Pandora, it’s clear Saffire hasn’t had many educational opportunities.
I’m certain Saffire is unable to define “Natural Right” or “Social Norm” without blaming President Bush for destroying the Chinese Milk Vetch Spore or [add your own non sequitur here].
EDIT: OR denying the existence of God.
(Thank you Curmudgeon)
I’m confident I’m more intelligent than you are.
Arch says”
Hell Safire! You cannot even determine the correct orifice for sexual relations between human beings. One is for expelling waste the other is for absorbing the elements necessary for procreation.
You are not intelligent but a dimwitted sexual retard. If you cannot help that you are in the condition you are, so are the mentally retarded of our society. Better luck next time in comparing yourself to Roy intellectually.
Wife isn’t putting out like she used to, Arch? ;)
Your frustration is showing.
Azzonfire on the prowl! Oooooo.... wife comebacks!
So, Safire.... you know Bad Crack killed Rock Hudson and Liberace?
I think it is you who is quite frustrated to the point of deviance.
Explain how I am wrong!
Scientists have shown that the hypothalamus in the gay man’s brain is structured differently than in straight men. It’s pretty well documented that homosexuality isn’t a choice, yet you persist with the idea it is some sort of deviancy or sin.
It’s okay, though, because you’re not alone. There are many straight men who, because they possibly lack any serious reason to identify themselves as moral people, resort to self-aggrandizement on the basis they “chose” the right sex to be attracted to.
Just wondering where your ilk stands on this rather fundamental issue.
Here’s a hint:
RIGHTS are NEVER DERIVED from a DICTATORSHIP, or PROMOTED BY a Dictatorship, or from any oppressive minority.
Since you have no MORAL AUTHORITY from which to claim these homosexual rights are derived, you have only a Historical record of what they have been throughout History. No basis for claiming them as “RIGHTS” from History.
So DUH!
The Founding Fathers of The United States of America put forth that “THESE INALIENABLE RIGHTS” derived from a Just God, and they therefore gleaned them from Bible Scriptures, such as would promote a Healthy Community, and a NURTURING NEST for Posterity - a Community failing to be counted THRIVING, unless its POSTERITY is also THRIVING.
And they outlawed homosexuality along with Theft, Murder, Sedition, Pornography, Rape, COERSION, MINORITY RULE, embezzlement, confidence gaming, assault, piracy, adultery, abandonment, violations of Property Rights, Breach of Promise, horse theft, bribery of officials and accepting of bribery by officials, and a lot of other “unethical conduct”.
So you didn’t get that idea from THEM.
That was part of what was TECHNICALLY RATIFIED in the Constitution when it was written, as it already existed BY COMMON CONSENT by the governed.
You cannot find a foundation in anything that grants credibility to the claim that homosexuality is anything other than rank perversion and degeneracy - the fact that it is included as Agenda Item #26 on the Joseph Stalin Goals of Communism for the destruction of America, along with his comment that the STRENGTHS OF AMERICA were her Patriotism, her MORALITY, and her SPIRITUAL STRENGTH - shows that the ONE LONE “AUTHORITY” for the promotion of homosexuality as “normal and healthy” was done in an attempt to UNDERMINE the STRENGTH of AMerica AND CAUSE ITS UTTER COLLAPSE.
This shows that such Communist Leaders as Stalin held homosexuality in low esteem, OBVIOUSLY IN SPITE OF IT BEING FROWNED UPON BY TRADITIONAL RELIGIONS, due to the fact that they saw it as a DEGENERACY which UNDERMINED THE POLITICAL STRENGTH (BASED ON THE MIGHT OF THE MILITARY) TO CONQUOR - and to avoid BEING conquored.
You cannot dispute this facet - that list was published in the Congressional Record on January 10, 1963 --- before the first battles of “homosexual rights” made light of day in the USA.
Therefore, you have a unanimous opinion of homosexuality from the Founding Fathers of the USA, and from the man most dedicated to the DESTRUCTION of the USA, Joseph Stalin - not inconsequently, the hero of Putin.
Then historically, fer instance - you have a case of a man being given a one of the greatest kingdoms the earth ever saw - the Babylonian Kingdom - by his father, and a kingdom that was in its day considered one fo the most INVINCEABLE kingdoms to ever exist, because of the situation in which the Kingdom city was cleverly escounced within fortress walls which enclosed a portion of the river, allowing fresh water inside, and negating all attempts to lay seige to the city.
