While many of us have been concerned about the unilateral imposition of homosexual marriage upon the nation by judges, there is a much more insidious threat to the traditional family wending its way through the federal courts. If the ruling in question is upheld, it would eliminate any notion of traditional family as a special institution.

Let's give a little background. Two men were arrested on drug charges and accepted plea deals. This subjected them to certain federal rules while on probation and parole.

When they were released, both were subject to Standard Condition No. 9 of federal probation, which says that a convicted felon on probation "shall not associate with any person convicted of a felony, unless granted permission to do so by the probation officer." Mangini's and Roberts' probation officers did not give them permission to associate with each other.

This is when the conviction of two drug dealers was converted into an opportunity to change the legal status of the traditional family.

Assisted by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, Roberts and Mangini brought a case in federal court.

The rules for enforcing Standard Condition No. 9, it turns out, include a blanket exception that allows a convicted felon on probation to associate with another convicted felon if they are spouses or blood relatives. Mangini and Roberts claimed this unfairly discriminated against them, violating their rights to "due process" and equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment.

"They considered, and still consider, themselves to be spouses," Judge Katz explained in his July 31 opinion. "Defendants were in every way a family."

The judge pointed out that the two men took in Roberts' niece as a foster child; and at one point in his opinion, he called them the niece's "two fathers."

After some legal wrangling, a federal judge has ruled that, under Lawrence v. Texas, any people who claim an "intimate association" must be given the same rights as a married couple or a family. Forget homosexual marriage -- this opens the door for any many of relationship being magically transformed into a legally recognized "family".

Dude -- who stole my country?

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 PM | Comments (42) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

Granted, it isn't a ringing endorsement, but the editors of the Washington Post have concluded that there is no legitimate reason to keep Leslie Southwick off the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, despite opposition from liberal groups who want a minority judge and object to a couple of opinions he joined but did not write.

For that reason, and because of his relatively pinched approach to judging, Judge Southwick wouldn't have been our first choice for this vacancy. Nor do we like the results in the custody and racial slur cases. But we cannot find fault with Judge Southwick's narrow but ultimately legitimate interpretation of the law in those cases, and we do not find in his record the anti-gay, anti-worker caricature his opponents have drawn. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the lone Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote in favor of his confirmation, got it right when she concluded that if senators were to examine Judge Southwick's entire career, including his stint as a judge advocate in Iraq, they would find a "qualified, circumspect person."

So one of America's most liberal senators and the capital's most liberal newspaper have come out behind Judge Southwick. It is time for the Democrat leadership in Congress to allow a vote -- and, if they are honest, support his nomination.

Posted by: Greg at 01:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 2 kb.