[Re. the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger which will determine whether or not Prop 8 violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.]
Millions of Californians weighed in on this issue. Many invested their own hard earned money and time to exercise their rights as citizens. The United States Supreme Court has already ruled that States can limit marriage to one man and one woman (albeit in a summary decision).
One homosexual maniac is going to overturn the will of the people via fiat, without any basis in the law.
One man with the sweep of his hand can tell 13,000,000 voters that what they say doesn't matter.
How is that Freedom? We are living in a dictatorship.
75 comments
I thought the constitution applied to the entire country and that the laws passed within each state had to fall within the perameters set by said constitution.
Hell, I know a certain MP here in Canada tried to ban gay marriage and was surprised to find out that that was a matter of the federal government, not the provincial ones so the opinion of a chunk of that province didn't matter at all.
Hardly. We just live in a society where laws are to be followed. If you want to change the laws, contact your senator and ask them to try to amend the constitution.
Good luck with that one, skippy.
One man with the sweep of his hand can tell 13,000,000 voters that what they say doesn't matter.
Yeah, thirteen people did that to the racist voters who supported school segregation in Kansas, too. Ain't the Constitution a bitch?
Loving v. Virginia, mother fucker.
Edit: Is it just me, or are so-called conservative christianists just the most fabulous collection of screaming drama queens? (Not that there's anything wrong with that).
OMG!! They did something we didn't like, and we fought back, and they didn't like that, so they're fighting -us- back! Those MONSTERS!!! What gives them the right?!
If a law is passed and found to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, then it is overturned. The only way to change the law is to amend the Constitution. It doesn't matter if 13 million people say that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, the only way to change it is with a vote of nearly 300 million.
To say that it's done on a whim without any basis in law is false.
---"How is that Freedom? We are living in a dictatorship."---
No, it's called living in a Republic. Perhaps you should go live in a straight up Democracy, where the public vote determines everything.
Everyone knows that gay issues must be decided democratically, by the voters of the affected jurisdiction or their democratically elected representatives. For example, when the people of New Jersey, acting through their democratically elected representatives, choose to pass a gay-rights law, the Boy Scouts should just -- oops, bad example. Moreover, in the District of Columbia -- drat, another bad example.
In other words, being a conservative means knowing when to say that we must protect democracy and when to say that America is a republic, not a democracy.
One homosexual maniac is going to overturn the will of the people via fiat, without any basis in the law
A constitution isn't a law? I was led to believe that constitutions were sort of a basic law, silly me!
So, you wouldn't mind if 13,000,000 strangers said that YOUR marriage was invalid and that YOU shouldn't be allowed to marry anybody? You wouldn't mind if 13,000,000 strangers "invested their own hard earned money and time" to pass a law that said that the police shouldn't interfere if somebody beats you up for being who you are? That the person should in no way be punished for what they did to you?
Let's see how long it would take before you'd start denouncing THEM for acting like dictators. Hypocrite.
In my opinion Winston Churchill decribed democracy the best.
"Democracy is the worst political system we have appart from all the others that have been tried."
P.S - I am not implying that I am against the rights of the public, it is just that from my perspective there is room for improvement.
Freedom means the majority cannot force its beliefs on the minority and cannot deprive a minority of its civil rights. And, as others have pointed out here, the US Constitution and state constitutions are kind of considered like, you know,laws.
It's time, freedomwarrior998...
Are you rich, freedomwarrior998?
"One man with the sweep of his hand can tell 13,000,000 voters that what they say doesn't matter. "
See also: Scott Brown.
No complaints there, right, freedomdude?
One homosexual maniac is going to overturn the will of the people via fiat, without any basis in the law.
Sorry, but Leviticus doesn't apply to reality.
image
In this case, the "voice" of 13,000,000 (citation needed) voters DOES NOT matter. The government has no right or duty in legislating morality. Furthermore, majority is not always correct, right, or legal. The majority used to support denying the right to vote to women and blacks too. ..... Also, we are certainly not living in a dictatorship (do you even know what that word means?). The U.S. is not even a true democracy (never has been). If anything our government is a Representative Republic.
'We are living in a dictatorship'
Dictatorship is something Freepers are so fond of, just as long as it's the fundy Xtian kind. Bloody hypocrites.
As someone once pointed out (maybe even on here), the only time freepers et. al. mention freedom/rights is in the context of denying it to someone who isn't like them.
Either way, their relationship with the F-word is indeed a peculiar and dysfunctional thing. It's almost like there is something else going on...
"without any basis in the law"
Except, you know, the Constitution. Idiot.