Yet, because of his habit of drunken carousing and partying, which Ancient Language usually breaks down to describe what we all know of the ancient Babylonian orgies - was the habit of his days and nights, for such a sufficiently long time, that the state of the guards on the walls and everything else was so lax, they didn’t even notice the enemy come and DIVERT THE RIVER - they didn’t notice the river inside the city DRY UP, which then left a dry place under the FORTRESS wall on the RIVER BED, and allowed the enemy to come marching in TOTALLY UNAWARES To the KING, in the midst of the night of one of his most obscene parties ---
This is not like water pipes of today, when you turn on the taps and nothing is there - folks have to go to the river and draw buckets of water - yet nobody, not guards on the walls, not servants doing any cooking or washing clothing, or drawing bath water, watering the gardens that Babylon was famous for… NOBODY noticed…
GUESS WHAT ----
THE NIGHT OF THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL! GO FIGURE!
Look it up in the Book of Daniel.
This is a famous non-religious battle, it was ancient and didn’t involve the Jewish nation, and pre-dated Jesus.
Therefore, men with ambitions of conquoring, do NOT look kindly upon such things that cripple their armies.
There is no place in history where it is met with the approbation of the General Community. Not one place!
Well, NOT ONE THRIVING PLACE!
THEN there is the issue of THE CONSENT OF THE COMMUNITY for what burdens they are willing to bear to fellow members of the community.
Another post.
Just wondering where your ilk stands on this rather fundamental issue.
Don’t give me this garbage. You come on here and make an imbecilic statement that Laws are meaningless and try to pass it off as logic, then when I ask you to answer for your brainless vacuuity, you come back and start playing 20 questions.
Answer my first questions or nobody is going to give an a$$hat like you the time of day.
Fact is you can’t answer them, because you are talking out of the same orifice that you claim is a natural sacrament of the church of perpetual pelvic motion. And then you have the knee slapping stupidity to come back with Joe Biden’s punchline...You have a higher IQ than anyone here...I love that.
And then the all time best give away. You start accusing anyone that is not a cheerleader for Homosexuality as being a frustrated closet gay man who lacks the virility to attract women. I guess we can assume you think that is a put down. You think it degrading and humiliating that a man might not have sex with women, but that he would instead have sex with men. If this state of sexuality that you mock and demean to the point that you use it as an epithet and an insult is so horrible, then why would you try to convince everyone that God desires to see men partaking in it with each other. No one needs to argue with you, you do a damn good job of shooting holes in your own scrotum before you get it out of the holster.
I do not, in this post make the assertion that God does or does not think this way or that, yet you seem to be quite sure of it. You believe God wants this to happen and yet you want to attack men that do engage in the practice.
Are you also opposed to this law of god that you claim to have secret knowledge of? Why do you want to attack gay men. If they are legally living in civil unions and not bothering you, why would you attack them?
Please use your boundless IQ to answer these questions instead of your dodging and hiding from defending your moronic swill.
Maybe you can take time away from your Anarchy protests in front of the Mormon temple and go protest on MLK Blvd where 73% of the people made the deciding votes that handed you a humiliating defeat. I have a feeling we won’t see anything on that any time soon.
RIGHTS are NEVER DERIVED from a DICTATORSHIP, or PROMOTED BY a Dictatorship, or from any oppressive minority.
I’m not proposing a dictatorship, I’m proposing the decentralization of power to the individual level. At that level, “marriage” becomes whatever you want it to be, and that terrifies Christians who enjoy thinking the State is the wind in their dying religion’s sails. Ironically enough, Christians (the least violent among us!) end up in bed with the most violent institution in human history - the government.
Just wondering where your ilk stands on this rather fundamental issue.
THEREFORE, the only PURE derivation of RIGHTS is from Heaven Above.
But for practical purposes, that only works so far as your fellow community members approve and are willing to stand and fight for them.
In the 6,000 yr history of mankind, no DICTATORSHIP has promoted the RIGHTS of Man.
So it is a safe bet that any OLIGARCHY isn’t going to be caught putting their jobs on the line to fight the MAJORITY of their ‘constituents’ for anything that is perceived as a “natural right”.
So, for practical applications, the derivation of RIGHTS comes from the town hall gathering of the community, or tribe, or such, and as they lay down the groundrules - AKA MAYFLOWER COMPACT, etc, they set down a list of things they consider vitally important to the majority.
“What do you stand for?”
“What do you consider to be a vital necessity to the Community?”
“What do you consider to be VITAL to the Community TO NOT TOLERATE?”
