Comments on: Time for Gay Marriage Debate to End

By: Tammy

Tammy — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:33:02 +0000

"I’m sure all commenters here will applaud the right of the people to choose their own destinies through a free ballot. Ultimately, that’s where the power should reside, no matter what the result"

If reason went to the majority, the destiny of minorities succumb not to choice but to a majority. Attitude alone did not change past discriminatory practices of our nation, the law did against the majority of wills. And as far as public policy goes, I didn’t see a ballet for the American people to vote on; abortion, the war in Iraq, stem cell research, capital punishment, hate crime legislation, free trade etc. Shrugs shoulders…maybe I am missing the point of homosexual marriage being the one of only controversial issue being brought to the public by ballet for a vote ‘by the people’. Maybe federal and state issues should convene by the wills of the majority period by vote in the same way homosexual marriage will be decided by the majority in the future.

By: kreiz

kreiz — Sat, 17 May 2008 03:41:29 +0000

Another noble but misplaced try, Jason, as freedom of religion is expressly protected under the First. No problem there. The problem is in judicial fiat in unexpressed constitutional areas. I’m pro abortion and pro civil union- but view Roe as poor decision-making. At some point, the integrity of our constitutional system breaks down if the judiciary’s role becomes an unassailable super-legislature. It’s an anathema to the way our system was framed.

By: Jason

Jason — Sat, 17 May 2008 02:18:27 +0000

Interesting view, Kreiz. Would you also endorse a voter initiative that sought to remove all 4th amendment protections from Muslims?

After all, the people should have final say, right? “No matter what the result.”

Sorry, but I see your view as nothing less than empowering bigotry under cover of populism. It is detestable to its core and you should be embarrassed for advocating it publicly.

By: kreiz

kreiz — Sat, 17 May 2008 01:45:16 +0000

Sorry to disappoint, but Stubborn Facts reports that the people of California may have the last say:

"A group called Protect Marriage has already submitted the necessary paperwork to the CA Secretary of State to get a voter initiative on the next ballot that would define marriage as between one man and one woman in the California Constitution (essentially the only way to overturn the CA Supreme Court ruling)."

I’m sure all commenters here will applaud the right of the people to choose their own destinies through a free ballot. Ultimately, that’s where the power should reside, no matter what the result.

By: kreiz

kreiz — Sat, 17 May 2008 00:51:12 +0000

Jason at 7- free speech is expressly constitutionally protected in the First. Good try, though. And you can see by the backlash after 9/11 how much repression occurred against Muslims… none.

By: kreiz

kreiz — Fri, 16 May 2008 23:37:17 +0000

It’s not about a new civil rights movement, utsu. It’s about the integrity of our judiciary, and allowing the least democratic branch of our government, unelected lifetime-appointed judges, to decide the major social issues of our day. I don’t want this any more than I want a panel of 5 to hold that a fetus is a ‘person’ entitled to equal protection. At that point, courts are simply mini-super legislatures. It’s absurd. Gore v. Bush demonstrated this trend. In Gore, a narrow majority applied the equal protection claus to voting procedures in spite of the fact that, historically, they had declined to do so. Then they limited the decision to its facts. This kind of intellectual dishonesty should be abhorred by everyone, liberal and conservative alike.

By: utsu

utsu — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:32:58 +0000

"Here’s a radical thought- how about the legislature determining whether they want same sex marriage? "

They shouldn’t decide what the churches in their state can and can’t do. If gays can’t get married in church (because the bible goes ix-nay) then women can’t get married to guys with long hair (because the bible nixes that too).

So unless these poor, down-trodden and side-stepped John and Jane Q’s (or anti-Queers?) show me a constructed essay as to why gays getting married make them feel pushed by the ivory tower, above-street-level balhdeblah elites but guys with pony-tails are A-OK they can stay at home and feel indiganted for all I care. This is above them. This is about forcing a new generation of Americans to get as used to and comfortable with gays as they are to blacks, and let those who seek to keep gays as shibboleths or kooky in the eyes of their young go and die by natural causes. Blacks doing what whites did to higher degrees, even if it caused friction with sub-average Joe and Jane, was a vital step in freeing the US from the crippling race problems.

This is the new civil rights movement,and it has less temerity, arrogance or bold demands than any of those that just want to stall or obstruct it. Kindly move out of its way.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:32:00 +0000

Sure, Kreiz. Let’s also have the legislatures decide which groups get free speech and which do not and whether Muslims should be exempt from the 4th Amendment after 9/11 too.

By: utsu

utsu — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:17:09 +0000

"Because one does not need to view very many anti-gay marriage protests for very much time at all to notice that that is exactly what constitutes the entire foundation of the anti-gay marriage movement."

Oh I just punched the air. More straight-talk like this is needed at PG.

By: kreiz

kreiz — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:11:23 +0000

If it’s about individuals, then you have no problem with the rationale of, say, Gore v. Bush? Okay.

As for the California Constitutional interpretion, this has been a well-rehearsed litigation tactic in Massachusetts and New Jersey- taking it out of the realm of the US Constitution and SCOTUS review (presumably). Here’s a radical thought- how about the legislature determining whether they want same sex marriage?