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?
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
This is the future that will await all of us if the Democrats continue to be allowed by spineless Republican Conservatives to define the debate.
Joe Pyne on November 19, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Exactly. How do you outlaw the Constitution? Wouldn’t the judges have to say their Constitution is UnConstitutional?
Guardian on November 19, 2008 at 8:14 PM
We have a governor? Maybe when out stumping for votes for candidates in other states, but here?….Naaaah!
Sanjoboy on November 19, 2008 at 8:15 PM
I seems there would have to be a review to make sure that the CA constitution didn’t contradict itself. What if one part of the constitution said something like:
–Gender will not be a consideration for hiring in any government job.
While a proposition is passed that says:
–At least 25% of all state policmen must be women.
Does it go by order of passage? FIFO or LIFO?
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 8:17 PM
The comparison of this to the civil rights fight is offensive to everyone but them, and this Gay Gestapo needs to be put in their place. They don’t run the country, we do, the 97% of Americans who aren’t gay and won’t rewrite the laws of the constitution and nature from their threats.
Michelle states the conservative case quite eloquently as usual, and boy do the libs and leftwardloons hate facts and reason with a passion…
chicagoray on November 19, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Note to eHarmony:
Tell them to go to hell.
They’ve already made reservations.
Amendment X on November 19, 2008 at 8:19 PM
The country was close to 90% non-black during the civil rights era, but that didn’t mean that the majority could vote whichever laws they wanted into effect. If gay people need to be put in their place because they are only 3%, What about Jewish people who are 3%? One can argue whether the right to marry who you want is fundamental, but fundamental rights belong to you whether you are in the 97% or the 3%.
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 8:26 PM
If the CA Supreme Court kicks us voters again, I understand there will be recall petitions started against the robed gods.
Patrick S on November 19, 2008 at 8:27 PM
We can’t even keep the KKK from sponsoring adopt-a-highway signs. Your right to hate gays is safe.
Supplemental reading: slippery slope fallacy.
RightOFLeft on November 19, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Here is the difference between homosexuals “marrying” and interracial marriage:
Roger Gagnon
Joe Pyne on November 19, 2008 at 8:28 PM
Thank you, whoever you are, you’ve just proved my point for me in a way I never could.
Joe Pyne on November 19, 2008 at 8:30 PM
My point was that interracial couples could be beaten, fined, and imprisoned for being married because what they were doing was against the law. Gay couples, by contrast, won’t have anything done to them if they go around saying they’re married or having a priest marry them or anything of the sort.
Lehosh on November 19, 2008 at 8:30 PM
If the proposition to hire female police officers is a constitutional amendment, it would have precedence. Amendments to a constitution contradict existing constitutions all the time. The 21st amendment to the Constitution repealed the 18th amendment which established prohibition. The US Constitution originally gave state legislatures the responsibility of electing US Senators, a later amendment changed that and gave the people of a particular state the right to elect their Senator.
Bobbertsan on November 19, 2008 at 8:33 PM
Well, the courts have some well-established cannons for resolving conflicts in statutory law. For example, the specific is usually thought to govern the general, and the new is usually thought to govern the old.
If you want to read more, Wikipedia has a decent entry on canons of statutory interpretation.
paul006 on November 19, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Gays bashing Palin
http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/
Its Andrew Sullivan syndrome all over again
Geochelone on November 19, 2008 at 8:36 PM
A person’s attraction to someone of a different race isn’t 100% congenitally predetermined, either. At the time voters in some states believed that there were correlations between race and behavior and that there were larger issues of tradition and societal stability at stake.
50 years ago a black man and a white woman holding hands or kissing publicly was probably more disturbing to social norms than a gay couple doing the same today.
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Thanks. Will do. I’m not a lawyer, so it’s outside the scope of what I’m familiar with.
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 8:39 PM
I’d like to argue this further, but my niece just told me she’s rubber and I’m glue, and frankly I find her argument more compelling.
RightOFLeft on November 19, 2008 at 8:40 PM
The difference between gay marriage and interracial marriage
has to do with why you put quotes around the word marriage. Two men cannot get married because a marriage requires a male and a female; otherwise it’s just cohabitation. So Loving vs Virginia does not apply.