Funny thing, homosexuality gets on that list in every burgeoning society.
Funny thing, every single time it comes up, a THRIVING AND HEALTHY Community puts that on the same list, and treats it with the same exact attitude.
The only time it ever comes up again, in any established community, is after the Laws of Degeneracy of a Democracy begin to kick in:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. - Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813)
We ought to be persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained.
- George Washington
An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.
-- Thomas Jefferson
“Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people.” --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:66
“Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.” --George Washington
“Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels—men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.” --Dwight Eisenhower
So, CONSISTENTLY, the only time “homosexual rights” ever arises in any nation in HISTORY, is when the downward spiral of degeneracy has begun, and the nation is on the way to total collapse from the weight of their own self-destructiveness.
You cannot cite any other case of it.
Neither can you hide yourself.
And in America, you cannot show that they have earned a reputation as a BENEFICIAL segment of Society, or earned the approbation of their Community on the basis of having begun to pull their weight of responsibility towards others.
Early tribes in America would sentence a member of the community to death if they lead a destructive force that was tailing the individual to the community, or other wise brought it to the tribe.
They would also throw a gang of criminal out if not punished drastically, otherwise - i.e., if a gang of thieves was caught - even if a blizard was minutes away - they would throw them out of the shelter of the community, and ban them on threat of their lives if they ever returned.
That Americans have become as lax as they have, to tolerate the practices, this is a process of degeneracy that took a tremendous amount of underhanded backstabbing, even after America was several hundred years old, to get this level of tolerance - and yet you still cannot get them to approve your agenda.
You do not have the approbation of the General Public.
All you have is a handful of OLIGARCHIAL RULINGS which make their areas of General Population extremely angry.
It is on YOUR head to declare where YOU “found” these Speical PRIVILEGES that you feel this group is entitled to.
I assure you, there is a reason these folks didn’t fight for their rights 160 years ago, or in the time of the Civil War along with “BLACKS” they CLAIM are their fellow comrads in Civil Rights abuse taken!
And if you keep pushing folks with these ABUSIVE RIOTS, you are going to reach the point where the line in the sand will be found.
I have seen folks who do that, before - there are folks who won’t stop pushing til they find that line - and you cannot prove that IS the line unless you cross it and all hell breaks loose - and there are folks who put relationships above character and principles - and when you put them together, you don’t find that line in the sand until the situation is so volatile, that the FINDING OF THE LINE is practically an Armageddon.
Now, I have seen such lines reached in my lifetime.
And I am telling you, this is one of those situations.
But the Line is THERE. And is not far off.
And some of you “Liberals” are having a blast hunting for that line, like you think you are searching for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and going to find a little leprechaun there who will grant you three wishes, too.
Scientists have shown that the hypothalamus in the gay man’s brain is structured differently than in straight men. It’s pretty well documented that homosexuality isn’t a choice, yet you persist with the idea it is some sort of deviancy or sin.
Ok, it’s science now, is it?
I am always amused when “science” is brought in to this debate by someone on the left...especially when accompanied by phrases such as, “...you persist with the idea it is some sort of deviancy or sin.”
Clearly, the implication is that Mr. Saffire, given a choice, sides with “science” over the notion that a Creator or God has authority over his (or anyone’s) thoughts and deeds.
So, given that premise, it can be assumed that a science devotee will undoubtedly be taken with the concept of evolution as fact.
Perhaps then you can explain how, given untold thousands of years of natural selection, homosexuality has not been bred out of the population?
What possible benefit to the species can be had from the non-reproductive coupling of two members of the same sex?
What would you suppose that “nature” is trying to perpetuate in this instance?
Would the “homosexual gene” be dominant or recessive and why?
Or do you think that it is a mutation and, if so, why is it as prevalent as it is?
I think it is you who is quite frustrated to the point of deviance.
Explain how I am wrong!
Scientists have shown that the hypothalamus in the gay man’s brain is structured differently than in straight men. It’s pretty well documented that homosexuality isn’t a choice, yet you persist with the idea it is some sort of deviancy or sin.
It’s okay, though, because you’re not alone. There are many straight men who, because they possibly lack any serious reason to identify themselves as moral people, resort to self-aggrandizement on the basis they “chose” the right sex to be attracted to.
This is a bunch of balderdash.
First of all, too much evidence has already been gathered about various human activites CAUSING structural changes in the physical body.
The baloney you cite does nothing to prove anyone is “born that way” - it is full of suppositions and theories - NOT PROOF.
