PRO PROP. 8: Take a stand against cou...

PRO PROP. 8: Take a stand against court dictatorship

There are 1375 comments on the LA Daily News story from Oct 29, 2008, titled PRO PROP. 8: Take a stand against court dictatorship. In it, LA Daily News reports that:

A key danger our Founding Fathers feared was that the judiciary would become too powerful, overstep its bounds and begin usurping the role of the people.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at LA Daily News.

First Prev
of 69
Next Last
Caleb

Kingston, PA

#1 Oct 29, 2008
How can I vote against the heterosexual dictatorship?
feetwister

Nashville, TN

#2 Oct 29, 2008
How can I vote against paying taxes?
Jeff

Los Angeles, CA

#3 Oct 29, 2008
Excuse me, did you sleep through high school civics? The role of the judiciary is to uphold the constitution, which is the ultimate will of the people. This article is yet another example of the right wing nutballs trying to make a point by using mis-statements, irrelevant facts and histrionics. I get it, you hate gay people and want to be able to freely discriminate against them. You want to codify this in the state constitution. Hummmm... I have a quiz for you - when was the last time a government wrote laws to discriminate against a specific group of people? The answer, Nazi Germany, but you are probably one of the people who doesn't believe the holocaust ever occurred. You should really be ashamed of yourself! This poem sums it all up and is a lesson to all of you who would support Prop 8. You can bash the gays now, who will be next... it might be you:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Ralph

Fenton, MO

#4 Oct 29, 2008
Jeff wrote:
Excuse me, did you sleep through high school civics? The role of the judiciary is to uphold the constitution, which is the ultimate will of the people. This article is yet another example of the right wing nutballs trying to make a point by using mis-statements, irrelevant facts and histrionics. I get it, you hate gay people and want to be able to freely discriminate against them. You want to codify this in the state constitution. Hummmm... I have a quiz for you - when was the last time a government wrote laws to discriminate against a specific group of people? The answer, Nazi Germany, but you are probably one of the people who doesn't believe the holocaust ever occurred. You should really be ashamed of yourself! This poem sums it all up and is a lesson to all of you who would support Prop 8. You can bash the gays now, who will be next... it might be you:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
My favorite quote concerning human rights. Thanks for posting it.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#5 Oct 29, 2008
Jeff wrote:
Excuse me, did you sleep through high school civics? The role of the judiciary is to uphold the constitution, which is the ultimate will of the people. This article is yet another example of the right wing nutballs trying to make a point by using mis-statements, irrelevant facts and histrionics. I get it, you hate gay people and want to be able to freely discriminate against them. You want to codify this in the state constitution. Hummmm... I have a quiz for you - when was the last time a government wrote laws to discriminate against a specific group of people? The answer, Nazi Germany, but you are probably one of the people who doesn't believe the holocaust ever occurred. You should really be ashamed of yourself! This poem sums it all up and is a lesson to all of you who would support Prop 8. You can bash the gays now, who will be next... it might be you:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Jeff,
Nice
Can I use it?
Blessed Be
Ralph

Fenton, MO

#6 Oct 29, 2008
Rose T-H wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeff,
Nice
Can I use it?
Blessed Be
Rose, I can't remember who wrote it, but I would think it is in public domain by this time. I am 63 yrs old, and I remember it from high school.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#7 Oct 29, 2008
Ralph wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose, I can't remember who wrote it, but I would think it is in public domain by this time. I am 63 yrs old, and I remember it from high school.
From what I remember, it's from speeches given by a German Pastor named Martin Neinmoller(sp?) who was a social activist after WWII and it's usually called "First They Came... ". I've read different versions of this "poem" over the years, so I have a feeling that he gave variations of it and he never had a set original version to it.
Bedrock of Bigotry

Yorba Linda, CA

#8 Oct 29, 2008
Can't believe the author of this article is opposed to courts overturning Jim Crow laws eventhough most of those bigoted laws were "the will of the people". Thank goodness, an activist court sided with tolerance in Brown vs. The Board of Education.
Joe B

