Tiresome. But fine. It's their ink (and bytes). They can whine all they want.
See "The Easy Bigotry of Inaction."
Here's the only part of this tedious editorial I'll make mention of:
The overt oppression of the majority manifested most plainly a few years ago when voters wrote discrimination into the commonwealth's constitution. They forbade the state from granting or recognizing same-sex marriages.Translated: Most Virginians - "the majority" - actively codified into Virginia law the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, and most Virginians - "most people" - are doing nothing to end the discrimination - the inaction thing - that they actively worked to codify.
More pernicious is the easy bigotry of inaction. Because most people are unaffected by laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians, they perceive no pressing need to fix them. They allow Virginia's leaders to eschew change in favor of comfortable discrimination wrapped in notions of tradition and faith.
Are we inactive or active? I'm confused.
Get the impression these guys are still pissed that the people of Virginia were allowed to actively participate in the formulation of our laws through the amendment process? It's worth remembering that only 43% of us believed that an amendment to the Virginia constitution banning gay marriage was a bad idea. A sizable majority - 57% - actively voted it into law.
So shut up with the inaction stuff. We were active. They and their kind just don't like what we did.
Here's the way I read this editorial. The elitists at the Times want a small handful of judges to get active and do what the people of Virginia refuse to do - give homosexuals the right to marry each other. In other words, to declare part of the Virginia constitution unconstitutional (don't laugh; a few tottering old liberal judges in Nevada declared that state's constitution to be in violation of that state's constitution in 2003). The boys at the Times don't care if you're inactive - in fact, truth be known, they'd prefer it that way. They want the courts to be active.
Here's the bottom line: We the people of Virginia actively chose to ban gay marriage. Forever. We'll not revisit that decision. Whine all you want.
- - -
Precedent! Precedent! Odd how that was important to the editorialists just days ago when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned existing law that had to do with campaign finance but isn't mentioned now that they want Virginia law overturned.