Thursday, January 15, 2009

Because I Said So

George Will on Jerry Brown's attempt to have Prop 8 declared unconstitutional.

Money Q:

"Just eight years ago, Proposition 22 was passed 61.4 to 38.6. The much narrower victory of Proposition 8 suggests that minds are moving toward toleration of same-sex marriage. If advocates of that have the patience required by democratic persuasion, California's ongoing conversation may end as they hope. If, however, the conversation is truncated, as Brown urges, by judicial fiat, the argument will become as embittered as the argument about abortion has been by judicial highhandedness."

The left would rather order than persuade.

10 Comments:

Blogger David Diano said...

It's idiotic for George Will to advocate an oppressed group avoiding the specific branch of government designed to deal with injustices and Constitutional rights.

January 15, 2009 at 10:58 AM 
Anonymous r said...

If, however, the conversation is truncated, as Brown urges, by judicial fiat, the argument will become as embittered as the argument about abortion has been by judicial highhandedness.

Heading off underhanded agenda advancing judicial fiat is exactly why Prop 8 was needed in the first place! But this circumventing of democracy along with attempting to dishonestly cut off debate have become the Libs' preferred methods of end-run implementation.
Gays and their Lib sympathizers should respect democracy and the will of the People and accept the results of Prop 8 and live with it. But they won’t. Disrespect and endless agitation have also become Libs hallmarks. Libs always push too far. As parents sometimes must do to bad children, it is well time to simply tell the gays and Libs a flat and firm No, as voters did back in November.

January 15, 2009 at 11:34 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Again, with the idea that gays in California are "oppressed."

Please.

Will's clear and excellent advice is more and more Californians are persuadeable when it comes to gay marriage. Gay activists ought to do more convincing and less pleading to liberal judges for "rights" that don't exist in the state constitution. A little patience and hard work and they would achieve their goal democratically, instead of through a questionable judicial edict.

January 15, 2009 at 12:55 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Libs abandoned persuasion as a means to get what they want long ago.
Now they lie, cheat, endrun, pretend wants are “rights” where none exist… It’s all supported by their “By any means necessary” motto.
Again, whacky underhanded people will say and do all sorts of whacky and underhanded stuff. The problem comes when others pay them any heed rather than just dismissing and ignoring them.

January 15, 2009 at 1:21 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

Spencer-
Would you feel oppressed if Pennsylvania outlawed second marriages by reserving the word "marriage" for only the first "till death do us part" traditional marriage?
Mrs. Spencerblog (II) would be only a cohabitation civil partner without the various health insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc. that came automatically with "marriage".

How about getting even more "traditional" and not having the state recognize divorce, and keeping you married to the first Mrs. Spencerblog (I)?
Though, I think she'd might have a Constitutional case for "cruel and unusual punishment". :-)

The "oppression" comes from denying gays equal protection under the law and the rights/privileges enjoyed by married couples. This is going to go down just like it did in Loving v Virginia to end racial marriage discrimination.

January 16, 2009 at 12:12 AM 
Anonymous r said...

There's one now.
Gays are not oppressed. Saying that's just silly (and dishonest). They already enjoy the very same rights as everyone else and even some special protections.

January 17, 2009 at 12:56 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Diano:

Homosexuals get special protections. Any "benefit" of marriage that they want can be esily remedied by a power of attorney.

January 18, 2009 at 8:44 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Exactly, Mr. S.
Anyone can designate anyone they want to, say, visit them in a hospital or recieve their inheritance.
The gays and their Lib enablers are just grasping when they whine that tired disingenuous tune.

January 18, 2009 at 2:00 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

why debate this? The people of California spoke and that's that. Move on (.org).

January 19, 2009 at 1:24 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

Pro-Christ (in a very un-Christian way)
Why should they have to go through the additional trouble to get power of attorney? Separate but equal?
How about if we don't give gay civil unions the word "marriage", but give them all the current legal marriage rights automatically, and then make all the straight married couples have to get power of attorney (since you feel it is such an "easy" remedy)?
Is your law degree written in crayon and your heart made of stone?

January 20, 2009 at 12:33 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home