RSS
A Gay Marriage Right in California
E.J. Dionne has changed his mind about gay marriage. The country is slowly changing its mind too. Too slowly though for some judges in California who decided to impose gay marriage on their state.
Money Q:
"Nothing the California Court majority said should deter these states from recognizing that gays and lesbians, no less than heterosexuals, have a right to the community's recognition of the seriousness of their commitments."
Now, there's an interesting "right" to have.
The people of California have voted against granting this right to same-sex couples. The California Supreme Court knows better. Just like a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court knew better when it found a right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution.
Suddenly, gays and lesbians have a right to "recognition" of the seriousness of their commitments.
So why don't polygamists? Why shouldn't they have the same right? Why shouldn't communities be forced to recognize and appreciate the seriousness of the commitment of one man and three women? On what legal basis is their right to enter into such an arrangement denied?
The way it is supposed to work is that communities (i.e. states) are supposed to decide these things through their elected representatives. If the people find a difference between the value of a heterosexual coupling and a heterosexual threesome, well, this is a democratic republic and the PEOPLE get to decide these things.
If gays want the right to marry - as they apparently do - all they need to do is convince a majority of the people that it's a good idea, good for the community, good for everybody. Public opinion has moved in their direction.
But most "communities" don't like to be told what they must recognize as good, like say, the busing of THEIR children to achieve racially integrated schools. They don't like it any more than they like government-forced segregation, which the PEOPLE outlawed over time.
This appeal to the judicial branch, is typically a tactic of progressives and liberals to impose their will on what they consider to be a backward majority.
They shouldn't be so surprised when the majority bristles at being ordered around concerning what they must respect.
UPDATE: Steve Chapman says pretty much the same thing here.
Money Q:
"Nothing the California Court majority said should deter these states from recognizing that gays and lesbians, no less than heterosexuals, have a right to the community's recognition of the seriousness of their commitments."
Now, there's an interesting "right" to have.
The people of California have voted against granting this right to same-sex couples. The California Supreme Court knows better. Just like a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court knew better when it found a right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution.
Suddenly, gays and lesbians have a right to "recognition" of the seriousness of their commitments.
So why don't polygamists? Why shouldn't they have the same right? Why shouldn't communities be forced to recognize and appreciate the seriousness of the commitment of one man and three women? On what legal basis is their right to enter into such an arrangement denied?
The way it is supposed to work is that communities (i.e. states) are supposed to decide these things through their elected representatives. If the people find a difference between the value of a heterosexual coupling and a heterosexual threesome, well, this is a democratic republic and the PEOPLE get to decide these things.
If gays want the right to marry - as they apparently do - all they need to do is convince a majority of the people that it's a good idea, good for the community, good for everybody. Public opinion has moved in their direction.
But most "communities" don't like to be told what they must recognize as good, like say, the busing of THEIR children to achieve racially integrated schools. They don't like it any more than they like government-forced segregation, which the PEOPLE outlawed over time.
This appeal to the judicial branch, is typically a tactic of progressives and liberals to impose their will on what they consider to be a backward majority.
They shouldn't be so surprised when the majority bristles at being ordered around concerning what they must respect.
UPDATE: Steve Chapman says pretty much the same thing here.
posted by Spencerblog at
6:00 AM
14 Comments:
This has become classic Modern Liberal method of underhanded implementation. Once they fail to convince others of their whacky wants they set out on a mission to circumvent the clear will of The People and have sympathetic Lib courts inflict on us their agenda by inventing “rights”. They have worked overtime to prevent We The People from deciding this issue via referendum here in this democracy. That’s not very democracy like.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Libs sure don’t have any respect for democracy when it fails to serve their wants here in this democracy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Not bending to absurd demands and invented “rights” is hardly bigoted tyranny by any dishonest Lib stretch.
Puff Daddy Diano:
Will you be moving to California? I laugh at you when you applaud this type of judicial activism. The courts are to only exercise the jurisdiction that is granted to it by the legislature. That is how it works. I know you don't understand that but you will learn, especially when the next minority, the Christians, start getting preferential treatment from the Courts. This hyper homo movement will soon be fully exposed for being the unnatural and disgusting practice that it is. What will you do then?
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
Hey, Mr. S, shouldn’t you be in a Philly courtroom right about now bringing charges against those Lib gun grabbers who willfully and blatantly violated state law by enacting illegal gun laws? Since when are people permitted to violate laws and not be held legally accountable? One such lawsuit would bring all such Lib crap to a screeching halt.
And let’s not forget that our State Constitution goes even farther in protecting our rights by clearly stating that our right to bear arm “shall not be questioned”. –Not even so much as questioned! Therefore, any gun fearing Lib that so much as questions our right to keep and bear arms is guilty of violating our constitutional rights.
It is not enough to just preserve our rights. We need to bring this assault on our rights to an end by holding the grabber Libs legally liable. Come on, this is a great opportunity to take this to the next level and leave the filthy Libs shaking in their shoes. You can bet they’d think twice and three time before pulling such crap again.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gay Apologist Libs are forever grasping to legitimize homoism by equating it with animals and blacks.
If I did this you’d have all sorts of nasty names for me! Lol…
Puff Daddy Diano:
How about the cite/link for the "study"?
This comment has been removed by the author.
You can get hot gay salmon videos at this shop on South Street. Or, um, at least I heard you could!
I understand the study on other species, but when do you factor in the intelligence level?
Maybe that’s why all the extinct species are gone? They were gay! Lol…
Hey, I just invented the “right” to have sex with turtles while bungee jumping and farting “Yankee Doodle” thru a plastic trumpet! And I demand that everyone else respect and accommodate my new “right”. I want its legality legislated and given constitutional protections. Also, I want this lifestyle incorporated into school curriculum to instill in children tolerance and respect and celebration for those different than them.
Or risk being called a “bigot” or a “racist” or any number of the other silly labels Libs sling in an effort to silence anyone who doesn’t go along with their absurd newly created “rights”!
Hehehe!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home