

Apparently, from the Left's perspective, not all ESTABLISHED LAWS are created equal.