Gay marriage case exposes media compliance with judicial activism

The courts and the media have become
operatives for political special interest groups.

The State newspaper is gushing over an activist judge who gave them a politics-based verdict they wanted.

The story from Sunday is entitled: “SC author of 4th Circuit gay marriage decision has “backbone.”

How one-sided and biased can you get? Where is the objectivity?

Judge Henry Floyd “made headlines across the country as the author of the opinion from a three-judge panel - a trail-blazing 4th Circuit Court decision,” The State believes.

The court's 2-1 decision seeks to re-write law and force government sanctioning for same-sex couples to marry.

Sounds like The State is making no effort to hide its agenda.

Judicial activism is one of the most dangerous issues facing the United States and the rule of law. Dishonesty and a lack of ethics among the media is another major problem.

Why are only their people only worthy of adulation, but their enemies the subject of scorn and attacks?

Some may see it as Floyd bullying and coercing, using the power of the government. And it's the media trying to manipulate public opinion by by touting Floyd as their champion.

Nevermind that almost 80% of South Carolina's people do not think marriage should be redefined based on sexual preference.

But the lovefest for Floyd is one example media payback, and elevating the operatives carrying out liberal causes.

Public opposition to changing the law to accommodate the gay lifestyle is met with reprimand an retribution. The State even deleted comments from readers who did not agree with the judge's decision.

But the article in praise of Floyd is more than 2,000 words long. The average newspaper article is less than 400 words.

Let's say the court voted down gay marriage by a 2-1 count. You could bank that The State would have immediately put together a “Hit” piece on the judge who ruled in a way in which its employees did not approve.

Anyway: The State did not ask: Does sexual preference allow you the right to make the government, and society, to re-define marriage for you?

Is the judge a Democrat? And did he rule based on his personal emotion, instead of the law?

We are in a sad state America when politically powerful special interest groups can pervert the law to make it suit the desires of pop culture.

It's why people who feel the law is not being upheld need to stand up against the forces working against justice. We need to reject this media in any way we can. These judges are not heroes, and their media is just as corrupt.