Why I must not read the opinion page in The Wall Street Journal

This gem about the Supreme Court's decision to overturn D.C.'s handgun ban:

The four liberals are far more willing to empower the government and judges to restrict individual liberty, save on matters of personal lifestyle (abortion, gay marriage) or perhaps crime. The four conservatives are far more willing to defend individuals against government power--for example, in owning firearms, or private property (the 2005 Kelo case on eminent domain).

So Bader Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens are only in favor of individual rights for criminals and personal choices. Because homosexuals choose to want to 1) be gay and 2) get married, unlike heterosexuals, who do not choose their sexual orientation or their desire to be married. I see. While Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are only in favor of individual rights for property* and personal choices, like owning a handgun. Because it's okay to say that two men can't get married because, well, that just ain't right, but it's okay to buy an Uzi at a gun show because the government shouldn't be able to abridge your rights just because some people are afraid.

Hmmm... Irony, thy name is Wall Street Journal. These guys should consider careers in propaganda.

*I'm actually with the conservatives on this one. Kelo is an affront to the Bill of Rights, one that anyone who actually believes in personal freedom--as liberals claim--should reject.