Tag Archives: supreme court

Here is my take on the lastest in the gay marriage controversey as published in the Palm Beach Post on Sunday, September 13, 2015

Palm Beach Post

Letters to the Editor

Sunday, September 13, 2015

 

Most don’t care about gay marriage

Is disobeying the law an act of nobility or criminality? Seems to depend on the issue. As a nation, we disobeyed the Prohibition law, and some routinely violate speed limits. The Southern Democratic Party spent more than 100 years disobeying federal laws, constitutional amendments and U.S. Supreme Court decisions to maintain segregation and white supremacy.

In fact, our much-touted “rule of law” is trumped by the rule of politics. This suggests that U.S. Supreme Court decisions are as influenced by zeitgeist as much as by strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Disobeying even unpopular laws can result in arrests, fines and/or incarceration. County Clerk Kim Davis of Kentucky was jailed for not obeying the Supreme Court’s ruling that all laws that prohibit gay marriages are unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.

It does not require a pro-active law to grant a constitutional right, as some supporters of Davis suggest.

While the 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage) is controversial, and constitutional scholars can be found on both sides, opposition is vociferous but not widespread. There are very small percentages of people who vigorously support, or vigorously oppose, gay marriage. Most Americans simply do not give a hoot one way or the other. That translates to acceptance.

One clerk in all of America standing in protest may be newsworthy but is still irrelevant. Gay marriage is no longer an issue worthy of public debate.

LARRY HORIST, BOCA RATON

My take on gay marriage as published in the Palm Beach Post on June 12, 2015

Palm Beach Post

Letters to the Editor

Friday, June 13, 2015

 

POINT OF VIEW: Time for GOP to see the light, accept gay marriage

12:00 a.m. Friday, June 12, 2015

As a conservative Republican, I believe it is time for the GOP to stop leading the charge against gay marriage. As an issue among the general public, it is a loser.

Soon, the U.S. Supreme Court justices will decide whether gay marriage is a constitutional right, and I believe that they will decide that it is. That should settle it. Efforts to overturn that decision with a constitutional amendment are a waste of time and resources — and doomed to fail.

I well understand the moral and religious opposition to the gay lifestyle, but that does not change one simple fact: The gay community has already achieved normalization in American culture.

To understand that fact, you need to go back to the days of my youth, when a myriad of laws punished gay intimacy. The suspicion of gayness would cost a person his or her job — even in liberal Hollywood, Calif.

Known gays could not purchase houses, serve in the military or adopt children. Families pretended that the “unmarried uncle” just never found the right girl. Gays could not receive spousal benefits and had no rights of inheritance. They most certainly could never run for public office.

Heterosexuals could not admit to having a gay friend. They could not teach in schools. Their families would reject them. Gays were subjected to harassment and violence with a “what do they expect?” response from society. Movies depicted them as either evil perverts or tragic figures. They had to hide in the shadows.

All of that has changed — and actually reversed. Homosexuality is no longer illegal, and public shunning has largely ceased. They are now highly visible members of society, even to the point of annual parades and public events attended by America’s political leadership — Republican and Democrat.

It seems that even young conservatives within the GOP have no problem with gay rights and gay marriage. Opposition from seniors is fading, as more express love and pride in their gay children and grandchildren (including former Vice President Dick Cheney).

If ever there was any truth in the old adage about “beating a dead horse,” opposition to the normalization of homosexuality in America is a prime example. Outside of a few issues relating to the personal rights of those opposed to the gay lifestyle, the greater issues are no longer influenced by political debate.

The American people have spoken.

LARRY HORIST, BOCA RATON

NEWS TO MUSE: Being Bibi; using polls to influence; the Chevy Chase presidency and political correctness v. the Constitution

Bibi beats Obama

Make no mistake about it.  President Obama’s people were behind a major effort to unseat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  Obama’s own doubletalk was designed to scare Israeli voters into believing that Netanyahu’s re-election would hurt the Israeli-American alliance.  Operatives, clearly aligned to Obama, and paid for by Obama’s financial backers, such as George Soros, were on the ground working against Netanyahu.  (This may result in a congressional investigation).  The Obama anti-Netanyahu sentiment was reflected in the post election comments by the President’s personal Rasputin, David Axelod.  When exit polls suggested a win by Bibi, Axelrod ranted, “Tightness of exits in Israel suggests Bibi’s shameful 11th hour demagoguery may have swayed enough votes to save him. But at what cost?

