Defense of change

To Continue Reading, Please Log In

Forgot your password?

7-day subscribers of The Daily Sentinel have unlimited access to all digital content with their log-in. Guests must register for limited access -- 12 articles a month.

Already a 7-day subscriber? Start here to activate your online access.
Don't have a username and password? Register now


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

This week, our Supreme Court selectively and inconsistently applied its prudential “standing” doctrine to issue four “landmark” decisions – three of which incrementally advanced our Nation toward “a more perfect union”.

On Monday, having accepted the complaint of an academically unqualified plaintiff, it ruled that “affirmative action” admissions criteria at public universities require “strict scrutiny” – proof that considering race as a factor in admitting students is both “narrowly tailored” and the “least restrictive” way to further “a compelling governmental interest” (i.e., student body diversity).

On Tuesday, it disingenuously departed from well-established precedent by gratuitously granting “standing” to another dubious plaintiff that had not exhausted available remedies under the Voting Rights Action of 1965 (“VRA”) and by substituting its factual judgment for that of Congress.  By eviscerating the VRA’s “pre-clearance” requirement, the Court has reopened our elections to the chicanery of state/local authorities seeking to perpetuate “white” political power by denying minority voters “equal protection under the laws”.

On Wednesday, it ruled that the “one man, one woman” provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by needlessly discriminating against same-sex couples whose marriages are legally recognized in any of the several states.

Also on Wednesday, it held that proponents of California’s Mormon-backed “one man, one woman” Proposition 8 lacked legal “standing” to defend its constitutionality because – contrary to oft-repeated religiously-based arguments—“same-sex marriage” harms no one (nor undermines “traditional marriage”), much less “concretely injured” them.

In 2007, the walls of our public library were desecrated by religiously-motivated anti-gay placards – quoting Leviticus to virulently disparage LGBT families.  The Supreme Court has now disconnected the sacramental traditions of heterosexual (only) marriages from the constitutional privileges and immunities to which all citizens are equally entitled.

Thus, just as we now have a bright new public library, so too dawns a bright “new day” for gay rights.

  • Fire Chief/ems

    Directorwanted for a small Volunteer Fire & Rescue Department in...

  • Government

    Now hiring for the following positions:911 Dispatcher$...

  • Maintenance

     Private Lodge in Western Colorado. Required work experience...

  • ;sdljfk

    For immediate hire: Journeyman Plumbers,Pipefitters &...

  • Medical Assistant

     We are seeking a to join our busy nursing team.  6 mo...

  • Sales Positions

    The Circulation Department of The Daily Sentinel is looking to fill a part ti...

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Subscribe to print edition
Sign in to your account

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy