Would This Be Considered "Swiftboating?"

I sometimes wonder if the newspapers construct their content in order to put forth a point of view, albeit a subtle one. In a Letter to the Editor on the opinion page of today's Lewiston Morning Tribune is this letter:

Foundation threatened

The American family is under siege. Never in my lifetime have I felt so threatened as I do today. The very foundation of our society is being assaulted by those who seek to destroy anything that remotely infers moral decency, restraint and civil pride. The homosexual revolution has become more aggressive and more deliberate in its attacks.

The thing that worries me most is that the revolutionaries have found a weapon that was never intended to be used as a weapon against democracy, the courts. The courts in this country have been hijacked by the liberal-leaning minority in this country. Judges are striking at the very core of our foundation, the family. The cornerstone of the family is the marriage institution established long before this democracy was even conceived, by a creator who has always been recognized by civilized society. Destroy the cornerstone of any sound structure and it will collapse.

It causes me great concern that, in spite of the voters, the courts will overturn our decision to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. With all these activist judges, what chance do the voters have if the courts overturn everything in favor of those who complain on the grounds of civil rights violations? This is a lifestyle choice. This is a choice made by these people to live this kind of "lifestyle." If they had no choice about being homosexual, if it was something they were born with, how do they explain away their recruitment of our children to their lifestyle by indoctrinating them in elementary schools?

We have to put a stop to this. The majority still rules. We have to become more active in the political process and make sure all judges are totally apolitical. ...

Al & Madlyn Cole
Lewiston

Which coincidentally dovetails nicely with this article that also ran in today's LM Tribune (I have excerpted only the pertinent portion).

Washington high court justice has no regrets
Mary Fairhurst is running for re-election

By Kerri Sandaine

Washington Supreme Court Justice Mary Fairhurst said Wednesday she knew her support of same-sex marriages could have consequences during this year's election and at church, but she believes it was the right thing to do.

"I'm very careful with my decisions so I don't regret them later," said Fairhurst, who is running for re-election in the Aug. 19 primary.

"I knew I could be a one-term justice. I was raised Catholic, and I knew I might not be welcome in church, but I had to do what's correct under the law."

Fairhurst, who wrote the leading dissent against a Washington Supreme Court decision to uphold a ban on gay marriages, was in Clarkston for a statewide conference of county clerks, which continues through Friday at the Quality Inn.

During an interview, she said the response to her position on gay marriages has been positive, and she is still taking communion and serving as a lector at church.

The 50-year-old Olympia resident is challenged for her Supreme Court position by Michael J. Bond, a Seattle-area attorney. The outcome will be determined in the primary election.

Fairhurst said the campaign has been a little frustrating because her opponent is mischaracterizing her opinions on court cases. "He's saying I'm not qualified and I've been a Supreme Court justice for six years."