How dare them! Who do they think they are! What absurd arrogance on their part! 11,581 registered voters gathered 345,199 signatures from registered voters who willingly signed the advisory referendum petition. The conclusion of the editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star? “Indeed, Illinois already has a law that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman so this is redundant.” (Peoria Journal Star editorial, “Same-sex marriage referendum a divisive distraction,” May 16, 2006, page A4)
Do the editorial writers know how difficult it is to gather signatures on petitions? I do. I’ve done it in Arizona including petitions to recall a governor. I can guarantee you that it was not redundant to the people who gathered the petitions. I can guarantee you that it was not redundant to the registered voters, over 8% of those who voted for governor in the previous election, who gladly signed the petitions. But, to the editorial writers it was all redundant.
Don’t the editorial writers read their own newspaper? Do the editorial writers have a short attention span that they forget recent history? Do the editorial writers think we are so stupid that they can say any lie and we will gullibly accept it?
We already know that Massachusetts allows homosexuals to marry because the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state law prohibiting homosexual marriage was unconstitutional. A headline in the Peoria Journal Star on 2/5/05, page A3 declares “Judge strikes down ban on gay marriage.” This court action occurred in the State of New York. The headline in the Peoria Journal Star on 3/15/05 page A2 asserts “California court voids ban on gay marriages.” The headline in the Peoria Journal Star on 2/21/06, page A5 trumpets “Baltimore judge strikes down Maryland ban on gay marriage.” Again I ask, have the editorial writers avoided reading their own news stories, have they forgotten recent events, or do they just think we are stupid!
In a January 20, 2005 story printed by the Peoria Journal Star the following was stated “The amendment (to prohibit homosexual marriage—my addition) was put on the ballot by the Legislature (in Louisiana—my addition) and approved by 78 percent of the voters. Eleven other states adopted similar amendments in the fall elections.” According to the Peoria Journal Star’s own news story, twelve states approved constitutional amendments to ban homosexual marriage in the 2004 elections.
Another article printed in the Peoria Journal Star on November 5, 2005, page A2 explains “The Oregon amendment, passed overwhelmingly in November 2004 as Measure 36, reads: ‘It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.’
Seventeen other states have similar constitutional bans.” According to this Peoria Journal Star story, eighteen different states and their people have found it necessary to amend their constitutions to prohibit homosexual marriage. Why? The answer is obvious. To prevent libertine, activist judges from ruling state law to be unconstitutional. Eighteen states thought it was not redundant to add a constitutional amendment to their respective constitutions because they know that libertine judges can subvert the will of the people.
Wait. That is not all. “Texas voters overwhelmingly approve a constitutional ban on gay marriage.” (Peoria Journal Star, November 10, 2005, page A3) According to articles printed by the Peoria Journal Star, at least nineteen states have passed constitutional amendments to prohibit homosexual marriage. Again I ask, don’t the editorial writers read their own articles? Do the editorial writers not know what has recently occurred in this country? Do the editorial writers believe we are stupid?
Note this also. The articles about the Louisiana and Oregon constitutional amendments were in the paper because homosexual activists legally challenged the constitutionality of the just passed constitutional amendments. In other words, the homosexual activists were trying to convince a judge in each of these two states that a just passed constitutional amendment to the constitution was unconstitutional!
WE know this to be true also. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that homosexual activity can not be a crime according to state law. The United States Supreme Court has ruled contrary to state laws that mothers can murder their own unborn babies. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that there is “a wall separating church and state” although no such provision can be found in the United States Constitution.
Yes, we need a constitutional amendment in Illinois to protect the institution of marriage from libertine, activist judges. We also need a Constitutional Amendment to the United States Constitution for the same reason. At some point in the future, libertine justices could very well rule that homosexual marriages must be allowed in the United States.
Originally, homosexual activists demanded that “government should stay out of their bedroom.” A libertine Supreme Court granted that demand contrary to the will of the people. Today, homosexual activists are demanding to be legally married as a civil right. The people need to protect themselves from libertine judges and justices who in the future may acquiesce to this demand.
The question is: Who is redundant? The thousands of Illinois registered voters who are participating in the political process or the editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star?
The question is: Is it time to boycott the Peoria Journal Star until they change their positions on the important issues of the day?
The question is: Is it time to boycott the businesses which support the Peoria Journal Star through their advertisements?
Do the editorial writers know how difficult it is to gather signatures on petitions? I do. I’ve done it in Arizona including petitions to recall a governor. I can guarantee you that it was not redundant to the people who gathered the petitions. I can guarantee you that it was not redundant to the registered voters, over 8% of those who voted for governor in the previous election, who gladly signed the petitions. But, to the editorial writers it was all redundant.
Don’t the editorial writers read their own newspaper? Do the editorial writers have a short attention span that they forget recent history? Do the editorial writers think we are so stupid that they can say any lie and we will gullibly accept it?
We already know that Massachusetts allows homosexuals to marry because the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state law prohibiting homosexual marriage was unconstitutional. A headline in the Peoria Journal Star on 2/5/05, page A3 declares “Judge strikes down ban on gay marriage.” This court action occurred in the State of New York. The headline in the Peoria Journal Star on 3/15/05 page A2 asserts “California court voids ban on gay marriages.” The headline in the Peoria Journal Star on 2/21/06, page A5 trumpets “Baltimore judge strikes down Maryland ban on gay marriage.” Again I ask, have the editorial writers avoided reading their own news stories, have they forgotten recent events, or do they just think we are stupid!
In a January 20, 2005 story printed by the Peoria Journal Star the following was stated “The amendment (to prohibit homosexual marriage—my addition) was put on the ballot by the Legislature (in Louisiana—my addition) and approved by 78 percent of the voters. Eleven other states adopted similar amendments in the fall elections.” According to the Peoria Journal Star’s own news story, twelve states approved constitutional amendments to ban homosexual marriage in the 2004 elections.
Another article printed in the Peoria Journal Star on November 5, 2005, page A2 explains “The Oregon amendment, passed overwhelmingly in November 2004 as Measure 36, reads: ‘It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.’
Seventeen other states have similar constitutional bans.” According to this Peoria Journal Star story, eighteen different states and their people have found it necessary to amend their constitutions to prohibit homosexual marriage. Why? The answer is obvious. To prevent libertine, activist judges from ruling state law to be unconstitutional. Eighteen states thought it was not redundant to add a constitutional amendment to their respective constitutions because they know that libertine judges can subvert the will of the people.
Wait. That is not all. “Texas voters overwhelmingly approve a constitutional ban on gay marriage.” (Peoria Journal Star, November 10, 2005, page A3) According to articles printed by the Peoria Journal Star, at least nineteen states have passed constitutional amendments to prohibit homosexual marriage. Again I ask, don’t the editorial writers read their own articles? Do the editorial writers not know what has recently occurred in this country? Do the editorial writers believe we are stupid?
Note this also. The articles about the Louisiana and Oregon constitutional amendments were in the paper because homosexual activists legally challenged the constitutionality of the just passed constitutional amendments. In other words, the homosexual activists were trying to convince a judge in each of these two states that a just passed constitutional amendment to the constitution was unconstitutional!
WE know this to be true also. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that homosexual activity can not be a crime according to state law. The United States Supreme Court has ruled contrary to state laws that mothers can murder their own unborn babies. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that there is “a wall separating church and state” although no such provision can be found in the United States Constitution.
Yes, we need a constitutional amendment in Illinois to protect the institution of marriage from libertine, activist judges. We also need a Constitutional Amendment to the United States Constitution for the same reason. At some point in the future, libertine justices could very well rule that homosexual marriages must be allowed in the United States.
Originally, homosexual activists demanded that “government should stay out of their bedroom.” A libertine Supreme Court granted that demand contrary to the will of the people. Today, homosexual activists are demanding to be legally married as a civil right. The people need to protect themselves from libertine judges and justices who in the future may acquiesce to this demand.
The question is: Who is redundant? The thousands of Illinois registered voters who are participating in the political process or the editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star?
The question is: Is it time to boycott the Peoria Journal Star until they change their positions on the important issues of the day?
The question is: Is it time to boycott the businesses which support the Peoria Journal Star through their advertisements?
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 12:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home