Wasn't there a president, just a few years ago, who said he wanted a dictatorship. Jokingly, maybe, but still.
What is the name of that single homosexual maniac? In what way is s/he manic? Isn't s/he part of the people, too?
Was it really a round even figure like 13,000,000 people who voted for the proposition?
How, exactly, is preventing two people from getting married freedom? INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS are what keeps a society free, not letting everyone else decide how one person should lead his or her life.
"One homosexual maniac is going to overturn the will of the people...."
I love the wording here. he says the law is going get overturned. He already knows the law is unconstitutional and he's just upset that someone else, from the other side, has realized that as well. Hypocrisy at it's worst.
One race mixing maniac is going to overturn the will of the people via fiat, without any basis in the law.
One man with the sweep of his hand can tell 13,000,000 voters that what they say doesn't matter.
How is that Freedom? We are living in a dictatorship.
Fixed for the year 1960.
Democracy, at its purest, is a pretty vicious and wicked system. In its pure form, it would mean that a slight majority of people could uttery subjugate the minority.
What about the way the American government has ever done much of anything makes you think it's democratic.
The people get to flock to the polling stations in record low numbers to vote on maybe one out of every 30 issues or so.
Electing your politicians only means you choose who makes all these decisions above your head.
Just because your government is a better system than others, just because they make a big deal about all your rights and shit, don't go making the assumption that they care what you think for any longer than it takes to get your vote.
How is that Freedom? We are living in a dictatorship.
You mean like these two poor girls, brainwashed by crazy parents?
image
@Zeus Almighty
You can't get more forceful than sending in the 101st Airborne and declaring martial law because some idiots decided that it "Wasn't fair" that the law didn't support their bigoted ways.
Or even sending a whole military corp to Oxford in 1962 for the same thing.
Because our country was designed not only on the principle that all men are created equal, but that all minorities are protected from the whim and will of the majority, assbrains.
Also, the basis you're saying doesn't exist, does. It's called the Equal Protection Clause, enclosed in a little slip of paper called the U.S. Constitution. Look it up pronto.
You're also advised to look up the correct use of "dictatorship."
"How is that Freedom? We are living in a dictatorship."
It's called a republic. Conservatives are supposed to be for it, remember?
A very small minority (and a shrinking one -- polls suggest that if Prop 8 were voted on again just over a year later, it would lose) voted to exempt gay people from the equal protection clause in the California constitution WRT marriage -- and the Republicans in the CA supreme court basically dusted off Plessy v. Ferguson to rule that separate but supposedly equal is OK in terms of marriage (even when statewide domestic partnership falls short of being equal). The people who got that small majority of California voters to support Prop h8 are now terrified that if they testify in court, it'll come out that they lied their asses off in the campaign (inventing fake "consequences" of marriage equality and circulating all the old homophobic blood libels) and they know people will be pissed. (This is why they were terrified that the proceedings might be televised, and are down to only two witnesses willing to testify on behalf of Prop h8.)
(Side note -- even with the official "lie your ass of for theocracy" Prop h8 campaign funded by laundered Mormon and Catholic money, it looks like they had to resort to the old Diebold methods to get Prop h8 to pass. Either that, or even anonymous exit polls are accurate on everything except bills reversing marriage equality.)
No, no, no, no, no, no. What they are determining is whether it was legal to pass the fucking thing in the first place. If it's decided it was unconstitutional to enact the law, then it is void. That's what a constitution is for. You tit.
Technically, that would be a junta.
But what are you bitching about? You're the one trying to strip people of their rights.
> Many invested their own hard earned money and time to exercise their rights as citizens.
...I'm probably just a filthy European to you, but our Constitution doesn't have any principles along the lines of "whoever pays most money is right". Or "bad laws absolutely must be kept in effect because the state paid a lot of money to develop them and put them in the legislation". Or "political campaigns of any sort are entitled to have the exact results the campaigners want, especially if they spend a lot of money campaigning, because letting all that money go to waste would be a terrible shame, now wouldn't it be".
I have nothing to say that hasn't already been said except to remark that I find it ironic that due to the way the legal stuff works, Schwarzenegger is listed as the defendant in this case, considering that Schwarzenegger was actually vocal in his opposition to Prop H8.
I will argue that there are fewer tax-dodging preachers than gay couples.
In the true spirit of the majority sitting on the minority, I propose that all preachers be publicly humiliated and forced to pay back taxes.
Further, in the true spirit of the majority etc., I propose that all evangelizers, missionaries, and proselytizers (a collective minority) be prohibited from disturbing the peace and frightening little children.
Howzat?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
