While Kevin correctly points out the LA Times “agenda driven jounalism” with regard to how they refer to the percentage of California voters who support preserving traditional marriage as a “narrow margin,” (even though it is actually 19%), they have also falsely repeatedly referred to “gay marriage” now being “legal” in California despite the fact that the initiative statute we the people passed in 2000 Prop 22, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, has not changed and can’t unless and until the sovereign voters in California either revoke or amend it via another initiative statute as per the California Constitution. Here is the letter I have submitted numerous times they have suppressed. If this isn’t journalistic malpractice, I don’t know what is. Regardless of how you feel about “gay marriage,” the fact of the matter is that it is not legal, and our politicians and especially our media have a solemn obligation to say so.
Open Letter to LA Times: Gay Marriage Not Legal In California, Massachusetts, or Anywhere Else in America by Gregg Jackson
Your story, “With gay marriage now legal in California, it’s the start of a couples’ crush,” in today’s LA Times, is totally false.
“Gay marriage” is not legal in California. We the citizens of California approved a voter initiative statute to define marriage as between one man and one woman in 2000. The judiciary lacks the requisite constitutional authority to overturn any statute passed by the voters. Only the voters themselves can revoke or amend an initiative statute they themselves voted to enshrine into statutory law as per the California Constitution. While the court is free to interpret the constitution of California and issue advisory opinions, they are not authorized to rewrite any of the laws.
Governor Schwarzenegger violated his sworn oath to only faithfully execute the laws and statutes of the state of California by illegally authorizing the illegal changes to the marriage certificates and illegally ordering Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to solemnize and perform same sex marriage ceremonies without an enabling statute. I can guarantee you that if he had violated his oath this egregiously to advance an issue to which you were opposed, it would have been a front page above the fold story every day until he was removed from office. But we all know that the LA Times is among the most pro “gay marriage” newspapers in the country. So, it’s not surprising you turned a blind eye to his illegal actions.
Nevertheless, It is vital that you acknowledge that “same sex marriage” is not legal in California. Neither the people nor their elected representatives voted to amend or suspend the current marriage statute that limits marriage to “one man and one woman.” Until they do, it remains illegal.
And while you are at it, you can run a retraction for your inaccurate above the fold headline which ran on Sat May 17,2008, entitled “Massachusetts lives happily with same-sex marriage law,” by Elizabeth Mehren. The marriage statute (Chap 207) of the Massachusetts General Laws has not been amended to include marriage between two persons of the same sex. As I noted in a previous “letter to the editor” you chose not to run a few weeks ago, the Massachusetts Supreme Court didn’t even have subject matter jurisdiction to even hear the case in the first place which means that the Goodridge majority opinion it rendered is constitutionally null and void. And the marriage licences illegally issued by then Governor Romney are as null and void today as when he began to issue them in 2004.
Bottom line: “Gay marriage” is neither legal in Massachusetts nor California.
You have a solemn obligation to acknowledge these facts and run a retraction for your readers. Anything less is journalistic and legal malpractice.
Looking forward to seeing if you choose to run this letter and acknowledge the truth.
Sincerely,
Gregg Jackson
Los Angeles, CA
Again, from Bruce at QandO,
“At 46 seconds in, “That’s why I passed laws … [which] extended health care to wounded troops who’d been neglected” (a citation at the bottom of the screen which reads “Public Law 110 – 181. PL 110-181 came out of HR 4986 – the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008).”
Karl Rove comments in today’s WSJ,
..in his first national TV ad rolled out Friday, claims credit for having “extended health care for wounded troops,” citing the 2008 defense authorization. That bill passed 91-3 – but Mr. Obama was one of only six senators who didn’t show up to vote. This brazen claim underscores the candidate’s thin résumé and, again, his chutzpah.
This different kind of politics is refreshing isn’t it?
It might be. Or it might have a little something to do with this,
Volcanic eruptions reshape Arctic ocean floor: study
PARIS (AFP) – Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists who filmed the aftermath reported Wednesday.
The eruptions — as big as the one that buried Pompei — took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.
Bruce McQuain of QandO points out the following,
Apparently science was convinced this couldn’t happen at the depths involved. Seems research was wrong. Sound familiar?
This is just another indication why it is insanity to rush towards the proposed, dracaonian solutions to global warming, when the research and scientific debate is so fluid, no matter what Al Gore says about it being “over”.
A couple of years ago I was on a grand jury which heard dozens of cases each week. About a quarter of the cases involved either child sexual abuse or child pornography. In each instance, the district attorney’s presented evidence, live testimony from child victims, graphic photos and videos. We went through this cycle time after time. It was sickening and something that has stayed with me.
The idea that child rapists are protected from the death penalty is obscene to me. We are not talking about shooting them, hanging them or electrocuting them. We are talking about lethal injection.
Justice Kennedy, once again, is on the wrong side of the issue. In the majority opinion, he says that the death penalty violates the eighth amendment,
The Eighth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.â€
Kennedy then goes on to write the following,
Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person, and the punishment of criminals must conform to that rule.
“Evolving standards of decency”? Dignity of the person? He’s not referring to a homeless panhandler, but a vicious, sadistic child rapist! WTF is he talking about?
Justice Alito authored the dissent, it is well worth reading,
“The Court today holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of the death penaltyfor the crime of raping a child. This is so, according to theCourt, no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic thecrime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be. The Court providestwo reasons for this sweeping conclusion: First, the Courtclaims to have identified “a national consensus” that the death penalty is never acceptable for the rape of a child;second, the Court concludes, based on its “independent judgment,” that imposing the death penalty for child rape is inconsistent with “‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’” Ante, at 8, 15, 16 (citation omitted). Because neither of these justifications is sound, I respectfully dissent….