Bobbertsan on November 19, 2008 at 8:42 PM
Please choose your preference:
[x] Man seeking woman
[ ] Man seeking man.
[ ] Woman seeking man.
[ ] Womyn seeking womyn.
[ ] Man seeking women (Enter quantity) [ 2 ]
[ ] Woman seeking men (Enter quantity) [ 2 ]
[ ] Man seeking furry animal.
….
The Monster on November 19, 2008 at 8:43 PM
Try reading what’s actually written next time, it will save you a lot of time.
A person’s race and sex are 100% congenitally predetermined in the womb, period.
Joe Pyne on November 19, 2008 at 8:43 PM
That’s perfectly understandable since you have no argument.
Joe Pyne on November 19, 2008 at 8:45 PM
Michelle is dead on this issue. It perplexes me that Republicans aren’t punching this thing harder. This is the perfect opportunity to expose the left for what they are yet Republicans are all but completely silent.
Perhaps they are waiting for when the California Court decides that votes don’t matter anymore.
Dr B on November 19, 2008 at 8:47 PM
The attraction to a person of different race is not determined in the womb. At issue isn’t a right to something like free speech being denied to an individual based on genetics, but instead the attraction of one person to another and their right to marry that person.
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 8:48 PM
If the CA Supreme Court kicks us voters again, I understand there will be recall petitions started against the robed gods.
Patrick S on November 19, 2008 at 8:27 PM
This one Woman said that we can have a citizens arrest to the Judges. I looked into it and made calls. They say it can be done…..
sheebe on November 19, 2008 at 8:53 PM
The laws which define marriage to be the legal union of one man and one woman does not deprive anyone of their civil rights.
The heterosexual is constrained from wedding a member of his own sex just as the homosexual is able to join a member of the opposite sex in marriage. The standard obtains regardless of personal preference.
Scribbler on November 19, 2008 at 8:56 PM
What race is Tiger Woods……….or, even Obama? As for your sex being determined in the womb, sometimes it isn’t. I prefer the term sex orientation to sexual preference. Preference infers that I had a choice in the matter.
SC.Charlie on November 19, 2008 at 8:58 PM
Let me try this one more time.
The quote I gave is not talking about attraction to a person of another race! It is talking about the difference between same sex attraction and congental, i.e., homosexuality cannot be determined congenitally as can race and sex. I hope that helps.
Joe Pyne on November 19, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Black Sabbath had it right.
When in doubt, listen to the Sabbath and gain guidance.
Bishop on November 19, 2008 at 9:01 PM
They’re biracial, so what’s your point? That because they are biracial they are not subject to congenesis?
And sex is determined in the womb, unless there are abnormal developments, e.g., androgyny.
Joe Pyne on November 19, 2008 at 9:06 PM
Again, and again, and again.
Prop 8 does not prevent gays from marrying–it only prevents the state from attaching any legal meaning to that. Thus, no rights are violated. The only rights that could possibly be violated in this whole scenario is the right of various private citizens to refuse to acknowledge a same sex couple as married.
…
That said, I think the difference between a revision and an amendment might be whether or not the change overturns part of the constitution. If the court has wiffed the faint scent of a right to marriage in their previous ruling, they may well decide that the specific wording of the amendment is a revision, and thus not enforced until it meets the requirements for one.
Outrageous, yes, but the court already proved itself to be run by @$$ holes already, so what do you expect?
Count to 10 on November 19, 2008 at 9:06 PM
Why must I continually be the only voice of reason on this site. Are gay people pissed off? Yes. Should they be? YES. Gay people pay taxes, gay people contribute to the economy, gay people harm no one in their marriages and thousands of married couples had their weddings, vows and legal partnership undone against their will. Wouldn’t that piss you off.
It actually doesn’t matter of being gay is a choice or not(it isn’t). It doesn’t matter if you think gay sex is gross. It doesn’t matter if you don’t want your kids to be gay. These people are in love and they want to cement their union with a legal partnership. There isn’t one single reason why that should not be allowed. The idea that other people can tell others when they can or can’t get married is decidedly NOT conservative. It’s the OPPOSITE of an ideology that claims to want a non-intrusive governmetn that gets out of people’s lives. That’s not what’s happened here and it’s wrong.
So yes. Gay people are going to protest, march and do what they have to do to get their rights. It made people uncomfortable in the sixties and it will make people uncomfortable now. Tough.
DeathToMediaHacks on November 19, 2008 at 9:08 PM
MB4 on November 19, 2008 at 9:08 PM
If the statute did the same for other types of couples–mixed race, mixed religion, handicapped–would that also not violate any rights?
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Dedalus: The fact of the matter is that through the constitutional amendment process (or even through a constitutional convention), a supermajority can indeed strip rights from any minority group they want. There is only one unamendable section of the US Constitution (and very few in state constitutions), and it does not deal with individual rights. Through the federal amendment process, for instance, a supermajority could decide to repeal the 1st Amendment or the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
For the record, federal courts and the SCOTUS have held that the most recently adopted amendment takes precedence when there are conflicts between amendments. Most state courts follow the same common law rule for interpreting state constitutions.
The only way to fight the amendment process is to attack the process itself, not the result, which is what we’re seeing in California, with opponents arguing that the amendment was not actually an amendment but a revision to the state constitution. We’ll see if the California Supreme Court goes along with this theory against their own previous precedent, but if they do, I’m guessing every single affirmative voting justice will be voted out of their judgeship the next time they are up.
For the record, again, supermajorities can indeed strip rights from minority groups or even every single citizen if they want to. We can argue whether they should be allowed to or not, but the fact of the matter is that the amendment process allows it to happen.
Tabris on November 19, 2008 at 9:13 PM
So let them go to a lawyer and have a bunch of legal partnership papers drawn up and then go some gay minister who will do a ceremony pronouncing them husband and husband or whatever and leave the rest of us alone.
MB4 on November 19, 2008 at 9:15 PM
And it is allowed. They can file as domestic partners.
Bobbertsan on November 19, 2008 at 9:16 PM
“Voice of reason”?
Do yourself a favor, and consider that every statement you made after “economy” might be false.
Count to 10 on November 19, 2008 at 9:17 PM
So yes. Gay people are going to protest, march and do what they have to do to get their rights. It made people uncomfortable in the sixties and it will make people uncomfortable now. Tough.
Uh huh, tough? If they were threatening to follow you home, if they were being aggressive outside your business and trying to ruin you, if they were assaulting you, your “tough” would evaporate in an instant.
People get “uncomfortable” when someone nearby is being loud or acting stupid or using foul language; being threatened or assaulted goes a bit beyond “uncomfortable.”
Tell you what, if the assault rifle ban is put back into place, I’m going to stand outside your job and threaten you on a nightly basis even if you don’t support the measure, I’m sure there is someone there you work with who did. In fact I’m going to follow you home every night. Don’t like the idea? Tough.
Bishop on November 19, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Not at all. It would only be not giving them a privilege. Privileges are different than rights. We aren’t talking about breaking down church doors to stop a wedding, or sending co-habitating pairs off to prison–those would be violations of free association.
A ban on state recognition of gay marriage? Not so much.
Count to 10 on November 19, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Sorry, but God is the voice of reason. You disagree, I know, but as the Good Book says about Jesus’ return “Every knee shall bow.”
pugwriter on November 19, 2008 at 9:22 PM
Sure seems that way sometimes, doesn’t it?
Count to 10 on November 19, 2008 at 9:23 PM
MB4 on November 19, 2008 at 9:15 PM
I get why the Christians oppose gay marriage. It undermines fundamentalist Christianity if people see gays in loving relationships. What’s your reasoning?
RightOFLeft on November 19, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Joe (Pyne), we all belong to the “human race”. Tiger Woods heritage (race) is multi-racial. He is something of a Heinz 57, as I like to say. I imagine if my genes were closely examined I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that some unexpected relations that have origins other than northern European. Does that make me bi/multi racial?
