By Diogenes (articles ) | July 07, 2006 10:48 AM
The NYT editorializes on yesterday's NY Supreme Court decision that ruled denying marriage to same-sex couples does not violate the State Constitution:
The ruling involved some twisted legal reasoning. Judges on both sides agreed that marriage is a fundamental right entitled to the highest level of constitutional protection. But the majority decision, written by Judge Robert S. Smith, an appointee of Gov. George Pataki, said this fundamental right applies only to heterosexuals. It said limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples could be based on a sense that children benefit from being raised by two natural parents, even without any hard evidence to show that.
No evidence could be hard enough to convince someone antecedently skeptical of this benefit, but in any case the NYT is misconstruing the decision. The Court did not deny the possibility of legalizing same-sex marriage legislatively, it merely said that the legality does not exist under present law, and that the law itself is constitutionally kosher. "Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long-accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals."
But note where the NYT locates the burden of proof: it's the defenders of marriage -- i.e., what we're being constrained to call "traditional marriage" -- who must provide "hard evidence" to acquit themselves of bigotry. Before a hostile tribunal, no social institution can meet that standard.
The NYT for some time has featured same-sex unions in its wedding columns. Institutionally, it is player --not merely a reporter--in the culture wars. For the Times to damn Judge Smith's legal reasoning as "twisted" is, contrary to intention, no mean compliment.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our June expenses ($15,085 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Jul. 10, 2006 7:17 PM ET USA
"The above pictured lay pastoral assistant is not wearing the vestments appropriate to the liturgical season." The above quote is the diocesan equivalent of the Matress Police busting into your house to announce: "There are NO tags on these mattresses."
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Jul. 09, 2006 12:38 PM ET USA
You said what about the Pope?
Posted by: -
Jul. 08, 2006 12:55 AM ET USA
The litmus test for determining the validity of a position on moral grounds, common sense thinking, or any other reasonable standard would be if the NYT is for it, one can safely be against it. Consider the source and laugh it off.
Posted by: Clorox -
Jul. 07, 2006 9:42 PM ET USA
Hey, is that a picture of a West Coast Jesuit provincial?
Posted by: -
Jul. 07, 2006 6:48 PM ET USA
normnuke: That just proves that it is a wise and just decision! Anything Howard Dean has a problem with is likely a well reasoned decision.
Posted by: normnuke -
Jul. 07, 2006 3:28 PM ET USA
For the record, Howard Dean has definitively declared the Supreme Court decision to be "bigoted".
Posted by: patriot6908 -
Jul. 07, 2006 2:22 PM ET USA
Expecting a balanced, objective report from the NYT, especially in the area of homosexual activism is a bit like expecting Pravda in 1980 to report honestly on the Kremlin. I cannot get upset about what the NYT does any longer as it--like so many other liberal, now quite Leftist, media sources, is solely a propaganda machine dressed up like a serious newspaper.
Posted by: Laity1 -
Jul. 07, 2006 11:25 AM ET USA
To the NYT, if we are to "..hold these truths to be self-evident...", i.e., not require certain proofs that could be subjected to tests, we must be 'twisted'.