Telling the story from our point of view

Blog Archive

November 08, 2005

Texas deal gay marriage a death blow

Thanks Texas!

The morning after update - 11.09.05

  • The Waco Tribune Herald, like a lot of liberal MSMs that came out against the amendment, got egg on their faces. Coverage here
  • Houston Chronicle talks about it here.
  • And Shock & Blog mentions it here.
  • In Virginia, "openly" lesbian candidate,Vivian Page, was defeated.

    I think that in time activist lame brains in Massachusetts will realize they have unwittingly transformed the state into a social pariah for subjecting the nation to this terrible chain of events. Current count of states approving constitutional amendments banning homosexual marriage: 19.


    Benoit Lapierre said...

    Hi from Canada.
    Your Blog is very interesting! Keep on going!
    I will talk about it to my friends.

    Get Firefox! and Reclaim Your Inbox!

    vesti said...

    I'm not exactly sure why a news outlet that took a principled stance against legislation that they believed was ill-conceived has "egg on their faces" after it passes. My guess is that the people who wrote in opposition to this initiative still feel the same today as they did yesterday. While they might be disappointed in the outcome (which was ENTIRELY expected), they're certainly not embarrassed by their own views simply because a majority of people in the state of Texas disagree with them.

    As far as Massachusetts being a "social pariah", we proudly accept the title. I highly recommend viewing the Daily Show's piece on Post-Gay-Marriage Massachusetts ("How Gay is It?"). The clip is available on, and it's not only hilarious but also poignant in how it expresses the complete lack of social change that has occurred since gay marriage became law.

    What's that new Disney movie? Chicken Little?

    Brady said...

    DL- I agree with Vesti, they were worried about the wording of the Amendment more than the illegalizing of gay marriages.

    If only the Churces could have been honest to the public about this Amendment, though. Then they could be celebrating more.

    To call this just about marriage (which they did all along) and ignore that it outlaws tons of other rights, from civil unions to even hospital visitation is deceptive, and unbecoming of Christians.

    As for the Lesbian candidate in Virginia, I'm assuming you get equally as happy when divorced candidates lose too. I mean, let's treat all sins the same, won't we?

    DL Foster said...

    Well the word pariah is applicable here because of the overwhelmingly strong sentiment OUTSIDE of Mass which is a direct result of the voting majority's agreement with judicial activism in legalizing homosexual marriage. Completely UnAmerican.

    There may or may not be (depending on some quack tv show's interpretation) changes within the state, but the change outside of the state is undeniable. Mass hopefully will become known as a anomaly for its terrible choice to approve homosexual marriage.

    Instead of chicken little, I suggest you reread the story about the frog in hot water.

    Scott said...

    Yeah DL.

    Darn those "judicial activists" back in the 60's with that darn Loving Vs. Virginia ruling.

    80% of the country opposed interracial marriage but "activist judges" went against the will of the people and declared interracial marriage a right.

    So were those judges wrong to create a right for different races to marry out of thin air?

    DL Foster said...

    I felt your pain once. When the rogue "justices" of Mass legalized homosexual marriage, I went numb. This is called fighting back.

    DL Foster said...

    Scott, sorry the "gay is just like black " argument doesn't fly here. The color of my skin and its inherent qualities are completely different than someone's sexual comings and goings.

    And can you show me some credible stats that "80%" of the country was against interracial marriage?

    Brady said...

    Yes, D.L., but fighting back by deceiving is surely not the way it should be done.

    On Scott's post, I'd also like to point out that 1992 was the first time that a plurality of Americans thought inter-racial marriage was "ok." Even then, it was not a majority.

    Scott said...

    It wasn't about "gay is black" at all DL. My point about Loving v. Virginia was about "activist judges" rhetoric (read, judges who make decisions conservatives don't like).

    Do you understand the concept of judicial review?

    This "its not in the Constitution so it can't exist" clap trap is complete rubbish.

    Judges had to decide that unreasonable search and seizure laws applied to motor vehicles.

    Is that activist? The framers didn't envision autos in the 18th century.

    You freely banter about with "activist judges" when it suits your needs.

    Explain to me, if you can, what a judge is supposed to do.

    If we had a bunch of strict constructionist judges in history, you'd be paying a poll tax right now.

    vesti said...

    If we had a bunch of strict constructionist judges in history, you'd be paying a poll tax right now.

