Wednesday, February 18, 2004
NYTimes endorses criminal behavior
In today's NYT's the editorial page writes favorably about the "San Francisco event[]" in the "discussion about the right of gay people to marry". It doesn't mention at all that this act is in violation of California law, that it is illegal.
Jonah Goldberg points this out in a piece in which he writes that most people are fed up with reading about this debate. I think I agree, while this is galvanizing a minority of people, it is not engaging most Americans.
Goldberg writes that federalism is a great characteristic of this country, since it allows local majorities to live the way they want, which allows great diversity in the nation. He writes, however, that the flaunting of the law in instances such as Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco violating is oath of office, violates the good faith needed to allow federalism to function properly.
The NYTimes apparently supports this bad faith and illegality. But, are you really surprised?
UPDATE: The WaPo writes:
The President supports the law, why can't a lowsy newspaper do so as well? Oh, I know why, because it's against their political agenda, and they seem to regard their position on a bully pulpit as having no responsibliities.
Jonah Goldberg points this out in a piece in which he writes that most people are fed up with reading about this debate. I think I agree, while this is galvanizing a minority of people, it is not engaging most Americans.
Goldberg writes that federalism is a great characteristic of this country, since it allows local majorities to live the way they want, which allows great diversity in the nation. He writes, however, that the flaunting of the law in instances such as Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco violating is oath of office, violates the good faith needed to allow federalism to function properly.
The NYTimes apparently supports this bad faith and illegality. But, are you really surprised?
UPDATE: The WaPo writes:
"President Bush said today that he is "troubled" by the hundreds of marriages between gays being carried out in San Francisco and is "watching carefully."
"I strongly believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman," Bush said. "I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage. I have watched carefully what's happened in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued even though the law states otherwise. I have consistently stated that if -- I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. And obviously, these events are influencing my decision."
The President supports the law, why can't a lowsy newspaper do so as well? Oh, I know why, because it's against their political agenda, and they seem to regard their position on a bully pulpit as having no responsibliities.
Comments:
Post a Comment
