Who Determines Equality?

Dear Editor,

“Taiwan legalizes same sex marriage,” reads a popular news site.  A beneficiary claimed this is a, “sign for equality.” Another claimed this is proof that Taiwan, a democracy, is different from communist China.

Taiwan didn’t legalize same-sex marriage, the court did.  Voters supported traditional marriage, the precedent, at 67 percent.  The court forced the legislature to change the law to allow same sex marriage or be thrown out.  This is judicial oligarchy not democracy. Telling the legislature to rewrite law is a poorly veiled attempt to maintain veneer of democracy.

Justice Anthony Kennedy praised the wave of LGBT friendly legislation.  The Obergefell case sent a powerful signal that the court will throw out legislation inconvenient to political advocacy groups marketed as a protected minority.  The reasoning encouraged emotional blackmail over logic. Conservative legislators are constrained. They are afraid to promote conservative legislation that will likely unjustly be overturned.

Despite Justice Stephen Breyer warning, liberal justices ruled against centuries of precedent.   Liberal groups lamented Justice Kennedy’s retirement. Justices should not have been in the position to exert this much power in a democracy.  As another example of judicial interference, liberal parents are using children to sue the government for climate change. Democratic governments are better positioned to weigh tradeoffs and competing priorities inherent in policy making than courts.  President Barack Obama also criticized the courts for taking the case. If you lose a vote, get a better argument, don’t run to the court. Courts need to stop being so willing to referee.

Courts are abusing the equal protection clause.  They are forcing voters to treat different things the same.  LGBT is marketing itself as a protected minority group. The courts should not treat a behavioral/ideological groups the same as a race.  The process for granting rights to activities/ideologies is through a constitutional amendment. It isn’t to shop for sympathetic judges. Homosexuality is biologically and evolutionarily different from heterosexuality.  The act, all acts, have positive and negative consequences that should not be hidden as mere stereotypes. It is a different behavior that affects society differently. Voters viewed this as different in regards to marriage!  That was part of the voters’ decision process. Personal ideologies blinded the justices into thinking differences are the same. Judges ideology forced society to treat something the majority of Americans know is different the same.

What is the next difference the court will force voters to ignore?

Alan Burke


It’s Been A Long Dark Night

Dear Editor,

Living in these times is not easy.  Negative news overwhelms us daily and disrupts our lives sometimes to the point of anxiety and sleepless nights.  We struggle to maintain a positive outlook and go about our lives in a productive manner.  What are we to do?
Try taking to heart the words from Dolly Parton’s song, “Light of a Clear Blue Morning”:

“It’s been a long dark night.

And I’ve been waiting for the morning.

It’s been along hard fight,

But I see a brand new day a dawning.

I’ve been looking for the sunshine

Cause I ain’t seen it in so long.

Everything is gonna work out just fine

Everything’s gonna be alright,

That’s been all wrong.


“But I can see the light of a clear blue morning.

I can see the light of a brand new day.

I can see the light of a clear blue morning.

Everything’s gonna be alright

It’s gonna be okay.


“It’s been a long, long time since I’ve known the taste of freedom.

And those clinging vines that had me bound—I don’t need them.

I’m strong and I can prove it: I’ve got my dreams to see me through.

It’s just a mountain and I can move it.

And with faith enough there’s nothing I can’t do.


I can see the light of a clear blue morning….”

Bob Kollar