Friday, August 6, 2010

On gay marriage and props

Following the passage of California's Prop 8 in 2008, a lot of people agreed, myself included, with the sentiment expressed by Judge Vaughn Walker yesterday that, "Fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." I had a hypothesis last week when I was thinking about our California results, and I was reminded again yesterday after the district court ruling on Prop 8 came down, that there must be a lot of gay marriage supporters who are unhappy with the proposition system that took away equal marriage rights from gays in California. But a closer look at our results doesn't bear that out quite to the extent I imagined.

As well as asking whether they think gay marriage should be legal or illegal, we asked Californians, "Do you think Californians should keep the right to vote on ballot propositions, or should props be eliminated from the California ballot?" Voters, by a 74-13 margin, overwhelmingly still support their right to have a say on the myriad props that appear on their ballot every election. And that apparently includes supporters of gay marriage, 68% of whom still support props, to 18% who want the practice to end. The possibility of repealing Prop 8 in 2012 through yet another prop may be in the back of some of those folks' minds.

Now, 82% of the narrow plurality who think gay marriage should be illegal also support props, with only 8% opposed. So there is a disparity between proponents and opponents of gay marriage on the issue of props, but it's not huge, with overwhelming supermajorities on both sides of the marriage issue in favor of props. And what disparity there is can partly, if not mostly, be explained by ideology. 63% of liberals support keeping props, versus 86% of conservatives.

Despite the heartache Prop 8 caused for a lot of people in California and sympathizers around the country, and despite the problem props in general have created for California's massive budget headache (to put it mildly), the state's voters evidently, though probably not surprisingly, still like having some measure of direct democracy (or mob rule, depending on your view) overall. Now, in a few years, if a repeal-Prop-8 prop doesn't get on the ballot or, if it does, doesn't pass, and if the Supreme Court still has the same 5-4 ideological balance and doesn't uphold Walker's decision, I wonder if we come back and ask the same questions, how frustrated gay marriage supporters might be then, and how resentful they may be of props.

38 comments:

Christian Liberty said...

The fundamental rights of moral Americans to not be compelled to support errant lifestyles should not be taken away by activist judges. The judge's ruling is a violation of the rights of the majority.

Dustin Ingalls said...

That's hypocrisy if there ever was hypocrisy. So the "majority" of Americans are supposed to be protected from something that has zero effect on anyone but the gay couples in question, but gays aren't supposed to be protected from tyranny of the majority. Yet it's you who's always railing against the government and liberals for taking away people's supposed economic rights and freedoms. True libertarians support equal marriage rights for gays.

NRH said...

Really really true libertarians support removing all government qualification of marriage in the first place and leaving it up to individuals and their religious traditions whether gays can be married, with no legal benefit or penalty assessed for marriage at all.

Christian Liberty said...

This is a difficult issue in so many ways. I am conflicted over how this should be handled, but several considerations should lean towards letting the state referendum to stand:

-defining marriage should remain a state issue (or better yet, get the government out of the marriage business and treat everyone equal) and should not be dictated by the federal government.

-the people or their elected representatives should be the ones to make law, not an unaccountable judiciary with a lifetime appointment.

-the judge placed heavy demands on the supporters of traditional marriage to disprove a negative: to prove that no discrimination or harm would result.

-the judge's decision was peppered with political ranting about voters being cranky or afraid, rather than a dispassionate legal reasoning.

-advocates of homosexual marriage push for benefits that come from government spending and regulation, so it is consistent that I should oppose the government (and especially the federal government) compelling state residents to support benefits for those who choose to practice an aberrant lifestyle. Forcing private employers and government employers to offer benefits to homosexual partners would be more tyrannical than any slight against homosexuals.

If you want the title of marriage, get that from a church. If you want government benefits, that is socialism that should be opposed. Preferably, the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. (It was Democrats who started issuing marriage licenses so that they could deny blacks the right to get married.)

as long as these government benefits are part of the equation, it is more intrusive for the government to redistribute these "benefits" by threat of force than it is for the state to not bless a homosexual union.

-and what ever happened to civil unions anyways? We were told that civil unions would be enough of a compromise, but apparently if you give an inch they take a mile. For homosexuals to push past civil unions after suggesting such a compromise is a dishonest bait and switch, which raises questions about the agenda of the radical left.

-Was it even appropriate for the judge to not recuse himself since he stood to benefit from his own decision?

Christian Liberty said...

"Really really true libertarians support removing all government qualification of marriage in the first place and leaving it up to individuals and their religious traditions whether gays can be married, with no legal benefit or penalty assessed for marriage at all."

I agree with your description and I feel this describes my position. The government should not determine who qualifies for marriage**, nor benefit nor penalize people to the exclusion of others.

That is why it is inappropriate for the federal government (and the federal judiciary especially) to interfere with the decision of a state referendum.

If the government is to remain involved, it should be states not the federal government and it should be the legislative branch or the electorate not the judiciary.

** Historically, it was Democrats who used the power to issue and deny marriage licenses so they could deny marriage to blacks. So for Democrats to complain about marriage and freedom is the height of hypocrisy.

Dustin Ingalls said...

"Really really true libertarians support removing all government qualification of marriage in the first place and leaving it up to individuals and their religious traditions whether gays can be married, with no legal benefit or penalty assessed for marriage at all."

Yes, that is true. But certainly Christian Liberty's inconsistency--rightwing social draconianism and rightwing economic anarchism--make him not a libertarian.

Christian Liberty said...

inconsistency?

not sure what you're referring to. I may personally agree with social conservative views but I consistently support getting the federal government out of the way of picking favorites, trusting that when government does not endorse irresponsibility, responsible behaviors will naturally become more prevalent.

Whether abortion or homosexual marriage or whatever, I consistently say that the federal government (especially federal judiciary) should not interfere any more than explicitly Constitutionally enumerated.

Christian Liberty said...

Having a government license a marriage is not a fundamental right, thus refuting the passage you quote from the judge's ruling. Having a government redistribution scheme confer you a benefit at another's expense is not a right, thus my libertarian position to eliminate government favoritism by getting government out of the marriage business.

However, being forced to subsidize government benefits of another (being deprived of liberty) is a violation of a fundamental right.

Therefore, it is a greater violation of rights to force a citizen to support a redistribution of benefits or an enforcement of a regulation than it is for the state to not issue a license for a function that can just as readily be performed by any church or private association.

Power should be localized. The states rather than the federal government should decide. If you don't like the decision of the state, recourse should be to local or private solutions, not to the heavy-handed blunt force of the federal government.

Dustin Ingalls said...

"(It was Democrats who started issuing marriage licenses so that they could deny blacks the right to get married.)"

You mean Southern Democrats who are now Republicans like you? Oh yeah.

"If the government is to remain involved, it should be states not the federal government and it should be the legislative branch or the electorate not the judiciary."

This view is nonsense, and I'm tired of hearing it espoused. I'm pretty sure you don't think the electorate or legislatures should decide whether you have the right to bear arms or have free speech.

"trusting that when government does not endorse irresponsibility, responsible behaviors will naturally become more prevalent."

Yes, responsible behaviors like getting married. But the government is getting in the way of that currently.

Dustin Ingalls said...

BTW, Christian Liberty, you're coming across as a bit more rational and sane than you normally do, so I thank you for stepping back and being more honest and not so dogmatic for a change. Yes, that's a backhanded compliment, I recognize.

Dustin Ingalls said...

However, your argument about taxpayers and employers being burdened because of equality is beyond insensitive; that's about as mild as it can be put. That's the same attitude as saying taxpayers would be burdened by blacks being able to vote. If people are granted rights, they deserve them, regardless of the cost. If employers choose to give certain benefits to married people, they have to give them to all married people, regardless of sexual orientation. It's not an option, nor any more a burden than their choice to give benefits to heterosexual married couples.

Christian Liberty said...

"You mean Southern Democrats who are now Republicans"

No. Republicans have always been the party of civil rights and equal rights under the law just like Democrats have always been the party of slavery.

Most southern Democrats became Republicans because the Democrats used the heavy hand of the government to force ill-advised integration schemes, reparation schemes, or affirmative action schemes, not because they were racist. The racist party remains the Democrats to this day. The racist part of the ideological spectrum remains the progressives to this day, as it always has been.

"If people are granted rights, they deserve them, regardless of the cost."

The government does not grant us our rights. If the "rights" the government invents to buy our loyalty have a cost on others they are not natural rights nor Constitutional rights. When the government invents "rights" that demand an ever-increasing scheme of regulation and enforcement, these are not natural rights. Natural rights have impose no cost and require no redistribution scheme.

This is why there is no "right" to healthcare -- because to claim such a "right" is to claim the right to steal from someone in order to pay for the healthcare service. (This is, in part, why Obamacare is so tyrannical, because it INVENTS a "right" to healthcare at the expense of others.) Paid leave is not a "right" because to claim such a "right" is to claim the right to infringe on an employer's liberty and property.

"your argument about taxpayers and employers being burdened because of equality is beyond insensitive"

Quite the opposite. To not take this stand would be insensitive. To not stand up for taxpayers and employers against the ever-increasing reach of the government would be insensitive. To side with the intrusive force of government rather than the voluntary consensus of employers and the liberty and private property of taxpayers would be insensitive.

Christian Liberty said...

As far as equality, it is no accident that it was never mentioned in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. It has no place alongside rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty is to be guaranteed, not equality.

When we come into contact with the law, we should be afforded equal protection under the law. But our encounters with government authority should be limited so that liberty may abound. The menu of things that the government should take upon itself to make equal should be rather limited. The government should not seek out more and more things to measure and find fault with and regulate, supported by an ever expanding and intrusive bureaucracy. The people should limit the government, not the other way around.

"If employers choose to give certain benefits to married people" then 1) they choose to give those rights with the assumption that marriage means what it has always meant for 6000 years. 2) The key word is choose. Most employee benefits are government mandates (and unfunded mandates) or won by the coercion of union intimidation. As I have consistently said, I am concerned with the many things we are forced to do by a government that seeks to buy votes with other people's money.

And while monogamy is responsible behavior, the government benefits of state-sponsored marriage still give citizens an overriding interest to consent to their requirements for distribution... and support the idea that the government (especially the federal government) should not be involved.

Christian Liberty said...

Some other concerns:

your objection to a libertarian/conservative preference to legislative enactment rather than judicial fiat and local action rather than federal intrusion concerns me. Your dismissal of the concern over the proper process and the proper roles of separate branches of government is basically endorsing a view that the ends justify the means. This also goes against the bedrock civics principles of separation of powers into three branches and division of powers between federal, state, and local government. Saying that you want a progressive agenda to be upheld by whatever means necessary is a dangerous road to start down.

----

The other assumption you're making is that homosexuality is an inherent characteristic rather than a lifestyle choice. The government should not be forcing people to treat a lifestyle choice as an unavoidable reality. The science is not settled and the government should not be pushing an agenda to promote their interpretation of "orientation" rather than choice.

Christian Liberty said...

As far as your backhanded compliment:

I suppose I can explore the marriage issue more thoroughly because it is less of an immediate threat to my life and liberty. It's not such an unbearable threat like government control of medicine and a voracious appetite for taxing and spending. The government should not be manipulating marriage to score political points, but unfortunately that is par for the course.

Healthcare and taxing/spending are some issues that I feel acutely because of how they intrude constantly. Marriage is a less immediate issue. I don't feel that expanding (diluting) the definition of marriage is an imminent threat to my life.

Ideological combat can become so heated because the stakes are so high and the tactics are often reprehensible.

we come from different worldviews, but the main difference is that libertarians don't seek to impose their will on others like "progressives" do. And when you really investigate the effects of the "progressive" agenda, you find that the agenda is REGRESSIVE and REPRESSIVE; it retards and reverse progress; progress actually comes from strictly limited government and free markets and free societies.

Furthermore, the aggravating thing about smug "progressives" is not just that they push the wrong ideas and violate our rights... but the way they arrogantly belittle their opponents and accuse them of wrongdoing... when leftists are everything they accuse others of being. Leftists are intolerant, selfish, racist, insensitive, tyrannical, unjust, uninterested in reality that conflicts with their agenda... and they project their inadequacies on others.

Like Andrew Breitbart says, leftists are bullies...and the way to respond to bullies is to punch them in the nose. We have been too nice for too long. We have been pushed around and tyrannized for so long (and insulted and slandered) and it's time to push back.

I struggle to be forgiving, but it's so difficult when we are assaulted by leftist policies and lies at every turn.

(I guess we can talk sports if it gets too heated. I find myself turning to sports talk and Christian teaching stations and business news more instead of political talk. It just gets to be so frustrating and it's easy to lose composure.)

Bonncaruso said...

Christian Liberty wrote:

"The fundamental rights of moral Americans to not be compelled to support errant lifestyles should not be taken away by activist judges. "

So, does this make gays immoral and therefore not entitled to rights?

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the year 1933.

Bonncaruso said...

"-the judge placed heavy demands on the supporters of traditional marriage to disprove a negative: to prove that no discrimination or harm would result. "

The evidence they provided was little and came in part from Rekers. Remember Rekers? He just spent a vacation getting deep massages in the back side from a rent boy.

Bonncaruso said...

"(It was Democrats who started issuing marriage licenses so that they could deny blacks the right to get married.) "

FALSE: marriage license began in the north BEFORE the civil war, but were indeed used in the 1920s to prohibit whites from marrying a number of different races, including blacks.

11 states still recognize common-law marriage.

Bonncaruso said...

"No. Republicans have always been the party of civil rights and equal rights under the law just like Democrats have always been the party of slavery."

HA!!!!!!!!! Tell that to the hispanic community right now.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Bonncaruso said...

"As far as equality, it is no accident that it was never mentioned in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. It has no place alongside rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty is to be guaranteed, not equality. "

Tell me, are you smoking something?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

Tell me, which part of the word "equal" did you not understand?

WOW.

Bonncaruso said...

"Furthermore, the aggravating thing about smug "progressives" is not just that they push the wrong ideas and violate our rights... but the way they arrogantly belittle their opponents and accuse them of wrongdoing... when leftists are everything they accuse others of being. Leftists are intolerant, selfish, racist, insensitive, tyrannical, unjust, uninterested in reality that conflicts with their agenda... and they project their inadequacies on others. "

HAAAAAAAA!! I laughed so hard, the coffee came right out my nose.

I think you should stick with sports. Too much hubris in your so-called christian approach. What a shame.

Why not just be honest and admit that you are a dominionist?

Bonncaruso said...

Read here.

Excerpt:

"All told, miscegenation laws were in effect for nearly three centuries, from 1664 until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court finally declared them unconstitutional in the Loving decision.

The first law against interracial marriage was passed in the colony of Maryland in 1664. It set a precedent that spread to the North as well as the South: Massachusetts, for example, adopted a miscegenation law in 1705. After British colonies turned into American states, they continued, one by one, to pass miscegenation laws, until, by the time of the Civil War, they covered most of the south, much of the mid-West, and were beginning to appear in western states, too. Before the Civil War, there was only one significant challenge to this pattern of steady expansion. In Massachusetts, in the 1830s, a remarkable group of radical abolitionists went out on a limb to argue that the Massachusetts miscegenation law contradicted the fundamental American principle of civil equality. For more than a decade, abolitionists urged the Massachusetts state legislature to repeal the law; finally, in 1843, they succeeded.

Outside Massachusetts, however, laws against interracial marriage held firm right through the Civil War--and beyond. One of the first things defeated white Southerners did at the end of the Civil War was to pass new, and stronger, miscegenation laws as part of their infamous black codes. Determined to overcome Southern resistance, the federal government built its Reconstruction program around the promise of equality, then embedded this promise in the language of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees all citizens "equal protection" of the law. During Reconstruction, the collision between the power of the federal government and the resistance of white Southerners was sharp enough to dislodge miscegenation laws in several Southern states. In fact, during Reconstruction eight of the eleven formerly Confederate states abandoned their laws against interracial marriage.

But it soon became apparent that Reconstruction would not survive long enough to become a turning point in the history of miscegenation law. As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law."

Bonncaruso said...

"This is why there is no "right" to healthcare -- because to claim such a "right" is to claim the right to steal from someone in order to pay for the healthcare service. (This is, in part, why Obamacare is so tyrannical, because it INVENTS a "right" to healthcare at the expense of others.) Paid leave is not a "right" because to claim such a "right" is to claim the right to infringe on an employer's liberty and property."

Oh, wow...

Michael Dohrn said...

I was talking with a gay co-worker about this on Thursday. He actually doesn't want to get married - all he wants is the civil benefits that come with it, your tax breaks and family insurance breaks. These are being executed at a state level across the country, quietly. Through that lens, Prop.8 and it's bench strike-down are largely immaterial because that's not really the point.

However, it is useful that it is happening because it raises public awareness; the Prop.8 conversation starts conversations nationally in governments about what to do about this hot-button issue, and that's how the real reforms get passed. So, while it doesn't matter nationally what happens in California, it's a great PR push for more quiet civil union rights across the country.

At the same time, what's a bigger threat to the institution of marriage: gays getting married, or divorce? THAT is the hypocrisy evident here. "Breeders" destroy marriage every time they get a divorce, and furthermore when they get married and divorced again... but wait! People still care about marriage, even with all the divorce! Could it be, then, that people just get all huffy about change and people that are different than them, and that with time and a little attempt to understand, that we too can normalize this behavior? Wow!

Michael Dohrn said...

Christian Liberty & Dustin, you both make some very good, thought-out points on both sides, and some less-thought out points that are very common talking points, straw-men worth nothing more than the handful of words required to dismember them.

FACT: State-by-state and nationally and in many venues of life, marriage confers many benefits upon a couple. Some of these benefits do not apply to civil unions. Because of the patchwork nature of these laws, it is impossible to generalize and incredibly wordy to be specific about them. It's great to say that the government shouldn't have their hands in "marriage bonuses", but they do and they aren't going anywhere, so that's the point we have to start from.

FACT: Marriage is one node where religion and state are decidedly non-separate. This is really unfortunate because it sources a lot of the ideological battle of gay marriage; it is defined both legislatively and prescribed religiously. No easy answer here.

FACT: Judges are appointed and given their powers because blind rule of the majority through things like proposition-based legislation is nothing more than mob rule. The role of the judge is to ensure that the rights of the minority are not trampled by the will of the majority, while impinging minimally on the rights of each.

Interesting side-note on proposition-based legislation: In California especially, quite a lot of their deficit can be traced back to proposition legislation... here is a link to some information about it. The trouble is that naturally, people love benefits, and hate costs, and will vote accordingly - the voter has no particular vested interest in the solvency of their state, so you get weird results like 2 connected Propositions, one proposing some bizarre new benefit and the other proposing a tax to pay for it. The benefit passes, the tax fails. Benefit happens anyway, nobody's paying for it. Welcome to California.

FACT: Civil unions SHOULD BE enough, and not everybody is trying to push for marriage, but they ARE pushing for equal benefits for civil unions and marriages, which aren't equal in many states! The sensationalist conversation in California remains very useful because it furthers and encourages a national conversation that people can enter on whichever side they like. I am open to the idea that, as a mostly-religious institution, marriage can be "one man, one woman", because nobody likes having their sacred cow pissed on. However, the trade-off is that civil unions need exactly as much clout as marriage in all aspects, and until that is the case, the call for gay marriage won't go away and civil unions won't be enough.

Both of you, Christian Liberty & Dustin, seem to be of a generally libertarian bent, and while I ideologically agree wholeheartedly with that and both of you that government should keep its hands out of everything, I do not think that is realistic now, nor has it been for almost 100 years. This battle has been fought and lost for a very long time, and I feel like you're both fighting a rearguard action in talking about limits on federal power. The 10th Amendment may as well have been overturned and repealed in its entirety at the start of the War on Drugs, to name a recent point (but certainly not the only point) where the FedGov has taken more power.

Generally good thoughts on both sides, but I think you've both got one foot in the partisan/ideological trap. You both seem to be arguing that government should not be dictating marriage anything, but Christian Liberty, you seem to want *in today's context* exactly that, a governmentally-based ban on gay marriage. Shouldn't it be enough that your church won't marry them? Isn't that libertarianism and individual determination?

Dustin Ingalls said...

"No. Republicans have always been the party of civil rights and equal rights under the law just like Democrats have always been the party of slavery."

Haha, keep thinking that. No one else does.

"The government does not grant us our rights. If the "rights" the government invents to buy our loyalty have a cost on others they are not natural rights nor Constitutional rights."

Oh, so the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th and 15th Amendments and all the decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting rights that people should have always had but were denied by legislatures who violated the Constitution were invented rights? I see. You think only white male property owners should be voters still, and they should all be able to own people. Gotcha.

"Natural rights have impose no cost and require no redistribution scheme."

Yep, you're right. Marriage equality doesn't impose any costs or redistribution schemes.

"Liberty is to be guaranteed, not equality."

That's hilarious. Y'know, I guess right before ol' TJ mentioned life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, he didn't say anything about all men being created equal, so that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness had no context in everyone being guaranteed equality by the government. No, nothing like that. Due process, no nothing about equality there. Equal protection. Don't hear the word "equal" in that.

So if the government passed a law saying "All idiots who go by the handle 'Christian Liberty' shall forever be slaves," you'd be OK with that, because they can discriminate against you all they want.

"Saying that you want a progressive agenda to be upheld by whatever means necessary is a dangerous road to start down."

That's not at all what I'm saying. What you're saying is the courts have no role in interpreting the law to uphold rights that should always have existed. THAT'S the misunderstanding of the proper roles of the branches of government. If a state or local government does something that violates someone's Constitutional rights, as was done by the people of California with Prop 8, then the federal courts have an obligation to overturn this violation when that law is challenged and iterate the right.

"The other assumption you're making is that homosexuality is an inherent characteristic rather than a lifestyle choice."

That's not an assumption; it's a fact. Did you choose to be (presumably, unless you're one of those Larry Craig/Ted Haggard self-hate types) heterosexual?

"The government should not be manipulating marriage to score political points"

Really? The government isn't doing anything, and it certainly isn't to score political points. In fact, the government not doing anything is BECAUSE of politics which right now makes supporting gay marriage a negative in most places. The only people doing anything are citizens who have been wronged. This should be celebrated, not denegrated by prejudiced people like you.

"we come from different worldviews, but the main difference is that libertarians don't seek to impose their will on others like "progressives" do."

HAHA, that's so laughable. This whole debate is about you imposing your backwards social views on everyone else.

"We have been too nice for too long."

Oh yes, the right has always been so gentile. If anything, Democrats are too nice. Republicans know how to be nasty and mean.

NRH said...

Uh, hello? In the 19th century, Republicans were indeed the liberal party that nobly advanced human rights. After Nixon implemented the Southern Strategy in the 20th century, though, Republicans jumped headfirst into taking over the racist scumbag market. Today Republicans are the party that is calling for the repeal of the 14th Amendment because it makes people they disapprove of into full American citizens - and, not coincidentally, prevents Republicans from engaging in the discrimination they so crave on other fronts. You can't claim to be "the party of civil rights and equal rights under the law" at the same time as your party leadership is calling to repeal the amendment that makes both of those things possible, or when your party is the one trying to implement laws that legalize and mandate police racism, or when your party's chief propaganda outlet is making overt racist attacks on our first black President.

Dustin Ingalls said...

"Both of you, Christian Liberty & Dustin, seem to be of a generally libertarian bent"

No, definitely not.

wt said...

This blog, to it's credit, is incredibly generous about approving comments and engaging the commenters.

Also, I would suggest to those who think they oppose gay marriage on rational a basis other than religion, animus, or mere tradition to immediately contact the defendant-intervenors in the Perry case. They could desperately use your help.

Anonymous said...

Get government out of marriage. Privatize it!

darren said...

Seriously, how does gay marriage pose a threat to your lifestyle whatsoever?

Christian Liberty said...

A "fundamental" federal right to have all 50 states be forced to decide a state issue the same way? Obviously the federal government has severely overreached.

"The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades." (Ann Coulter)

Christian Liberty said...

Whenever the left INVENTS new "rights" like the judge did in Perry v Schwarzenegger, they also TAKE AWAY our actual rights in order to FORCE upon us their made up "rights".

Christian Liberty said...

Rasmussen:
---Eighty-six percent (86%) of voters nationwide say there should be “limits on what the federal government can do.” A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only nine percent (9%) believe the federal government should be allowed to do most anything in this country.
These views are overwhelming shared across virtually all partisan and demographic lines.
The only exception is America’s Political Class. By a 54% to 43% margin, the Political Class believes the federal government should be allowed to do most anything. Mainstream voters reject that view by a 94% to three percent (3%) margin.


---> Overruling Prop 8 by raw judicial fiat is a perfect example of this. The political class (America's tyrant class) may think the ends justify the means. But the mainstream of America believes that the federal government should be limited and should not make such horrendous overreaches of unjustified power-grabs. The left will pay for this at the ballot box. The people will make sure that judges do not tyrannize the people like this.

Christian Liberty said...

Even same-sex marriage advocates should recognize the bad logic in the ruling overturning Proposition 8.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/08/1490

Dustin Ingalls said...

Marriage is not a new right. It's been denied to certain people, just like it was to mixed-race couples under miscegenation laws for centuries.

NRH said...

Whenever the RADICAL RIGHT makes up new rights, like the innovation that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" no longer means that states get to decide what form of regulation they want to apply to their militias (the militia being, legally, the entire adult male population between 17 and 45, and all female adults in the National Guard) they also TAKE AWAY our actual rights in order to FORCE upon us their made up "rights".

Fixed that for you!

NRH said...

Nothing in that entire 'public discourse' entry provided any rational argument against Judge Walker's ruling. Instead, it is nothing but a long-winded whine about how fundamentalist fee-fees are so much more important than the actual harm done to gay men and women. He can't list any way that marriage equality harms anyone else, because there is none. He can't list any public benefit that a childless heterosexual couple accrues that a homosexual couple could not meaningfully utilize as well. He can't list any way that society is better served by keeping a monogamous gay couple legally separated than by letting them formally commit to each other.

In short, the entire rightard argument is "the personal opinions of people who fervently believe in the right big imaginary friend in the sky should trump the constitutional rights of minorities!"

 
Web Statistics