Take that all you douchbaggy haters who hate. Time to go into your basement bomb shelters so that you don't catch 'the gay' from all those homosexual couples that are stampeding to your churches to get hitched.
And I also think it to be best that you home school your children lest one with two mommies becomes their best friend.
So sad that you are on the wrong side of history on this one. Can you feel it all slipping away from you? That America that you only know from old Disney movies? I would advise a little more love and acceptance in your heart as a remedy for that pain you are experiencing but we both know you are not ready for that.
So hold onto your Bible tight and pray that God will smite the gays, and the shellfish eaters, and those who wear mixed fabrics. Nothing more sinful than a wool/polycotton blend.
%20(002).jpg)
.jpg)
20 comments:
I am upset that the court overturned a voter referendum. The voters petitioned to have this law and then voted it in. A judge shouldn't be able to overturn these types of things unless it is deamed to be against the state constitution. This law was an amendment to said constitution. This is a bad precedent and it will end up going to the Supreme Court and will cost taxpayer money. If it is upheld it gives judges too much power and then the actual voters and what they want take a back seat to the whim of whatever judge is sitting on the bench. Scary!
The courts should protect citizens' rights. If it deems that a law would cause harm, then it is its duty to overturn an unethical or illegal law. This isn't scary, it's comforting.
Being a French Canadian (and not a Quebecker at that) I know a little something about the need to protect minorities, whether that's culture, language, race or in this case, sexual orientation. In any referendum, the majority wins and if prejudice is prevalent enough, the majority will squash the minority's rights. That's just mathematical inevitability. Systems must be in place to protect those minorities.
You cannot invoke the state's constitution in this way and then ignore that it's that very constitution that gives the courts the right to overturn.
I respectfully disagree with Budd. Siskoid pretty much sums it up. And to say that it will cost taxpayer money is, to me, not a valid argument. One look at what taxpayer money IS used for will tell you that. Billions wasted on pork projects and bullsh*t promoted by congressmen, and literally billions wasted by the Pentagon on projects that go nowhere....so I don't mind my money being spent on something that has substance. That goes for state money too. About the same cost as the fireplace they put in the Captains lounge on one of the aircraft carriers. That cartoon at the bottom of the post is partially correct. I'm sure not all of the people who vote against same sex marriage are like that, but you'll notice there is a lot of hate coming from the right lately. And if this issue actually makes it to the Supreme Court, those people shouldn't worry. The court is still stacked to the right.
WOOHOO! Thanks for the post. Love the mixed fabrics injection.
xoRobyn
I am sorry, let me clearify. It won't cost any real federal dollars, but it will cost CA state dollars. CA a state that is laying off state employees because it is going broke.
What percentage of a minority do we make exceptions for? I mean if one guy wants to marry a dog, or two hundred want to marry their sisters, shouldn't we protecting their rights as minorities.
Not saying that Gay marriage is anything like the other two in any way except that their are people that disagree with each. Where does the line go and who gets to establish the line?
What if it were to go the other way. The people vote for Gay marriage, don't we have to defend the minority that go against it by outlawing it.
The idea that the majority is forced to protect the minority is taken to a ridiculous extreme. One group should not be tyrannical over the other sure. No one disagrees with that. But how much should the majority to comprimise to appease the minority?
Giving a judge the power to overturn the will of the people is dangerous. You agree with this ruling but that doesn't mean that you will agree with the next or the next or the next. How long till the will of the people no longer matters?
Nice post.
As for the whim idea, judges don't act on whim, and this guy was appointed by Bush the first, so he's a republican nominee and has been around for nearly 20 years. Referendums could be on anything. If it had been a referendum to legalize murder, I don't anyone would have trouble with that being overturned. All citizens have equal rights and protections at the federal level and Prop 8 curtails that. :: Unconstitutional.
Oh the irony. You claim all who support Prop. 8 are haters. Yet you, who obviously opposes it, spew nothing but spite, sarcasm, and your own brand of "hate." Where's YOUR love for those with differing views?? Just a thought.....
We are supposed to love those who would infringe upon others? Man, the right like to have their cake and eat it too, don't they?
Budd, you misunderstand the meaning of minority in a political/cultural/rights context. People who have X opinion are not a minority/majority. Minorities in this context is, for example, Hispanics, Gays, Jews. People who are underrepresented demographically and possibly poltically. The latter is true of women for example, who have traditionally been tagged as a minority group even if they represent a majority of the population.
The minority in regards to Prop8 isn't "people of the same gender who want to get married", it's "gay people". Whether they choose to get married or not on an individual basis, the court has decided that they - as a group - should have the same rights when it comes to marriage. The same rights enjoyed by straight people. You dismiss your own examples (dogs and sisters) and rightly so. One has nothing to do with the other.
If you look for ill spent money, look at the people who put this question up to a referendum in the first place.
I wonder how many gay men afraid of commitment voted yes on 8.
How many straight men would vote to keep marriage legal should it ever come up for that matter.
"Sorry babe, I would marry you, but it is illegal."
Hahaha! Now THAT'S funny.
hey, if it's outlawed for everybody, that's fair!
Great post Cal!
I'm right there with you!
Budd, I'll bet you haven't been this "upset" since they gave the right to vote to women and blacks...
Some things are too important to leave to a vote, and civil rights is one of those things. Hey, if it had simply been a matter of the majority ruling, there would probably still be slavery in this country.
I agree with the courts. The argument that "it was voted on" carries no weight at all if it is unconstitutional.
I've not seen yet one good argument for restricting marriage to heterosexuals only; and while I'm sure there is SOMEone, SOMEwhere, who would marry their dog, equating bestiality with gay marriage is confusing and illogical.
Pearl
I knew I would get comment on this one and I thank all of you for being rationale and thoughtful (except for that first time commenting goof) in your discussions. We can disagree with each other on some things but find other ways that we connect. This is what adults do and I am really proud of all of you.
Let's just outlaw marriage altogether...treat it like Costco ...everyone gets a card and one free card to whomever they wish....with all the rights equal....makes it much easier and fair to all who pays their $50....
I like that idea. But I would like to add the feature that if you can slip your ticket into a girl's pocket she HAS to marry you. WHAT? It's the only chance I got!
@Pat: I am actually not old enough to have been born when the gave the right to vote to women or blacks. But, I am all for black people having the right to vote.
I wouldn't say I am upset as much as I am cautious. I don't trust people in power and am naturally suspicious of them all. Hope all citizen's are equally as suspicious but know they are not.
I was just kidding, women should have the right to vote too. I wish more people would exercise the right to do so. Maybe prop 8 wouldn't have passed in the first place if more people voted.
Now that last sentence there, Budd, you've hit on it.
Post a Comment