    If you live in Georgia (as DL does), that was darn near reality:

    DL Foster said...

    The duties and operation of the Supreme Court and understandably state supreme courts were left up to the respective congress[es].

    I think it is clear that a judge should interpret and apply current and existing law, rather that create law, hence the term activism. I happen to believe the Mass ruling was pure activism to satify homosexuals who knew the people by democratic vote would never support it. That says a lot for people's understanding of basic things. If it wasn't, why didn't the supreme courts in all the other 49 states make immediate simular rulings?

    Because Mass created something that wasnt there to begin with. There is no "right to marry" in America, it is a privelege granted to those who meet the conditions of the law. The law does not recognize same gender marriage. Just as it doesnt recognize human-animal marriage. There is no compelling argument (other than emotive) for homosexual marriage like there was for interracial marriage.

    DL Foster said...

    This is a war of ideals. You think gay marriage is right, I know its wrong. If you are too afraid to get into the public square and face opposition to your beliefs, then I suggest you take your sign down and quit crying about "discrimination".

    Scott said...


    Judges interpret how laws measure up to the Constitution.

    The majority could vote tomorrow to ban guns but the Constitution forbids it.

    A judge would strike the law down immediately based on what the Constitution says.

    Would said judge be an activist for going against the will of the people?

    The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.

    That does not mean equal protection (as long as the majority agrees). It means EQUAL PROTECTION.

    NOw I hazard to guess that when you married your wife, you didn't go door to door asking permission from your community before you got your marriage license.

    I also will go out on a limb and suppose that you married the person of your choosing.

    Under the law, you can do that. It's also not my business to presume to tell you who you can marry.

    Why do you reserve the right to tell me?

    DL Foster said...

    A couple of points:

    A judge would strike the law down immediately based on what the Constitution says.
    1. Please show me in the Constitution where it says "gays have the right to marry". According to you, then a judge can grant that. Check the Bill of Rights too.

    2. You can marry whomever you want to marry. Gays are not arrested and jailed for getting marriage. That's a huge difference from blacks who were physically beaten and killed just so they could sact a vote. Your arguments are largely manipulated semantics that do not resonate with thinking people.

    The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.
    That does not mean equal protection (as long as the majority agrees). It means EQUAL PROTECTION.

    3. I married who I wanted to marry regardless of who did or did not agree. The law supports my marriage. You can marry who you want to marry, the law does not support your marriage (except in MA). The 14th Amendment's "under the law" phrase is not a carte blanche slate for whoever wants to pencil in a "right" and demand it be recognized. Nor should we acquiesce when someone superimposes a new right onto current law based on emotions.

    Your claim for equal protection is based on perceived injustice. Therefore, the law doesnt need to "equally protect" something it doesnt recognize as valid.

    vesti said...

    The reason why judges in the state of MA made the decision that they made is because they need to interpret the law in the context of the MA Constitution (which needs to be consistent with the US Constitution). Here is what they said:

    The Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government incursion as zealously, and often more so, than does the Federal Constitution, even where both Constitutions employ essentially the same language ... That the Massachusetts Constitution is in some instances more protective of individual liberty interests than is the Federal Constitution is not surprising. Fundamental to the vigor of our Federal system of government is that "state courts are absolutely free to interpret state constitutional provisions to accord greater protection to individual rights than do similar provisions of the United States Constitution." Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 8 (1995).

    So, that should answer your question about why MA did this and not the other 49 states. Frankly, the explanation that it was done by "activist judges" recruited by homosexual activists looks, shall we say, slightly less robust than the one profferd by the judges who made the decision.

    Regan said...

    Reasoned equal protection and standards do not and have not been specific about 'gays legally marrying'.
    It doesn't have to.
    There are no specifics about WHAT KIND of man and woman can marry and their condition of marriage is to be two consenting and non related adults.
    This condition does not change and the bans are specific to gays ONLY, not just any two men or two women.

    The worst kind of heterosexua, who isn't even free to walk the streets has the freedom, not privilege, to marry.
    Marriage is NOT a privilege specified in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, it's a freely recognized institution among HUMAN beings, no condition of which is a personal characteristic, even perceived as a flaw that is unique and specific to a minority of human beings.

    The worst kind of heterosexual has the protection, freedom and basic conditional standard to marriage, that a homosexual, much more suited to meeting his responsibility has for the same option.
    This is called, unequal and unConstitutional.
    If the black, gay is the same doesn't fly here.
    That's because you don't WANT to recognize this undisputable truth.

