Tag Archives: rule
A federal appeals court has decided that the New York DMV can refuse to issue a license plate stating simply “choose life” because the DMV (and court) finds the plate “patently offensive.”
The rejection based on the “patently offensive” criteria is the same measure used to ban pornography from public view. The court ruled that since the message of life is “patently offensive” to so many New Yorkers, it could cause road rage, and therefore it is acceptable to ban.
Where do I start in criticizing this absurd ruling by the court?
Let’s start with the idea that it is better to ban a license plate someone might find offensive than to allow on the grounds that it may cause an incident of road rage. First of all, if adults are not capable of driving on the road with another car carrying a license plate with a message they disagree with without engaging in road rage – I’m not sure they are fit to have a driver’s license. This line of reasoning is in itself “patently offensive” as it implies that people are not able to control themselves when faced with a message they disagree with.
The Supreme Court has rejected appeals form five states, Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin, regarding the issue of marriage. This, effectively, legalizes same-sex “marriage” in those states. Some believe the issue of marriage is destined for a ruling from the Supreme Court and this appeals rejection could signal how the court will rule. Up to this point the court has stopped short of legalizing same-sex “marriage” for all 50 states, but this appeals rejection opens up speculation on what the court will do in the future.
Besides legalizing same-sex “marriage” in the five states seeking appeal to the Supreme Court, this decision will effectively legalize same-sex “marriage” in at least 6 other states in those appeals court jurisdictions, including West Virginia.
Concerning this decision by the Supreme Court ChristianNews.com recently wrote:
I’ve been following the judicial activism in states with traditional marriage laws as federal judges, acting alone, usurp the will of the people and enact sweeping changes unilaterally. For previous comments on states that have had marriage redefined for them within the past year or so, scroll down to see an earlier post. (Or click here for my first post on the subject.)
The first post centered around 13 states – conservative states – where marriage was being threatened by judicial activism. Since that first post, much has changed. Two more states were added, Georgia and Wisconsin. Of the original 13 both Utah and Indiana have now had marriage redefined for them – along with Wisconsin.
All in all this means that 15 conservative states where marriage laws protected natural, one man one woman marriage by a vote of the people have now had those laws wiped out by a single judge. That fact should trouble ever freedom loving American that believes our Constitution stands as a barrier to such radical activism.
For news regarding the decision in Indiana you can click here. For news on what is happening in Wisconsin you can click here. For news on what is happening in Utah you can click here.
I recently wrote about the trend of attorney’s general refusing to defend the laws of the states that elected them to defend their laws. I commented that this trend was accelerated by President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder refusing to defend DOMA. Once the president starts deciding which laws he will and will not defend it is just a matter of time before everyone else decides they can do it too.
Over the last year we’ve seen numerous attorney’s general decide not to defend state laws, while activist judges decide to strike down other laws. The latest in this trend comes from Kentucky where a judge said the state must recognize foreign gay marriages from other states. His declaration is in violation of Kentucky law, but that didn’t stop the judge from deciding to strike down the law and rewrite it according to his opinion. He reportedly ruled: