OK, that’s probably not the most surprising title for an entry, be it either Rush or David Limbaugh.
And this isn’t really much of a story. But I found it interesting that in the great culture war (the one in which anti-gay activists claim that gay people are the cause of many, if not all, of society’s ills) logic, truth, and facts are often less important than hyperbole and emotional spin.
In WorldNetDaily, David Limbaugh writes a piece in which he trys to portray gay people as harassing heterosexuals. As an example of this harassment, he complains that “homosexual rights activists” in Massachusetts are challenging a constitutional amendment which would remove gay marriage rights (he doesn’t catch the irony):
The next item tells of a judicial challenge by Massachusetts homosexual-rights activists to a proposed constitutional amendment to end same-sex “marriage.” According to GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) the state constitution doesn’t permit citizen-initiated amendments to reverse judicial rulings. Now that’s a novel approach: A judicially created provision of the constitution is stronger than its original provisions and its legally adopted amendments. How could anyone present this argument with a straight face?
Well, perhaps GLAD could make that argument with a straight face because this is what the Massachusetts Constitution says about Initiative Petitions:
Section 2. Excluded Matters. – No measure that relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions; or to the appointment, qualification, tenure, removal, recall or compensation of judges; or to the reversal of a judicial decision; or to the powers, creation or abolition of courts; or the operation of which is restricted to a particular town, city or other political division or to particular districts or localities of the commonwealth; or that makes a specific appropriation of money from the treasury of the commonwealth, shall be proposed by an initiative petition; but if a law approved by the people is not repealed, the general court shall raise by taxation or otherwise and shall appropriate such money as may be necessary to carry such law into effect.
So Limbaugh is may want to consider being more informed before writing. Unless, of course, he finds basing a legal argument on the wording of the state constitution to be novel.