Gay marriage vs. democracy

You can catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar, the adage goes. But advocates of same-sex marriage have a deal for the citizens of California : all the vinegar they can drink.

[Sherri]

So, in your opinion, was the civil rights movement done incorrectly? Should those who did not possess white skin and the rights that came with it have just kept plying honey, hoping to get their worth voted on by the majority that despised them?

Protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Sound familiar? It means something. It means that the majority should not be using sheer numbers to refuse access to equal rights. Domestic partnership laws are just one more version of separate but equal. It's a new way of saying "no colored allowed" at *this* water fountain, or in this part of the bus. Oh yeah, there's still a seat for you, just not up in the front where the people who have value are allowed to sit.

[fred]

Gay "marriage" isn't African-American Civil Rights, but America is a democracy as the first poster, and the gay movement, will be told by the California Supreme Court momentarily.

The California Supreme Court absolutely hammered the gay radicals on count two (America, majority vote, Democracy), and the people will take care of voting down count one (gay "marriage" doesn't equal African-American Civil Rights).

America will not soon forget the outrageous insults hurled at them as citizens and voters, at Democracy itself, and above all at Americans' belief in God.

By gays...

Gays who now must turn to the same exact voters and to their God, in the world's oldest Democracy, that gays have taunted and insulted to the quick.

[Paul]

"America will not soon forget the outrageous insults hurled at them as citizens and voters, at Democracy itself, and above all at Americans' belief in God."

Which God? Which religion? Christians can't even agree on how to Baptize, how to pray, or whether speaking in tongues is godly or a trick of Satan. Which version of the Bible is the right one to live by? I'll tell you what, why not look at the verse that says "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's"? Marriage IS NOT a religious institution, it is a legal one. You do NOT need the permission of ANY religious figure or institution to get married, you need the government's permission.

Look to the Church? Is that the same church that condoned and supported slavery? How about we leave the Church out of the Government as our Constitution demands, and allow the Church to attend the church.

[Leslie-Californi a]

"gays can have the full package of rights and duties that go with the institution of matrimony...insofar as the state of California can provide them—thanks to a domestic partnership law that duplicates everything about marriage except the name."
Gee Steve, maybe you should read the May California Supreme Court decision. It outlines 9 areas in state law where there is inequality between marriage and domestic partnership. It not just "the name."
Try being a "domestic partner" for a while and tell us how "equal" you feel.

[cle]

Paul wrote:

"America will not soon forget the outrageous insults hurled at them as citizens and voters, at Democracy itself, and above all at Americans' belief in God."
Which God? Which religion? Christians can't even agree on how to Baptize, how to pray, or whether speaking in tongues is godly or a trick of Satan. Which version of the Bible is the right one to live by? I'll tell you what, why not look at the verse that says "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's"? Marriage IS NOT a religious institution, it is a legal one. You do NOT need the permission of ANY religious figure or institution to get married, you need the government's permission.
Look to the Church? Is that the same church that condoned and supported slavery? How about we leave the Church out of the Government as our Constitution demands, and allow the Church to attend the church.

?

This article was about gays lording it over voters, saying America is not a democracy, that the California Supreme Court was theirs - until reality smacked them in the face all week long.

The article writer then says what a bad strategy the gays have for so long indulged in. The coming landmark loss will mean gays now must court the very same people they've done all of the above to.

[Leslie-Californi a]

"Gays vs Democracy?"

I thought fueling democracy by rousing the people to hate godless communists went out with the McCarthy era.

The author of this article wants to resurrect that era.

No thanks.

[WCCH]

When the majority can decide what civil rights a minority can have, then the whole purpose of the creation of our country and it's Constitution gets destroyed. Remember, this country came into being so individuals could speak and worship as they wished. Not be forced to do what the majority says. If the majority could have voted whether or not African-Americans had a right to freedom, would we still have slavery? Our Constitution was framed to protect the rights of the individual, not to give power to the majority to run our lives.

[Frank]

This isn't really about "gays" insulting the right of religious people to amend the constitution. As admitted by Kenneth Starr, the attorney for the pro-Prop 8 side, under the majoritarian view of the California constitution that you advance, any unpopular group can have its rights taken away by a simple majority.(Ex: Under the impressiom that the Mormon Church has too much sway over the political process, a majority of Californians amend the CA constitution to prevent Mormons from donating to political causes. Ok as a matter of California Consitutional law? Yes!)

And since all of us can claim membership in one unpopular group or another, that should cause all of us to care and reform the Ca amendment process to eliminate the simple majoritorian tyranny.

[Mike]

I find it astonishing that gays(whom the courts have identified as a disadvantaged minority) are somehow the bad guys for merely wanting the rights the court said they are entitled! The courts have a crucial role in protecting minority rights against the tyranny of the majority; otherwise you might find your rights subject to a popular vote one day. The NAACP and numerous other civil rights & religious groups all oppose Prop 8 for this very reason.

[Leslie-Californi a]

Defending Prop 8, Mr. Star admitted that by voting to change the state constitution the people can be wrong and they may be in this case, but voting rights were more important than human rights.

Was this an admission that Americans can be wrong? That our system of democracy is broken and supports wrong decisions?