I was heartened to learn that over one hundred retired generals and admirals have called for the repeal of the horrid don’t ask, don’t tell policy in the the United States Armed Services.
http://blog.gayrightswatch.com/2008/11/100-retired-generals-admirals-call-for-repeal-of-the-dont-ask-dont-tell/
SC.Charlie on November 19, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Prop 187 died the same way.
Bishop on November 19, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Maybe I’m wrong, but I think the CA Supreme Court is reviewing whether the way the proposition 8 was stated was or was not constitutional. If ruled unconstitutional, then the yes vote will be thrown out and have to be voted upon yet again next go around.
If ruled unconstitutional, there will be a push to recall everyone of these bass turds from office!
jbh45 on November 19, 2008 at 9:28 PM
When someone says this about themselves they are not, if someone else says it, it is possible.
thomasaur on November 19, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Nice of those retired officers to really stick their necks out when it counted. Retired means they lived with that measure while they were active duty.
As Dan Rather would say: “Courage.”
Bishop on November 19, 2008 at 9:29 PM
So, if I pay taxes I can choose to disobey any laws I want? Sweet. Let’s see if I can come up with similar categories:
1. People who hire prostitutes.
2. Rapists.
3. Child molesters
So, if these people pay their taxes, we have no right to restrict what they do in their sex lives? Yeah, you’re a genius. /sarc
TechieNotTrekkie on November 19, 2008 at 9:32 PM
No that is Mr. voice of reason.
thomasaur on November 19, 2008 at 9:34 PM
I can’t speak for MB4, but my reasoning is that the practice of a homosexual lifestyle is a symptom of a harmful psychological problem, and that those suffering from it will refuse to correct it if they are encouraged to live said lifestyle by its normalization.
No need for the hypothesis of religion on this one, though it should be recognized that they knew this was a problem a long time ago.
No
Count to 10 on November 19, 2008 at 9:35 PM
How strange. I don’t remember writing that last “No.”
Aside from that, the state is fully justified in creating benefits to encourage people to form male-female mated pairs to raise children in a nuclear family.
Count to 10 on November 19, 2008 at 9:41 PM
I’m guessing that marriage-or-not gay people are going to keep on having gay sex and the passage of Prop 8 isn’t going to lead to gay people looking to straight marriage as an alternative.
Gay people are going to live as couples, sometimes with kids, and whether the state calls them husband or wife doesn’t make much of a difference to the lives of their straight neighbors.
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 9:45 PM
That was good for a hearty laugh. I cracked up when I read that.
Look, I would have voted yes on Prop 8. This is a policy question, and the courts should leave it alone.
But your argument above is specious. Imagine if we had a law here in Texas that said women could not vote. Here’s your argument, in adapted form:
The law does not prevent women from voting. It only prevents the state from attaching any legal significance to their vote. Thus, no rights are violated. If these winches want to put a coffee can in the living room and drop a piece of paper in it and call it a ballot, we won’t stop ‘em.
Obviously, Prop 8 and other laws like it deny gays the right to marry. That’s not the question. The question is whether that deprivation is defensible.
paul006 on November 19, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Count to 10 on November 19, 2008 at 9:35 PM
You’re on shaky ground scientifically, but let’s say you’re right, that homosexuality should be considered a mental health problem. What if the best treatment – i.e. the best course of action for the health of “patient” – is societal acceptance and access to the stabilizing influence of marriage?
RightOFLeft on November 19, 2008 at 9:48 PM
The militant minority continues to impose its self-serving agenda on society with total disregard for the rule of law, the tenets of democracy and common decency. Special interest groups that act like animals should be treated as such and if they don’t like it….Tough!
dmann on November 19, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Thanks. Good post. The issue is interesting from the standpoint of how much anyone is protected from the state in behaviors and interests that might not be compatible with the majority view. It is worrisome that hysteria might produce super-majorities to limit free speech or the free exercise of religion.
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Oh, so my neighbor can marry his 14 year old daughter if they are “in love and they want to cement their union?” Or, how about a man who wants to marry three women? Or, a woman who wants to marry one of her 13 year old students?
They too should be able to “cement their union,” right?
If you said “no” to any of those unions then you are a bigot, according to your “logic.”