…In summary, the Court holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically rules out the death penalty in even the most extreme cases of child rape even though: (1) This holding is not supported by the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment; (2) neither Coker nor any other prior precedent commands this result; (3) there are no reliable”objective indicia” of a “national consensus” in support ofthe Court’s position; (4) sustaining the constitutionality ofthe state law before us would not “extend” or “expand” the death penalty; (5) this Court has previously rejected the proposition that the Eighth Amendment is a one-way ratchet that prohibits legislatures from adopting new capital punishment statutes to meet new problems; (6) theworst child rapists exhibit the epitome of moral depravity; and (7) child rape inflicts grievous injury on victims andon society in general.”
Read the court’s ruling to see just how savage this rape of a child was. Justice Kennedy and the rest of the liberals on the court think that the man who did this does not deserve to die via lethal injection? Lethal injection? They are concerned with his “dignity”. I won’t say what he trully deserves. The idea that lethal injection is “cruel” punishment for a human being who would violently rape a young child is about the most outrageous thing I have ever read.
It’s as crazy as giving Kahlid Sheik Mohammed the same rights that you and I have. Oh yeah, Justice Kennedy did that too.
John McCain is CRAZY if he doesn’t make the court a major campaign issue, starting tonight. Go on TV and read this decision, then ask the American people if they want more of this nonsense, or less.
UPDATE: Obama knows this is bad news for him, so he comes out against yesterday’s ruling, as does McCain.
“I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes,” Obama said at a news conference. “I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution.”
Obama’s Republican rival, John McCain, also criticized the court’s decision, calling it “an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime.”
“That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing,” McCain said in a statement.
Ronald Reagan gave us Justice Anthony Kennedy, proving once and for all that Supreme Court justices are like a box of chocolates. That being said, Powerline’s John Hinderaker is correct,
Even Barack Obama couldn’t stomach this one, in an election year. But that’s only a ruse: bad as Republican appointees have often been, any Justice appointed by Obama would be selected precisely for his eagerness to impose his liberal views on “unenlightened” voters.
Patterico’s Pontifications is one of my favorite blogs. Written by LA County asst. district attorney Patrick Frey, the site is relentless when it comes to exposing the biases of the LA Times.
He has a great one today, highlighting the difference when polling data either fits their world view, or doesn’t.
Supporting Barack Obama, yep, that fits the LA Times agenda quite nicely. They are reporting that Barack Obama leads John McCain by 12 points in a national poll. They characterize that in the following way,
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has captured a sizable lead over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
Voters rejecting gay marriage, that doesn’t fit the LA Times agenda. Care to guess how they refer to a poll that showed voters oppose gay marriage by a 19% margin?
This is why I love blogs so. Thanks Patterico.
For the record, I favor gay marriage. It’s blatant media bias I object to.
James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), went to Washington this week, with the True Believers Playbook in hand. Not surprisingly, he demonized those who question his beliefs about global warming. Like many before him, he was over-the-top in protecting his beloved world view. Ellen Goodman equates skeptics with holocaust deniers. Al Gore uses the flat earth society as his comparison, while assuring us that the “debate is over”.
Over time, the insults have been replaced by intimidation. State climatoligists who have questioned the consensus on Global Warming have been fired or reprimanded in Deleware, Virginia and Oregon.
This week, Hansen lowered the bar even further. Threatening job loss is so last year. Now Hansen wants to criminalize the questioning of the global warming consensus. He is asking for the CEO’s of “Big Oil” to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming. Seriously.
This, from a guy who repeatedly complains that he has been censored by the Bush administration,
Congressman Darryl Issa (R-San Diego) … went on to say that an internet search showed Hansen had had stated on more than 1,400 occasions in over a year’s worth of interviews and appearances (15 interviews alone in the month that the congressional hearings were taking place) that the Bush Administration had censored him.
How censored was he if he mentioned it 1400 times? Give me a break. What’s wrong with censoring people anyway, isn’t that what he wants to do, and more, to “Big Oil” CEO’s? It’s not like Bush was threatening criminal prosecution or anything. What a hypocrite.
James Hansen is, shall we say, fully invested in the Global Warming disaster position. Literally. Al Gore is not the only card carrying member of the Global Warming Industrial Complex who has become a very wealthy man.
In 2001, the Heinz Foundation “awarded” James Hansen with a payment of $250,000 for his work on global warming.
In 2007, Hansen split a $1 million prize from the Dan David prize category of “Future Quest for Energy” (layman’s translation: a world without oil).
According to Investors Business Daily, “How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely ‘NASA whistleblower’ standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by [George] Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI), which gave him ‘legal and media advice’? That’s right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros’ flagship ‘philanthropy’ by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI’s ‘politicization of science’ program.”
It makes one wonder how much of Hansen and Gore’s fanaticism is driven by love of mother earth, and how much is driven by $elf interest.
Do I need a lawyer?
Sunday night I wondered aloud why Barack Obama has such a great reputation as an orator. I’ll agree that he gives a good speech. He can read a telepromptor. McCain can’t, he’s terrible at it and the comparison between the two is striking.
However, speaking off the cuff or in an interview or debate setting, I find Omaba ponderous and indecisive. He’s not a great public speaker, he’s a great speech reader.
Hat Tip: Barack’s White Lies