There is nothing we can do. Wait for change in the future when we recognize the problem now.

America is more than financially bankrupt. It is morally repugnant.

[Steve]

What part of EQUAL do you not understand?

[w wayne]

Frank wrote:

This isn't really about "gays" insulting the right of religious people to amend the constitution. As admitted by Kenneth Starr, the attorney for the pro-Prop 8 side, under the majoritarian view of the California constitution that you advance, any unpopular group can have its rights taken away by a simple majority.(Ex: Under the impressiom that the Mormon Church has too much sway over the political process, a majority of Californians amend the CA constitution to prevent Mormons from donating to political causes. Ok as a matter of California Consitutional law? Yes!)
And since all of us can claim membership in one unpopular group or another, that should cause all of us to care and reform the Ca amendment process to eliminate the simple majoritorian tyranny.

Nov. 4, 2008: The same day Americans voted yet again against gay "marriage" they elected the first African-American President, in fact gay "marriage" went down in flames in a dozen or so states Nov. 4 beside California, as it has always gone done in flames.

When you win a vote get back to us. You can say hypothetically the majority that created our government could do this or that. Nobody believes the fear-mongering.

You also completely missed Chapman's point by insulting. The CA Supreme Court is about to close the door permanently on your failed wish, and you now have to ask the people you've insulted, for so long, to support you.

[CA Rebel]

To me this is no different than banning interracial marriage. The people did not vote to allow interracial marriage, the court had to step in and demand that we do. No one asserts that by the court doing this, they messed with the democratic process. We can see now that it was the right thing to for the court to do, at the time we didn't see it. To me, this is the same thing, gays don't choose to be gay, how can I deny them happiness. I am not that selfish. My heterosexual marriage doesn't need protection from gays. I am happy to let them participate in this wonderful institution. I am sad that it has turned into a popularity contest for the LGBT community. They shouldn't have to convince us that they are worthy. They are worthy. I am not going to be on the wrong side of history like so many were years ago with the racial issues our country face. I am not gay by the way.

[Carlos T Mock MD]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml... 'Connor-Pt.-1
and
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml... 'Connor-Pt.-2

You should try to remember that the Constitution set three different branches of government. The Judicial, as Justice O'Connor tried to remind the American people, has the duty to protect the rights of minorities over the majority.

If California were to put a proposition that euthanasia is permitted and it passed by a large majority, the Supreme court could easily ruled it unconstitutional because it desires to protect the rights of those that are to be killed.

Civil unions are not enough!

In Loving v. Virginia,(1967) where The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Court's decision, Chief Justice Warren wrote:
“Marriage is one of 'the basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival ... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.�

[Scarborian]

What is happening in the courts is not about right and wrong, it's about the technicalities of the law as it stands today. If the law does not treat everyone equally then it will have to be changed at the first available opportunity.

I find Proposition 8 extremely offensive.

[daithen]

I think it boils down to one question, why should the majority be allowed to decide what rights a small group of americans have without removing those same rights for themselves. The fact of the matter is that if you are going to no to gay people you have to say no to all people. People vote their conscience, morality and yes religious views all the time. That is why citizens rights can never be put up for a popular vote. This proposition is offensive and iwll be looked on in the future just like we look at slavery or denial of women's issues....with disgust.

[Fitz]

Gay marriage vs. democracy

57-43 = Oregon

59-41 = Michigan

52 -48 = California

62-38 = Ohio

66-34 = Utah

67-33 = Montana

71-29 = Kansas

71-29 = Missouri

73-27 = North Dakota

75-25 = Arkansas

75-25 = Kentucky

76-24 = Georgia

76-24 = Oklahoma

78-22 = Louisiana

86-14 = Mississippi

56-44 = Colorado

63–37 = Idaho

74-26 = South Carolina

52-49 = South Dakota

82-19 = Tennessee

57-43 = Virginia

60-40 = Wisconsin

62% Florida, & 57% Arizona

[MattJ]

Leslie-California wrote:

America is more than financially bankrupt. It is morally repugnant.

You lost, so you call the whole country "morally repugnant". I can't think of a better way for you to announce to the whole Internet what sore losers you are.

[Kurt Johnson]

Mocking Gay Californians for standing up to the tyranny of the majority-win or lose, is about the equivalent of reprimanding the puny schoolboy for angering the bully by standing up to him after being pushed around and degraded all of his life. Moreover what is the issue of nomenclature if it is not the essence of the civil rights movement? African Americans had equal rights under the law when they where subject to separate schools and water fountains as well as being relegated to the back of the bus. The civil rights movement was completely based on the concept that African Americans would have more than just rights on paper. There is no difference between what Gay Americans are asking for and what African Americans stood up for. But what is that old saying?“Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.”

[Truth]

The absolute rule of the majority can be a scary thing. Mob rule has led to many unfortunate episodes in the past and that is not what the constitution of California allows. Separate is NOT equal and "amending" the constitution to bar gay marriages DID make a fundamental change to the constition and therefore was a Revision. There IS a reason the people placed that restriction on themselves. Though they couldn't foresee same sex marriage, they DID know enough about history to protect any future minority from mob rule.