Joe Pyne on November 19, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Compared to some of the excesses of the black civil rights movement, these gay protests are an afternoon tea party. It’s the social cons lying and distorting that the problem here. I went to the anti-8 protest here in Pittsburgh. It was a peaceful, happy group. I suppose it wouldn’t be hard to guess it would be more mellow here than in California, but still it showed all these claims of “insane rage” to be the absolute garbage lies that they are.
I would also add that there were well over 600 people and they were overwhelming young, including large contingents from the nearby Catholic universities (Duquesne and Carlow). The gay movement in the past has been lead by freaks and radicals–and has had great success over the last forty years. Now that even the normal gay youth has become active, how long do you social cons think you can keep your bigotry up?
thuja on November 19, 2008 at 9:53 PM
It’s the illogical of it all. It is an assault on reason. Marriage is between men and women. That is what it is. Just like 2 + 2 = 4, not 2 + 2 also = 5. Maybe gays could establish something else, although I don’t know what is wrong with “civil union”, call it “gayiage” for example. A lot of gays are creative so maybe they could come up with something with more flair than “gayiage”. Just don’t butt in on what has already been defined as between men and women.
I also don’t like the vote of the people being overthrown, nor harassing people who voted the way they had a right to vote.
MB4 on November 19, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Whether or not it would bother the neighbor it would violate the rights of the child and the police would intervene.
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 9:57 PM
It would seem that it does and it would also seem to make an even bigger difference to some gays, like the ones who are going all nustso, although I would suspect to most gays.
MB4 on November 19, 2008 at 10:01 PM
thuja on November 19, 2008 at 9:53 PM
We’ve reached a critical mass as a society where the probability of finding a large number of a-holes from any sub-group is 100%. Then the media reports it so that we get the impression that everybody is an a-hole.
RightOFLeft on November 19, 2008 at 10:02 PM
although I would suspect not to most gays.
MB4 on November 19, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Bigotry? That’s moronic. Gays are really pushing it way too far, and there will be a severe backlash. You do understand that, don’t you?
progressoverpeace on November 19, 2008 at 10:02 PM
I’m hoping Kathleen Parker writes a column against Prop. 8. The resulting head explosions would be fantastic.
SnarkVader on November 19, 2008 at 10:07 PM
There is a difference between marriage and legal recognition of marriage. Marriage can, and in fact did, exist before marriage licenses were ever issued.
OTOH, unless the government recognizes your vote, you haven’t voted.
Bobbertsan on November 19, 2008 at 10:10 PM
The question of gay marriage is going to someday end up in the United States Supreme Court. May I ask you are gays pushing it too far to serve openly in the United States Armed Services?
SC.Charlie on November 19, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Yes, you are right about people on both sides being worked up about the issue. However, I think if one takes as a given that a gay couple can live down the street and attend as a couple the same little league or school board events that straight couples do, then in practice the distinction between marriage and civil union is not meaningful.
With some straight couples it isn’t always clear whether they are married and kept their last names or partnered and unmarried when raising children.
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Oh, I hope so.
Bob's Kid on November 19, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Well, that was brilliantly twisted.
Hardly. Granted, being so far gone as to refuse to be healthy is practically a prerequisite here, but the real issue is with the way this encourages children to go down the same path.
Besides that, just because a person is aroused by their own sex does not prevent them from learning how to be aroused by the opposite sex or from successfully forming a family with a member of the opposite sex. There is this strange idea that permeates all of these discussions that urges must not be resisted. Then there is the odd misplaced romantic-ideal that gets people in trouble.
Count to 10 on November 19, 2008 at 10:12 PM
It seems to matter to gays. If it’s ‘just a word’ why are they rioting?
Bobbertsan on November 19, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Also good reasoning.
Count to 10 on November 19, 2008 at 10:16 PM
So what?
May I ask you if men and women in the military should be made to share the same barracks? If not, then why should men who are attracted to other men share those same barracks? Why are men and women (assumedly heterosexual) split into different private areas, anyway?
progressoverpeace on November 19, 2008 at 10:17 PM
I had this long, drawn out 10 paragraph comment to add, but in my exasperation, all I feel is aaaarrgh.