It carries about as much gravitas as the man-made global warming baloney.
Second of all, one of the most definitive studies I ever saw was made by a premier scientific researcher wh o is a homosexual himself, and who after having many folks challenge his beliefs that many are “born that way”, challenging him to use his own scientific skills ot do an honest research study on it, he finally did exactly that.
He was honest enough to document his research meticulously, and worked with tens of thousands of people, particularly with twins, and also with criminals who had been abused as children.
“Gay gene” researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:
“Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
Dr. Dean Hamer, the “gay gene” researcher, and himself a gay man:
“Genes are hardware...the data of life’s experiences are processed through the sexual software into the circuits of identity. I suspect the sexual software is a mixture of both genes and environment, in much the same way the software of a computer is a mixture of what’s installed at the factory and what’s added by the user.”
The study has to have swept through the community like a California forest fire.
Here are some other references, from a time when I had no way to document links:
Dr. Edward Brongersma as quoted by Tom O’Carroll in Pedophilia: The Radical Case, Boston: Alyson, 1982.
Abel, G. G., et al, “Self-reported sex crimes on no incarcerated paraphiliacs," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1987: Vol. 2; pp. 3 -25.
J. M. Siegel et al., “The prevalence of childhood sexual assault," American Journal of Epidemiology 126 (December 1987): pp. 1141-1153.
You remain, as usual, without credibility - particularly on the level of POLITICS and Constitutionality.
You resort to OLIGARCHY from within the most lenient of democratic republics on the face of the earth, because you cannot gain, and do not ever try to EARN the approbation of the General Community.[/quote]
I’m not proposing a dictatorship, I’m proposing the decentralization of power to the individual level. At that level, “marriage” becomes whatever you want it to be…
And that would be totally in keeping with your “anarchist” point of view.
Anarchist. What a laugh.
You would be the first to scream for order and enforcement of the laws that you decry at the very first sign that some other dumbass anarchist decided to show you some decentralization of power at your individual level.
What a boob. Go take a walk through Detroit and let the locals there show you how “assault with a deadly weapon” becomes whatever they want it to be.
Saffire - 20 November 2008 03:08 AM
...and that terrifies Christians who enjoy thinking the State is the wind in their dying religion’s sails. Ironically enough, Christians (the least violent among us!) end up in bed with the most violent institution in human history - the government.
Yet another canard.
You think that Mormons and Christians are your natural enemy in this arena?
Think again, Mr. Anarchist.
Mormons and Christians are perfectly content to tolerate your prescence in the faint hope of seeing you repent.
Your real enemy would be the Muslim that wants to extinguish your very existence from the face of the earth with no questions asked. I will believe in the term, “militant homosexual” when I see a pack of them forcefully demonstrate (you know, like they bravely do now at Mormon churches) in front of a mosque.
Maybe you could warm up in front of a black church.
Sure, Mr. Anarchist, vandalize a mosque or a black church and see how long you stay above room temperature.
RIGHTS are NEVER DERIVED from a DICTATORSHIP, or PROMOTED BY a Dictatorship, or from any oppressive minority.
I’m not proposing a dictatorship, I’m proposing the decentralization of power to the individual level. At that level, “marriage” becomes whatever you want it to be, and that terrifies Christians who enjoy thinking the State is the wind in their dying religion’s sails. Ironically enough, Christians (the least violent among us!) end up in bed with the most violent institution in human history - the government.
We said “NO!”
Resoundingly. Repetitiously, also.
We said “NO!” MAJORITY RULES.
This crosses thousands of religions. It crosses NO religions. This crosses thousands of nations, cultures, ethnic backgrounds, and all of History.
It ain’t about “CHRISTIANS”.
Today, in America, it is about RESPECT FOR THE CONSTITUTION and the BALLOT BOX and MAJORITY RULE by American CITIZENS - “WE THE PEOPLE - OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE” - who said NO!
We said, “We do not see it your way, we never did. Historically, Traditionally, ALWAYS AND EVER - the MAJORITY of AMERICANS said NO! We said, IN OUR BOOK IT REMAINS A CRIME - and your OLIGARCHIAL RULINGS “TO THE CONTRARY” carry no LEGITIMACY or CREDIBILITY - AND ARE NOT A RESPONSE TO “WE THE PEOPLE”, and are not in obedience to OWN KNOWN WILL - which is the NATURAL BOUNDARY of all government entities.”
