The morning after update - 11.09.05
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.
16 comments:
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 CrooksandLiars.com, 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?
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?
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.
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?
Brady,
I felt your pain once. When the rogue "justices" of Mass legalized homosexual marriage, I went numb. This is called fighting back.
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?
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.
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.
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:
http://snipurl.com/jp1c
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.
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".
DL,
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Post a Comment