OneEyedJack on November 19, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Many gays are protesting the California decision peacefully. Where is the videotape of those that peacefully gathered in my state of South Caroline?
SC.Charlie on November 19, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Tell me what “rights of the child” were violated in the Letourno (sp?) case? She was enjoying a sexual relation with one of her 13 year old students, she loved him, he loved her and wanted to marry her. But, the state would not allow it and threw her in jail! Why? You say, “well, he was too young to make such a decision,” or, “she took advantage of his youthful naivete.” They are now married and have children, who is to say he was too young to know what he was doing then?
Why would you want the police to intervene in the lives of two people in love? Who are you to say they can’t be in love? Are the police going to arrest a man who has more than one wife? Oops, they’ve already done that. How come? They’re as much in love as two homosexuals, and they aren’t children so you can’t say their rights were violated.
This argument is insane. 40 or even 20 years ago, this issue would not even be up for discussion, because people still had a smidgen of common and moral sense. No one is suggesting rounding up homosexuals and putting them in jail. No one is suggesting they cannot have relationships with members of their same sex. We are simply saying that they cannot overturn hundreds of years of American moral values and tradition – not to mention thousands of years of human tradition – for their need to engage in their behavior.
Marriage is defined by God, not man, and He declares that marriage is between one man and one woman.
The homosexual movement is a direct frontal assault on the very Word of God, and by extension, the Christian church. That’s why they are protesting in front of churches, because this isn’t a civil issue, it’s a religious issue.
Joe Pyne on November 19, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Don’t know. Always thought the state certificate was an insignificant part of my marriage.
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 10:21 PM
The point is that there’s nothing to protest. The amendment was voted in. Gay groups are free to try and bring a new amendment. Why must there be protesting when there are legal avenues open? That’s what ticks a lot of people off – aside from the really nasty protests and the vitriol directed at the churches (though not the black churches).
progressoverpeace on November 19, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Me too.
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Should there be a law against adults having sex with children? There is. There isn’t one against gay adults having sex and living together. Should there be? I don’t think so, though others might differ.
Should we leave the laws to those who professionally interpret the word of God? What are the tools available when their interpretations of God’s intention differ?
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Perhaps you should ask those 100+ former generals and admirals that question. However, for myself, I believe we all know that gays/lesbians are serving this country honorably………..and, have in the past. Yet, those that are currently serving can’t answer honestly any question about their sexual orientation.
SC.Charlie on November 19, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Count to 10 on November 19, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Before I call it a night, and I think this goes to MB4′s line of reasoning, too -
Some urges shouldn’t be resisted some of the time. The urges to eat, sleep, and have sex are all necessary and natural functions of the human body. Nature didn’t make our bodies perfectly, but some of the basic functions are so enduring that it seems likely they play a vital role in forming a healthy society. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to guess that a behavior, like homosexuality, that has survived the brutal pruning of millions of years of evolution might have some natural advantages; not only to its practitioners but to society at large. Holy run-on sentence. Anyway. Our rejection of homosexuals is what strikes me as unnatural.
At the very least, we should leave it as an open question for future generations that might be better informed (and save ourselves the embarrassment of explaining why we passed such a mean-spirited and ultimately pointless constitutional amendment).
RightOFLeft on November 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM
I am not so sure about that. I have been known to become aroused by a member of the opposite sex, but really doubt that I could ever learn to be aroused by a member of my own sex.
MB4 on November 19, 2008 at 10:32 PM
So there is nothing to protest. That is your opinion. You state that there are legal avenues are open. I guess that you think that appealing to the California Supreme Court is valid?………….but, then I remember the outrage over the previous California Supreme Court decision. I am perplexed. What kind of legal action acceptable without offending anyone?
SC.Charlie on November 19, 2008 at 10:34 PM
You know the answer to that. If it bleeds it leads.
MB4 on November 19, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Put it on the ballot again in November 2010.
MB4 on November 19, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Some honesty, at last. This has nothing to do with keeping society safe. It’s entirely about protecting yourself from the inevitable questions it would raise if people saw that, far from being a sin, homosexuality is the only way for a small portion of society to live fulfilled lives. Your job is at stake. It’s a union beef.