You have NO legitimate foundation for your views, and especially do you NOT have any legitimate foundation FOR FORCING THEM ON THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS - who have voted REPEATEDLY - “NO!”
We do not recognize your proposition that we OWE this to anyone, on any grounds.
You have not earned it. You fail to convince, and you resort to VIOLENCE and THREATS of using the JUDICIARY BRANCH to punish us UNCONSTITUTIONALLY for disagreeing with you, THE MINORITY, on this issue.
Shame on you.
And then in sheer desperation, you claim it is only caused by an unhealthy anomoly in the medical condition of the human body??????????????????????????????????
When ANYTHING becomes NOTHING MORE than whatever the INDIVIDUAL “WANTS IT TO BE” - THAT is the definition of ANARCHY - and THAT isn’t the Government we voted for, either.
BUT IT IS THE LAST STAGE BEFORE A DICTATORSHIP!
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. - Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813)
Christianity DYING? Funny thing - it is growing worldwide at the rate of 8% per year. More than any other religion on earth. Period.
As usual per Liberals, you had nothing to say about it being one of the goals on the Joseph Stalin list of things to use to DESTROY AMERICA from the inside.
#26 on the list.
I am always amused when “science” is brought in to this debate by someone on the left...especially when accompanied by phrases such as, “...you persist with the idea it is some sort of deviancy or sin.”
Clearly, the implication is that Mr. Saffire, given a choice, sides with “science” over the notion that a Creator or God has authority over his (or anyone’s) thoughts and deeds.
So, given that premise, it can be assumed that a science devotee will undoubtedly be taken with the concept of evolution as fact.
Perhaps then you can explain how, given untold thousands of years of natural selection, homosexuality has not been bred out of the population?
What possible benefit to the species can be had from the non-reproductive coupling of two members of the same sex?
What would you suppose that “nature” is trying to perpetuate in this instance?
Would the “homosexual gene” be dominant or recessive and why?
Or do you think that it is a mutation and, if so, why is it as prevalent as it is?
Enlighten us, Mr. Science.
Hello, Trapeze - great posts!
Interesting issue you raise, one that was on my mind a few minutes ago - the issue of the consideration of the BENEFITS to the Community of continued “bonds of community"…
You say the Christians are willing to tolerate the homosexuals in the hope they may repent - thought I clicked on the post you said that in, guess I did not. So I don’t have the exact quote to reference, here ---
What I was just thinking - generally speaking, that is somewhat true, at least for the “less rambunctious” among them…
However, after this amount of time, some of the costs on the immediate level, locally, are a lot heavier than the perpetrators are willing to acknowledge - sorta like some folks’ baby siblings or black sheep, which lead to lifetime rifts…
And these days, the rubber is hitting the road, and the burden is heavier than some can handle - not temperamentally, just abosolutely a lot more crushing, literally, than the homosexual community cares to acknowledge OR TRY TO ALLIEVIATE - and people are reaching those points where some of the baggage is getting dropped along the way - like some of those old old westerns, where the folks are trying to cross the desert sands, ya know.
And sometimes, it just don’t matter what you THINK of something, you just don’t have what it takes to carry it another step.
I hear that highways in the North, along the old Wagon Trails, are still littered to this day with things the wagons had to dump to get past certain rough spots.
Some of it was stuff you KNOW they never would have deliberately left behind. And would have come back for if they could have.
But it ain’t there. (I mean, it ain’t there inside the human being, to continue on.)
That old song is wrong - your brother is HEAVY! But you do all you can, because he is your brother and he is worth it.
But some of those dingbats out there, I am sorry - fact is they are NOT yer brother - and they are jumping up and down on you, unceasingly, I mean JUMPING, and pushing avalanches down on you, too.....
And I am sorry - they ain’t yer brother.
And the fact is, they ain’t gonna LET you drag them across the finish line, anyway.
And the time comes when the MILLSTONES have to be cut from yer neck! That is just all there is to that.
And nobody wants to quit - sometimes you cannot tell til much later, the one you thought was never your brother is the one that is, and the one you thought was, never was.
So ya don’t wanna give up. No matter what.
But we have hit the place where the rubber hits the road.
And some of these guys have to start asking themselves, WHAT POSSIBLE BENEFIT COULD WE POSSIBLY SEE IN MAINTAINING ANY BONDS OF COMMUNITY WITH THEM AND THEIR DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR?
They’ve obviously never asked themselves such a question in their entire lives!
And they obviously think WE never do, either.
But it is over.
I don’t care who won the Election.
A lot of this balderdash is OVER.
I.e., I just heard some news about one of the ships the Somali priates took about a month ago, supposed to be stuffed with machine parts and iron ore out of China, going to the Middle East.
25 Pirates took it, and started dying, of some kind of sickness, but were demanding $$$millions in ranson, even after they started dying.
America, England, and Canada had it surrounded…
Well, in a few days, about 22 pirates were dead - of illness. Ship was from China but not a Chinese ship…
Finally, when enough of the pirates died, and the Authorities who had the ship bottled up away from a harbor, and the Authorities boarded the ship, they found out what the Somali pirates had INTERUPTED - the ship was on Iranian commission, and was going to the SUEZ CANAL when it was hijacked.
The original plan before it was hijacked was for it to get into the Canal, fake a crippling breakdown, and beg entry into an ISRAELI port.
At THAT point, the ship was supposed to detonate - being full to the gills with explosives and uranium ore - the largest DIRTY BOMB ever made. It would have taken out the entire port city.
It would have and was intended to launch a full scale war with Israel, a month ago.
At some point, and soon, folks will stake out their priorites in new ways, and a lot of flotsom, or millstones will be cut loose.
They aren’t going to waste their resources on someone ELSE’S views of “equality”, or anything else.
I’ve had enough in the last few years to deprive me of any wasted tears for those who don’t feel any obligations towards their own community. Some of those folks on the wagon train, when they finally had to throw things off, I know, their feelies were rather deadened. They just did what they had to do that they could still do - no tears left for what they could NOT.
Maybe I’m just naive. But isn’t a constitutional amendment simply an edict that the State Supreme Court must follow? Isn’t it now their job to apply the amendment to specific cases that come to the court, and adjudicate how the amendment applies to the case in question?
Is it possible for a constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional?
Do we live in the frikkin Twilight Zone?
In this case, no. Because those crafty CA folks have actually established a two-tier constitutional amendment system. Which means that an “amendment” by ballot initiative could be ruled by their supreme court to be a matter calling for a “revision”, a much tougher hurdle to jump. “Through the Looking Glass” stuff, but then what in CA isn’t ?
For the life of me, I cannot understand why any rational person would live there.
Mike, you make it sound like Amendments are supposed to go straight to the Supremes for review.
In California nearly every election has an initiative for an Amendment. The Constitution is over a hundred pages long.
The constitution can be changed by either amendments or revisions, the latter of which is defined as a “substantial change to the entire constitution, rather than ... a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions”.. Amendments may be passed by a two-thirds vote in both houses of the state legislature or a California ballot initiative which a majority of voters must approve. Revisions originally required a constitutional convention but today can be passed with a two-thirds vote in the legislature much like an amendment.
This issue has been voted on dozens of times in the last decade in the Capital and on other ballot inititives, they keep losing again and again.
The Idea that this is a revision implies that there is either somewhere in the constitution that explicitly states that people of the same sex could use the idea of marriage to describe their current right to civil union. There is nothing in the constitution that states that.
There is no right in the constitution to take away. They already have the right to civil union. If this ever went to the SCOTUS, Scalia and Thomas would be asking what injury these people are suffering and what right are they being denied?
There is no concept of equal protection denied and....No, this is not the same as exogamist marriages. People of race are man and woman.
This Prop 8 amendment is not a “substantial change to the entire constitution”. The Pro-8 people could easily comeback if the Cal. Supremes rule against them and argue that their fundamental rights under the constitution have been denied.
Anyone trying to dress this up as anything other than sore loser ville is smoking dope.
Ca. Supreme Ct. Chief Justice Rose Bird refused to obey death penalty law and she also refused to enforce “use a gun, go to jail” laws, so the state voted to toss her and her liberal friends off the court back in 1986. They made similar fake arguments about the greater good and the death penalty was too big of an issue to be decided by, blah blah blah…
The Gays lost, they should go get their civil union, have a civil union ceremony with grooms and bouquets and cakes and lace and rings and everything else, just don’t pretend like it is the same thing we have been doing for the last 10,000 years,...it ain’t.
I will still send something from their “Civil Union” Registry at Bed Bath and Beyond, but I won’t call it marriage, because legally and in reality, it is not.
You seem to have placed me on one side of this issue. I was not expressing an opinion, but rather stating what I recall as the legal basis for this court action. The only opinion I stated was that I feel 50 % + 1 vote is a lousy rule for ammending the state constitution, and I’ll stand by that one.