San Mateo, CA

#9 Oct 29, 2008
This argument is tired, and I would expect more from a "speech writer for a former California Attorney General". There is something called a system of "check and balances" between the three branches of our government. You should know this, Ms. Bengs.
Let's take look at an example of how this all works. In 1947, California, as defined by the people, recognized the "traditional definition of marriage" as between a man and a woman - ONLY IF THEY WERE OF THE SAME RACE. What did this mean? If you are Indian, you could not marry a Filipino. If you are Black, you could not legally marry someone who is White. If you are Mexican, you could only legally marry another Mexican. These were called anti-miscegeny laws that were predominant throughout the United States. In fact, the religious leaders of the time who supported segregation also supported these anti-miscegeny laws in order to keep their white race pure. It was California in 1948, with our "imperialistic, activist and rogue" judges that struck down these laws. It wasn't until 1967 that the United States Supreme Court rule these anti-miscegenistic laws unconstitutional.
So where would you have stood in light of these landmark decisions, Ms Bengs? But of course, being White, and of the White Majority, you would have felt that these dictatorial judges imposed their will onto you and prevented you from exercising your due process under the constitution. And now Ms. Bengs, you has-been speech writer, sit back and continue to write about the injustice of the judicial branch. To you, Might Makes Right... and that would make everything all White, wouldn't it?
VOTE NO ON PROP 8.
Sick of your BS

Fair Oaks, CA

#10 Oct 29, 2008
Supporters of Prop. 8 don't give a fig about marriage. If they truly cared about preserving the sanctity of marriage, they'd address the embarrassingly high divorce rate and work on helping troubled marriages and eliminating spousal and child abuse, for starters. No, these folks are just homophobic hypocrites. It's straight people who have desecrated the institution of marriage, not gays. Vote no on Prop. 8.
Bill

Torrance, CA

#11 Oct 29, 2008
Jefferson, oh yeah, he was the president that was a closeted adulterer with his African slave, having a child with the slave and repeatedly denied the existence of that child and affair until the day he died. He was of utmost character, his friends also defended him until the day he died, he would never do anything like that. What a liar and hypocrite, and you expect gays to be closeted and liars just like he was. He wrote equality into the constitution and lived so, and so should we be honest with ourselves. Selfish and greedy, just do not want to share with others the freedom you already enjoy, and expect the courts to enforce this greed just like many religions do.
Peter

Palo Alto, CA

#12 Oct 29, 2008
You are right. When indvidual person abuse power over people of all the state, it's very dangeous. Vote YES on prop 8 will restore original 61% californian's stand on correct definistion of marriage. GOD BLESS AMERICA.
Ben in Oakland

Millbrae, CA

#13 Oct 29, 2008
Much better than having a dictatorship of the judiciary-- one that seems to be bent on protecting the rights of a minority-- let's have a dictatorship of the people!!!

Wait! they tried that already! It was called communism. In a democracy such as ours, the judiciary has a purpose-- to make sure that the laws are in accord with the constitution of the state

Activist judges appear to be those who disagree with the idea that only some people get equality before the law. Brown vs. Board of Education and Loving vs. Virginia were both landmark cases dealing with racial prejudice and decided by activist judges. The country is better off for them. If it were left to a popular vote back in the Fifties and Sixties, racial prejudice and segregation would still be the norm. It took court decisions and political leadership to move this country toward doing the right thing.

Defeating Prop. 8 is not only about marriage equality, it is also about doing the right thing and making our country a better place for all citizens. Prejudice and discrimination, whether because of race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other irrelevant factor, are always wrong. They diminish all of us, our laws, and our country.

As for the alleged lawsuits impinging on and restricting freedom of speech and freedom of religion? ABSOLUTE HOGWASH!!!!! Maybe you should re-take a course in high school civics. Both freedom of religion and freedom of speech are absolutely sacrosanct in our country. These are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. The lying lawyer in the prop. 8 ads should resign his position for telling such a blatant lie.

Please do not bring up the Canadian and Swedish ministers who were jailed. They weren't, and those our not our country with our laws and protections for speech and religion. No teacher is free to say whatever she wants at any time in a classroom. Outside of it, she is a regular citizen. Please don't tell me how churches are going to be sued if they don't perform same-sex weddings, and then cite a church-owned property which refused to comply with non-discrimination laws-- which protect people on the basis of religious belief--as your proof. It's irrelevant-- it wasn't either a church or a religion.

Prop. 8 is about civil marriage licenses and denying a portion of the citizenry the right of fulfilling a state-sanctioned contract: it is 14 words, none of which are freedom, speech,mother, father, children, family, education, curriculum, religion, rights.

By the way, those "elected representatives" twice passed a law legalizing gay marriage. so much for that arugment.

Please vote no on Prop. 8
Jim Honeycutt

Lakeside, CA

#14 Oct 29, 2008
I fully believe that this is the civil rights movement of our time. We look back in disgust on the "separate but equal" institutions of the 60's like "colored" drinking fountains and cringe. I believe that history will look back on us and judge us based on our actions here. That's why I'm voting NO on 8.
Jonathan

Oakland, CA

#15 Oct 29, 2008
The judges were simply doing their jobs. It is their job to revoke unjust laws. Do you have a problem with check and balances? Any law that is passed that supports discrimination is unjust, simple as that. If one groups votes its religion into law, that is against all the principles of this nation. NO ON 8!!! You have no right to vote your religion into our constitution.
Jason

Santa Clara, CA

#16 Oct 29, 2008
Gore vs. Bush in 2000 is the real argument to dismantlle the judicial branch. Talk about ignoring the voice of the people.
ordained minister

Yuma, AZ

#17 Oct 29, 2008
i hope prop 8 doesn't pass. i can legally perform marraiges ans sign marraige licenses.

Since: Oct 08

United States

#18 Oct 29, 2008
From what I can tell, proponents or Proposition 8 are willing to sacrifice the civil rights of same sex couples simply because they despise same sex couples in general.

Ever since this weekend when I asked some Prop 8 supporters why I should vote for it, all I got was the same dogma I've seen here. When I asked them this question none of them could give me a valid answer that didn't include good old discrimination. I am still seeking one now, so if any Prop 8 supporters are out there I challenge you to answer this question.

Why do you think it OK for the State to grant a set of rights/benefits to committed couples, and then deny those very rights to a segment of committed couples solely on the basis of sexual orientation.

Isn't there anyone out there that supports Prop 8 that can answer this question truthfully (you must cite any legal references you use) and without discrimination.

Here are some of the things I've heard that are ridiculous so far:

1. Because it's always been that way, only a man and a woman.(Hmm I think I heard this one when segregation was an issue)

2. Because the bible says so.(Ha ha ha and the Earth is 5,000 years old, the sun and universe revolve around the Earth)

3. To protect the children.(From what? You're hatred of gay people?)

Can anyone do better than some of these and the many other lame excuses I've heard.

Vote No on 8 for Freedom, Equality and Justice.
JasonJack

Midway, UT

#19 Oct 29, 2008
Sick of your BS wrote:
Supporters of Prop. 8 don't give a fig about marriage. If they truly cared about preserving the sanctity of marriage, they'd address the embarrassingly high divorce rate and work on helping troubled marriages and eliminating spousal and child abuse, for starters. No, these folks are just homophobic hypocrites. It's straight people who have desecrated the institution of marriage, not gays. Vote no on Prop. 8.
]

This problem exists, I hope it is controlled. I would love to help curb divorce, how would you suggest I do that?
JasonJack

Midway, UT

#20 Oct 29, 2008
SurfAndSwim wrote:
From what I can tell, proponents or Proposition 8 are willing to sacrifice the civil rights of same sex couples simply because they despise same sex couples in general.
Ever since this weekend when I asked some Prop 8 supporters why I should vote for it, all I got was the same dogma I've seen here. When I asked them this question none of them could give me a valid answer that didn't include good old discrimination. I am still seeking one now, so if any Prop 8 supporters are out there I challenge you to answer this question.
Why do you think it OK for the State to grant a set of rights/benefits to committed couples, and then deny those very rights to a segment of committed couples solely on the basis of sexual orientation.
Isn't there anyone out there that supports Prop 8 that can answer this question truthfully (you must cite any legal references you use) and without discrimination.
Here are some of the things I've heard that are ridiculous so far:
1. Because it's always been that way, only a man and a woman.(Hmm I think I heard this one when segregation was an issue)
2. Because the bible says so.(Ha ha ha and the Earth is 5,000 years old, the sun and universe revolve around the Earth)
3. To protect the children.(From what? You're hatred of gay people?)
Can anyone do better than some of these and the many other lame excuses I've heard.
I'll give you a simple answer. Marriage is a protection for husband-wife relationships. Just like Blacks, women, asians and others have protections, marriages protect some other people. In fact these people are important because they are the fundamental child-bearers of this nation. They deserve these special protections since they perform this function. Gay couples cannot naturally reproduce, hence why they lack the need to be in marriages. In fact, the Gays always get every right anyone else does in civil unions under California laws. The difference is that marriage is natural procreation ability/ expression of love in the same way, and civil unions cover everything else.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 69
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News This Thanksgiving, I'm thankful for being born gay 13 min NE Jade 70
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 22 min Arthur 26,533
Shout Out to Jade! 51 min NE Jade 5
News Getting used to gay unions 59 min NE Jade 2
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr cpeter1313 14,263
News Herea s Harris Dickinsona s gay sex scene in ne... 3 hr Rubio s Foam Partays 5
News Staff had warned anti-LGBT lawmaker about affai... 3 hr The Worlds Bigges... 7
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 5 hr June VanDerMark 57,983
Roy Moore.....Just Another Hypocrite Wed GodSmacked 111
More from around the web