RightOFLeft on November 19, 2008 at 10:37 PM
It is my opinion that this is more than just about the gay marriage issue. It is about the fact that gay issues are subject to a simple majority vote of the populace. Here in South Carolina there are few political leaders that openly support any gay issue.
SC.Charlie on November 19, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Nice dodge, look, if you can’t successfully argue your position at least have the good faith to acknowledge that you don’t have an answer. Shifting the argument somewhere else does not strengthen your position.
But for the benefit of others who may be reading this, and are genuinely interested in knowing the truth, I will answer:
1) Homosexual behavior (not homosexual feelings or temptations) is forbidden by our Creator God, the God of the Bible.
2) Whether or not the civil authorities in a particular government want to enact legislation to restrict a certain behavior is a matter each must determine for themselves. So, the question has always been, what behavior will we enact legislation to restrict for the good of society? So we enact legislation to outlaw adultery? I say no. Why? For the same reason I say no to outlawing divorce or bestiality, governments cannot outlaw all sin. But, it can enact legislation designed to protect the majority of it’s citizens from moral corruption, when such corruption threatens the very peace and stability of the society. Allowing homosexuals to engage in their behavior privately does not threaten that stability, allowing them to force the acceptance of their behavior, does. Adulterers have no right to seek legislation that would render their sin as legal and acceptable behavior. Neither do homosexuals.
3)All laws have their origin in the Word of God … all laws. So whether or not our legislators, now or in our past, interpreted God’s law “professionally” is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they recognized the law of God over their lives as the governing authority for how they would manage a civil society.
Joe Pyne on November 19, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Well thank the stars that homosexuals can live fulfilling lives, then again no one said they can’t.
Bishop on November 19, 2008 at 10:47 PM
I don’t live in California. I live in South Carolina.
SC.Charlie on November 19, 2008 at 10:50 PM
I was answering your question. You made the claim it was a dodge. Back up your point.
Your 3 points seem to be pointing us in the direction of a theocracy. You mention “the” Word of God. Who’s interpretation?
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Just to play devil’s advocate here against my own position, I noticed a phenomenon recently that supports progressoverpeace. I noticed that the men taking showers at the nearby university’s locker room are older men like professors and staff members. A decade ago, there would have been more young students. Has gay rights destroyed the moral fiber of our locker rooms?
thuja on November 19, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Therefore, all our courts should only refer to “The Bible” for our laws ….. may I ask which version?
SC.Charlie on November 19, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Am I the only person that is trying to understand thuja’s post?
SC.Charlie on November 19, 2008 at 10:59 PM
To get my point, you first have to understand progressoverpeace’s point. One could argue (I don’t) that young men are afraid to shower in locker rooms because the acceptance of gay people has made such showering socially risky. This would echo progressoverpeace’s concerns about gays in military barracks.
I hope it’s not too hard to understand that I’m raising an argument against my own position. It’s called intellectual honesty. Really, it’s not a bad thing.
thuja on November 19, 2008 at 11:14 PM
It does no such thing. It prevents any two people of the same sex from getting married. It has nothing to do with being gay.
Two straight men can’t get married either. It does not discriminate against gays.
Geochelone on November 19, 2008 at 11:14 PM
I never said that gays can’t make good soldiers. There is no doubt in my mind that being gay has no effect on ones ability to do the job. What I am saying is that the private quarters situation is the problem, and that affects the large majority of the non-gay soldiers, who make up the majority of the fighting force. That’s why I put the questions to you about the gender separation of private quarters.
I have no problem with gay groups (or whomever) trying to bring legal suits to throw the proposition out. I DO have a problem with judges and justices that allow these suits to be heard, since once the proposition went through the hurdles to get on the ballot (and the pre-election suits against it) that was it. Now the prop is part of the constitution and that’s the end of that. The only recourse that should be allowed to move through, at this point, is a new proposition to reverse the new amendment. But I have no problem with the legal challenges being brought. My beef is with the justices on this part.
progressoverpeace on November 19, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »