Saturday, October 21, 2006
Calif. Judge Pushes Gender Issues
-By Warner Todd Huston
Here is the perfect description of an "activist judge" if I ever saw one...
Judge: Exposure Law Is Gender Specific
Doesn't sound so odd, you say? Seems as though he is truly adhering to the letter of the law, you think?
Try this on..
And there is the activism. This "judge" is attempting to gerrymander language to gender specific in order to further push specific gender issues at a later date. After all, if the state Constitution uses the common language convention where the term "man" simply means humans as opposed to just males, then laws centering on homosexuals, women, "trans genders" and other unnecessary specifics will be harder to create.
If "men" or "man" just means human, then the other labels are unnecessary.
No, what we have here is just this judge's attempt to further splinter the law into gender classifications so that special cases can be crated from the differences and this cannot but come to the assistance of activists who base their activism on gender or sexual oddities. The more splintering of the law the easier for them to craft special legislation or bring lawsuits for their cause.
Worse, this judge knows better. The convention of using "man" as a euphemism for people (and not necessarily meaning just male) is a common one going back to the founding of the English language. We have a long standing grammatical usage of "men" meaning humanity in general and it is well understood by everyone who is not an activist seeking to further balkanize our language and laws.
This judge is merely trying to get another nose under the tent of our laws and societal norms to undermine them in order to further gender issue activism.
Here is the perfect description of an "activist judge" if I ever saw one...
Judge: Exposure Law Is Gender Specific
A (Riverside, CA) judge dismissed an indecent exposure charge against a woman accused of disrobing in front of a 14-year-old boy, saying the law only applies to men. Superior Court Judge Robert W. Armstrong said earlier in the week that the law only mentions someone who "exposes his person... It's gender specific," Armstrong said.
Doesn't sound so odd, you say? Seems as though he is truly adhering to the letter of the law, you think?
Try this on..
Prosecutor Alison N. Norton said the decision to throw out the case will be appealed because another section of state law says that "words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter."
And there is the activism. This "judge" is attempting to gerrymander language to gender specific in order to further push specific gender issues at a later date. After all, if the state Constitution uses the common language convention where the term "man" simply means humans as opposed to just males, then laws centering on homosexuals, women, "trans genders" and other unnecessary specifics will be harder to create.
If "men" or "man" just means human, then the other labels are unnecessary.
No, what we have here is just this judge's attempt to further splinter the law into gender classifications so that special cases can be crated from the differences and this cannot but come to the assistance of activists who base their activism on gender or sexual oddities. The more splintering of the law the easier for them to craft special legislation or bring lawsuits for their cause.
Worse, this judge knows better. The convention of using "man" as a euphemism for people (and not necessarily meaning just male) is a common one going back to the founding of the English language. We have a long standing grammatical usage of "men" meaning humanity in general and it is well understood by everyone who is not an activist seeking to further balkanize our language and laws.
This judge is merely trying to get another nose under the tent of our laws and societal norms to undermine them in order to further gender issue activism.
# posted by Publius @ 10/21/2006 12:00:00 AM 
|
