news - Senator Cornyn Plays Politics at Roberts Hearings
news - Senator Cornyn Plays Politics at Roberts Hearings: "Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese made the following statement as Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, used gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues as a scare tactic at today’s Senate hearings to confirm John Roberts.
“Senator Cornyn only wants the Constitution to live and breathe when the court comes down on his side of the issue,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “His logic is flawed and he’s playing politics with the lives of Americans. If he doesn’t believe the court should change with the times, I wonder what he thinks of historic cases that have ensured equal rights for millions of Americans throughout the decades.”
Cornyn said:
“When, in its 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the court overruled a 1986 decision on the constitutionality of state laws based in part on collective moral judgments about permissible sexual activity, what changed in the intervening time? The Constitution? Clearly not. The members of the court? Yes, but should that determine a different meaning of the Constitution? Are some judges merely imposing on all Americans their personal preferences under the guise of interpreting the Constitution? Indeed, it was this same 2003 decision that formed the cornerstone of the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision holding that state laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman are illegal discrimination.”"
“Senator Cornyn only wants the Constitution to live and breathe when the court comes down on his side of the issue,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “His logic is flawed and he’s playing politics with the lives of Americans. If he doesn’t believe the court should change with the times, I wonder what he thinks of historic cases that have ensured equal rights for millions of Americans throughout the decades.”
Cornyn said:
“When, in its 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the court overruled a 1986 decision on the constitutionality of state laws based in part on collective moral judgments about permissible sexual activity, what changed in the intervening time? The Constitution? Clearly not. The members of the court? Yes, but should that determine a different meaning of the Constitution? Are some judges merely imposing on all Americans their personal preferences under the guise of interpreting the Constitution? Indeed, it was this same 2003 decision that formed the cornerstone of the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision holding that state laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman are illegal discrimination.”"
posted by Unknown at 5:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home