    Gays are beaten, jailed, harassed, horrifically killed or tortured, fired from jobs and careers destroyed too.
    Not because of incompetence or activity AGAINST another human being, but because of their condition as a gay person.
    Gay people understand segregation, understand struggle for identity and having their identity defined by someone else at the exclusion of all else of merit a gay person can offer society.
    THIS is contrary to the Bill of Rigghts.
    And anyone, especially a black man who claims experience with racism, and compassion for those 'struggling' should recognize when a person is struggling with the conceit of those in power, rather than the condition of WHAT they are.

    Equal, means equal.
    Not changing up the rules to isolate a minority for the purpose of inferior standing.

    DL Foster said...

    There are no specifics about WHAT KIND of man and woman can marry and their condition of marriage is to be two consenting and non related adults.

    I would argue that this is the EXACT reason why I and others press to amend state and the federal constitution to ensure the only "type" of man and woman who can be married in this country are the ones who fit the traditional, biological male/female model. Anything else is simply unacceptable and will meet with the strongest response allowable to stop it. At least on my part.

    Regan said...

    Okay, do you mean then that ONLY people who are not fit to raise a houseplant, let alone a DRUG ADDICTS and the genetically flawed?
    How about those with clinical mental illness?
    The incarcerated for life for murder?
    How about those who are paroled, but with child molestation or murder on their record?
    Or...the severely physically handicapped?
    what you're doing here DL is qualifying heterosexuals to be fit to maintain a moral and cohesive standard of marriage-biological can mean many things.

    And being a heterosexual isn't ENOUGH of a standard to ensure a quality of life for anything for obvious reasons.
    And there are also homosexuals who ARE qualified for reasons just as obvious who are better suited for marriage and parenthood.

    The thing you would deny a gay person marriage for, and NOT a heterosexual person doesn't squaare with the state's interests.
    Only heterosexual conceit.

    It doesn't follow the tradition of making marriage more equitable for the two people, regardless of BIOLOGICAL condition-such as gender.
    Or else you would be thinking that GENDER ROLES must be legislated.
    And that's at the core of this issue.
    That a person be the sum of their orientation and gender through legislation.
    The biological male/female model...has no bearing on the condition of the marriage, the children...nor the merits of the individual now does it?

    Regan said...

    Two children were shot and killed in different incidents here in LA.
    They were black children. A boy, 14 at a street carnival with his friends.
    The other was an 11 year old girl having dinner with her family. The shots that killed her were fired into the family's apartment.

    I have many gay friends who are parents DL. They tend to be mixed families. Ethnically mixed. One of the children might have disabilities.
    These are homes not so hung up on gender, color, disability or religious differences.
    These are people who easily associate with other groups and are not so quick to judge others with those differences.
    This isn't about MORAL difference, but ordinary human differences.

    'Traditional' homes or religious communities are far more socially homogenous and unable to get comfortable enough to even find common concerns.
    Those things that are damaging to society are mutually so. And it's increasingly difficult to discuss those important nuances with others like you, DL.
    Increasingly difficult to because of the continued adherence to myth and stereotype. And political motive for those myths to thrive.
    You are fostering the very things that made society worse, not better.
    Imagine who would still be alive, their family whole if this unnecessary bias against gay people had never existed?
    There is nothing about the traditional marriage model you speak of that is at the expense of heterosexuals whatsoever.
    But taking a hard line against gay people MUST be at THEIR expense?
    We know that people not knowing each other well and being afraid to, is what leads to unnecessary tragedy.

    You're gleeful here over this amendment, but you accuse gay people of doing the same when another young gay person DOESN'T get killed by a gang for once and he had to kill someone else to stay alive?

    How sad that you participate in the very activity that would motivate a gang to attack a young gay person walking alone, minding his own.
    Gay parents have EXACTLY the same concerns for their children as non gay parents.

    The difference is, they don't need to hurt heterosexual marriage potential and hope for it to do so.

    Mitch/Mike said...

    Absolutely right, regan. This is about human rights, which are protected by the constitution. The only reason to ban gay marriage is on religious/moral grounds, but no one has the right to legislate morality. This crap is simple rule by majority, and that's wrong 100% of the time. Republicans are supposed to be opposed to that.