Video: Michelle on the “insane rage” of the anti-Prop 8 mobs

posted at 6:01 pm on November 19, 2008 by Allahpundit

A video companion to her column this morning, soon to be rendered irrelevant by judicial decree. The California Supreme Court decided within the past hour to hear the constitutional challenge to Prop 8; doubtless the referendum will be struck down, thus restoring Californians to a blissful, undemocratic, mob-free existence and sparing Anthony Kennedy the unpleasant task of Doing What Must Be Done.

Exit question: Is Cali prepared for the inevitable backlash among rampaging Mormon hordes?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Y-not on November 21, 2008 at 2:42 PM

One of the purer forms of jealousy I’ve seen of late.

jerrytbg on November 21, 2008 at 3:32 PM

I don’t see what’s so wrong about “redefining marriage”, if this is indeed what gay marriage is doing. Marriage has been redefined many times in the past… women are not property, blacks can marry someone of any race or ethnicity, and divorce is legal.

There’s no concrete reason to be against gay marriage. Will your marriage crumble to pieces just because two guys down the street get married to each other? No. So how does this affect straight people? Not at all.

monkeywrench on November 21, 2008 at 6:13 PM

I guess I’m part of the “new generation” and I don’t understand the fear of gay people and gay relationships in our society.

I find it quite ironic that the phrase “mob rule” is used to describe anti-prop 8 demonstrators, when in actual fact an example of mob rule is the voting on prop 8 itself.

In a democratic republic, the “will of the people” is not absolute. The will of the people does not have the right to strip minorities of rights.

52% of the population voted to overrule part of the Californian constitution, when a big part of a constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Which is why in CA major changes to the CA Constitution require a two-thirds vote.

monkeywrench on November 21, 2008 at 6:21 PM

monkeywrench on November 21, 2008 at 6:21 PM

Do I need to spell it out for you?

Marriage. Is. Not. A. Right.

Not for heterosexuals, nor for homosexuals.

Ryan Gandy on November 21, 2008 at 7:10 PM

Marriage. Is. Not. A. Right.

Not for heterosexuals, nor for homosexuals.

Ryan Gandy on November 21, 2008 at 7:10 PM

SCOTUS has described marriage as “one of the basic civil rights of man” and asserted that “the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

dedalus on November 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM

dedalus on November 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM

Don’t try to equivocate a Supreme Court case dealing with race mixing, or black struggles for civil rights, with this. Just DON’T.

Ryan Gandy on November 21, 2008 at 8:16 PM

Don’t try to equivocate a Supreme Court case dealing with race mixing, or black struggles for civil rights, with this. Just DON’T.

Ryan Gandy on November 21, 2008 at 8:16 PM

I was addressing your contention that marriage is not considered a right for heterosexuals since the Supreme Court, at least, has written otherwise.

dedalus on November 21, 2008 at 8:29 PM

dedalus on November 21, 2008 at 8:29 PM

So? They also wrote that laws defining marriage as between couples of opposite sexes do not violate the Constitution.

Try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

http://www.alliancealert.org/2005/20050119.pdf

http://www.lmaw.org/freedom/docs/MN%20Baker%20v%20Nelson.pdf

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967), upon which petitioners additionally rely, does not militate against this conclusion. Virginia’s antimiscegenation statute, prohibiting interracial marriages, was invalidated solely on the grounds of its patent racial discrimination. As Mr. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the court (388 U.S. 12, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1018):

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.

Ryan Gandy on November 21, 2008 at 9:28 PM

Oh BTW, if marriage (in any respect, not simply outside of race) is now a right for heterosexuals, then give me a wife, kthxplz.

Ryan Gandy on November 21, 2008 at 9:31 PM

Oh BTW, if marriage (in any respect, not simply outside of race) is now a right for heterosexuals, then give me a wife, kthxplz.

Ryan Gandy on November 21, 2008 at 9:31 PM

There’s a Henny Youngman joke in there somewhere. You have a right to marry but have to supply the girl.

I was only addressing your assertion about heterosexual marriage. I actually haven’t anywhere made a case that the Supreme Court would take Loving as precedent and easily decide that there is a Constitutional right to gay marriage. They might. I hope they punt on the issue for a while and let the states work it out.

dedalus on November 21, 2008 at 9:46 PM

There’s a Henny Youngman joke in there somewhere.

You’d be spot on correct – if this were about divorce instead of marriage.

:P

Ryan Gandy on November 21, 2008 at 10:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5