Thursday, February 05, 2004

We've Heard from the Court... 

"We've heard from the court, but not from the people," (Massachusetts Governor Mitt) Romney said in a statement. "The people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage." (Quote found in the Associate Press article entitled “Mass. Lawmakers Mull Gay Marriage Ruling” by Steve LeBlanc.)

That’s right, Gov. Romney. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has abused its power. The court has seen fit to circumvent the legislative process and establish law where none exists. While we may be shocked by the occurrence of this type of judicial activity, Thomas Jefferson actually predicted it.

James M. Murk of New Auburn, Wisconsin writes:
Thomas Jefferson himself saw the possible result of the weakness of not stating the limits of judicial power. He recognized that it could eventually subject the nation to the “despotism of an oligarchy.” He said, “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in…the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body…working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States.” In the last 50 years we have seen this prophecy gradually come true. It remains to be seen how much power and jurisdiction the Republican reformers in the present Congress can return to the States thus decentralizing what has become a national rather than a federal government. If any of the three branches of our government should have preeminence, it would naturally be the Congress because it most closely represents all the people of America. The judiciary in America all too often has been guilty of nullifying both State and popular sovereignty.

(James M. Murk’s article “The New Leftist Doctrine Of The Separation Of Church And State And The Responsibility Of The Supreme Court” can be found in its entirety at: http://www.murkfamilyministries.org/Articles/church&state.html)

Wednesday, February 04, 2004

Thoughts on the Super Bowl Halftime Show 

The Super Bowl halftime show is a network television event of a special nature. Given the fact that viewers tune in to the game in order to watch not only the game but the commercials as well, it is one of a few, rare occasions where the remote is not in the hand of the viewer, ready to change channels at a moment’s notice. The network has a virtually captive audience at its disposal. It exercises a type of power over the audience. In the case of this year’s halftime show, the power was severely abused.

Even before the Super Bowl halftime show’s objectionable ending, there were multiple incidents of an offensive nature. Take for example the men adjusting themselves. Am I a prude because a man’s adjusting himself and thrusting his pelvis offends me? I recall when it was humiliating to have to zip your fly in public if you had left it down by mistake. Am I the only one who is still so “easily” humiliated?

I remember a time when a bra strap showing from under a garment drew embarrassed giggles. Now women dancers on a stage performing in front of millions of viewers wear nothing but bras and panties. Is bare skin really so attractive? What about long, sequined gowns that flow when you twirl? Bare skin doesn’t do that.

To start off the show, the audience was presented with a “Choose” message. It’s not that the message is objectionable by itself, but it seemed out of place in the context of halftime entertainment. The follow-up ads shown in recent days demonstrate that the “Choose to Vote” message is one of political significance, bent on replacing the current president. Alarms were going off in my head at the time the message was being presented. I was wondering if I should be concerned with the fact that the word “choose” is so closely associated with a woman’s reproductive “rights”. Could there be any significance to that seeming coincidence? Looking back, I should have heeded this “Choose” message as a warning of what was to come and changed the channel. Hindsight of course is always 20/20.

An incident that didn’t really draw much press, but should have in my opinion, was the coarse treatment of the American flag. Those who would burn the American flag in the streets were given a day off by an American citizen and entertainer who was doing their job for them. My eyes well up with tears any time I stand in reverence with a crowd singing the national anthem before a sporting event. The beauty and meaning of the words bring to mind images of soldiers in wars past rallying around a country whose flag so masterfully reflects its freedom and bravery. Another image of an American flag draped over a coffin comes to mind and the soldiers in uniform carefully, meticulously folding that precious emblem before the coffin is buried. To cut a hole in it and use it as little more than a prop is an incredible insult to all citizens, especially those who serve and have served in the military. In my opinion an apology from that entertainer is in order, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

I was so elated when I heard that CBS would not air the winning ad from MoveOn.org. I thought I might be able to watch a game without being subjected to negativity and hate-mongering. I even praised them in a blog and via a comment submitted at their web site. I still support them in that decision. I only wish they had been so insightful with their halftime show.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?