Polling  or wishful thinking

Speaking of the polls.  Was the failure of the polls to predict the Israeli election outcome yet another example of polls leaning to the left only to be upset by the reality of the voting booth?  We see this often in American elections.  It was also evident internationally during the Reagan administrations when the American left was rooting for a Daniel Ortega Sandinista victory in Nicaragua.   In a remarkable similar situation to the Israeli election, the polls showed an easy victory for Ortega.  Left wing organizations were also on the ground working for the Communist leader against Reagan’s policy.  Ortega was buried in a “surprise” election landslide.  I do know that some polls are corrupt enough to be rigged, but I think most liberal pollsters have a tendency to include too many left wingers in the polling samples.  They then save face by alleging a “last minute shift” or “surge.” That is a bogus excuse.  Within the last month of an election, most voters a locked in.  They do not change their vote.  Even the so-called independents are pretty much decided before Election Day.

The Obama’s channeling the Griswolds

In a 2008 pre-presidency interview, candidate Barack Obama promised the American people of workaholic president.  He said “The bargain that any president strikes with is, you give me this office and in turn my, fears, doubts, insecurities, foibles, need for sleep, family life, vacations, leisure is gone, I am giving myself to you.”  He added “that people should only run for president if they’re willing to make that sacrifice.”

Is this yet another example of a man who will say anything and mean none of it?

Obama and family have given new meaning to the term, “imperial presidency.”  The President seems to enjoy the trappings of the office more than the responsibilities.  The Obamas have logged a record breaking 38 vacation trips (exceeded only by the seemingly endless sequels of Chevy Chase’s National Lampoon vacation movies).  That averages to more than 6 vacations per year, not counting the many official business trips with time for play.

The extent of the Obama’s sense of privilege was evident when the President and Michelle left from the same location at approximately the same time for the same destination and they travelled in two different White House jumbo jets.

Your and my vacations have one thing in common with the Obama’s – we pay for all of them.  No need to budget when rich Uncle Sam is footing the bill.  So far, these pleasure trips have cost you and me officially more than $40 million.  I say “officially” since there are untold additional millions that are not charged as vacation expenses.

This does not include his 219 days on the golf course.  That comes to 10 percent of each year on top of vacations.  The president is also known to be off the deck during a lot of major events.  When as his whereabouts at moments of crisis, Obama engages the press in a White House version of “where’s Waldo”

The Lincoln-style rocking chair was the icon piece of White House furniture during the Kennedy presidency.  For Roosevelt it was the wheelchair.  In that spirit, I propose the Lazy-Boy lounge chair as the most appropriate symbol of the Obama presidency.

Liberal gulag politics.

This is really scary.  The hard core left in American politics it in full assault on free speech – among the most sacred of our Constitutional liberties.  We have long believed in a quote attributed, correctly or wrongly, to Voltaire “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  Over the years, the Supreme Court has protected virtually all speech – even speech offensive to the sensibility of the general public.

Under liberal oppression and political correctness, however, that concept is being declared null and void.

Not long ago, New York Governor Cuomo said that conservatives have no business in New York.  Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. stated that those who question global warming should be jailed.  More recently Al Gore said that people who question global warming need to suffer severe consequences.

People who violate the rules of liberal political correctness are to be subjected to criminal punishment, or at least committed to re-education (so-called diversity) programs.  Obama & Company attack critics as racists, malcontents, enemies of the state and even terrorists.  The very agencies of the American government, such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice, are all corrupted to oppress opinion.

In the radical liberal world, you can be profane, pornographic, sacrilegious, and obscene.  Political correctness does not apply to attacks on Republicans, conservatives, southerners and those who “cling to their guns and bibles.” Liberalism, like all authoritarian beliefs, views disagreement as a form of philosophic apostasy.

All this smacks of the old Stalin/Mao approach, where disagreement with the powers that be is viewed either as criminal or mental illness.